Le juge Napolitano vient de perdre son émission sur les ondes de Fox News.
• Popular talk show host pink-slipped for openly discussing taboo subjects
By Pat Shannan
Was a popular television talk show host and former New Jersey judge kicked off Fox News because he went too far in disclosing facts about FBI setups and warmongering intrigues on the part of the U.S. establishment—key issues that AMERICAN FREE PRESS has been covering since its founding in 2001?
In recent days, former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano had been drifting dangerously close to the exit doors by providing the American people with simply too much truth. The first week of February he was abruptly canceled from the airwaves due to low ratings, Fox executives claimed.
Napolitano repeatedly opened his show with the question, “Can the federal government take credit for solving a plot of its own creation?”
Focusing on FBI claims that since 9-11 it has foiled multiple alleged terrorist plots to kill Americans, Napolitano pointed out that while there were some 20 such incidents, three were interrupted by private citizens who observed suspicious activity. But the remaining 17 that were “solved” by the feds all had a common and reprehensible thread: They were planned, plotted, controlled and carried out by the federal government itself.
Not unlike the 1993 first attack on the World Trade Center, the FBI had agents or informants befriend young Muslim men by luring them into  cooperation with encouragement about being “like-minded” and anti-American. Then, of course, they were arrested before any damage could be done—followed by great hoopla the next day.
Napolitano also tackled Israel’s prime role in promoting a United States war against Iran, and this may have been the final straw for those signing his paycheck. The judge’s final guest and source of information was Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden-watching unit.
While Scheuer accepts the U.S. government claim that bin Laden was the architect of 9-11, a point many researchers reject, he is a courageous critic of Israel and its U.S. lobby and, as Napolitano’s guest, pointed out that a war against Iran benefits Israel and Saudi Arabia but not the United States.
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano examines the concept the government hates and fears the most: Freedom.
The United States of America was born out of a bloody revolt against tyranny. Yet almost from its inception, the government here has suppressed liberty.
In his sixth book on the Constitution and human freedom, Napolitano asks: Where does freedom come from? How can government in America exercise power that the people have not given to it? What forces have collaborated to destroy personal freedom?
In this back-to-basics on freedom, Napolitano addresses hard questions: Do we still have a Constitution? What are the limits to government in a free society? Why does the government attack, rather than defend, our rights? If our rights are inalienable, how can the government take them away? Do we really own any private property?
The judge gives a sweeping treatment of rights and all the philosophical, religious and ideological principles that underscore the concept of human freedom.
Hardcover, 283 pages, #361. Was $27. NOW JUST $22.95 WITH THE 15% DISCOUNT. Add $4 S&H; inside the U.S. Order from AFP, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20003. Call toll free at 1-888-699-6397 to charge. Order here.
Pat Shannan is a contributing editor of American Free Press. He is also the author of several videos and books including One in a Million: An IRS Travesty, I Rode With Tupper and Everything They* Ever Told Me Was a Lie. All are available from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS. Call 1-888-699-6397 toll free to charge.

That could mean pressing into service the top tier of American firepower — warplanes, warships, special operations forces and possibly airborne infantry — with unpredictable outcomes in one of the world’s most volatile regions.

« Israel can commence a war with Iran, but it may well take U.S. involvement to conclude it, » says Karim Sadjadpour, a Middle East specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.(…)

Kristol instructs “American friends of Israel” to persuade Obama “to stand arm in arm” with Israel on Iran

Voir aussi:

Opérations Sous Faux Pavillon Du Mossad Et Victimologie Juive Sioniste En Prélude A Une Attaque Contre L’Iran

‘Israel warned India of possible terror plot’

Those “Iranian” Bombings

Indian Investigators do not Suspect Iran in Israel Embassy Blast

Israeli Embassy Attack — A false flag designed to derail India’s long-term partnership with Iran?

How the media spin Mossad’s dirty tricks campaign

Report: Mossad chief visited New Delhi days before attack on Israeli officials

Hezbollah denies responsibility for attempted terror attacks against Israeli targets

Israeli Officials Blame Iran for Recent Bombings, Despite Lack of Evidence

US cities on ‘high alert’ for terror attack by Iranian agents

False flag: Mossad posed as US intelligence, recruited Islamic terrorists

Sur ce blog:

L’ancien responsable de l’Unité de traque de Ben Laden à la CIA estime que l’Islam radical est une menace imaginaire.

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment




Al Qaida et les sionistes abondent dans le même sens: il faut « intervenir » en Syrie et juger Assad pour crimes contre l’humanité.À noter: comme Saddam Hussein et Kadhafi, Assad fait la guerre à Al Qaida et à ces terroristes musulmans fanatiques.

Joe Lieberman and Al-Qaeda, United on Syria (and other wars of ‘Muslim liberation’)

In a post entitled “Washington and Al-Qaeda, United on Syria,” Antiwar.com’s John Glaser observes that “influential members of Congress” and al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri are both advocating the arming of the Syrian opposition. Continues Glaser:

Oddly enough, this is not the first time in recent memory that the leadership in the U.S. has explicitly advocated merging U.S. policy with al-Qaeda’s goals. From early on in the NATO mission to aid the Libyan rebels and oust Muammar Gadhafi, it was known that many of those so-called “freedom fighters” had ties to al-Qaeda. In fact, U.S. intelligence found that al-Qaeda fighters had swarmed to Libya and tried to “drum up extremist activities.” After Gadhafi was killed, an al-Qaeda flag was raised in the center the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Following that, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) publicly called themselves the “main beneficiaries” of the instability caused by the NATO war, noting specifically their receipt of weapons.
Aside from all of the terror and abuse the newly empowered National Transitional Council has brought the people of Libya in the form of murder, theft, torture and thuggery, they and their varied militias have also been imposing a harsh brand of militant Islam on Libyans, as opposed to the democratic paradise Obama predicted.
I’m not suggesting a conspiracy theory, just plain stupidity. As I’ve explored elsewhere, while I’m no stranger to Imperial Grand Strategy, I think the system operates in a way such that backward policies are carried out even when many elites recognize they’re against the “national interest.” The real question is how nobody is calling them out on it. Joe Lieberman has just recently called the Syrian rebels “brave freedom fighters” almost synchronous with Ayman al-Zawahiri. How is this not headline news?

Of course, Libya (2011) was not the first time that Lieberman et al. were united with al-Qaeda on foreign policy goals. Bosnia (1992-95) and Kosovo (1997-98) are two of the more obvious instances of this alliance on the wars of “Muslim liberation” that William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz celebrated last year in The Weekly Standard. One doesn’t have to be a “conspiracy theorist” either to realize that almost everything al-Qaeda says or does seems to coincide with Israeli interests. Remember those “dancing Israelis” and Netanyahu’s admissionthat 9/11 was “very good.”Lieberman: US should arm Syrian oppositionhttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NwQV-fle0x8/TsHaeEaspcI/AAAAAAAAIN0/Yv2m63WDvGs/s1600/Syria+Israel+map+BU.jpg

VIDEO – RT: ‘US backs Al-Qaeda to mutually destroy Syria’

VIDEO – Le chef d’Al-Qaida soutient la rébellion en Syrie

Israel doesn’t fear regime change in Syria

L’Armée syrienne libre, représentant légitime du peuple syrien?

Israel’s Favourite Arab Proposes ‘A Kosovo Model for Syria’

US debates arming Syrian opposition as “defense strategy”

Zionists Use al Qaeda to Attack Syria

Foreign Policy: Israel partisans (and a few token turncoat Arabs) consider Syria next steps

The Israel Lobby’s Role in Pushing for Regime Change in Syria

VIDEO – Israël annonce avoir des contacts avec l’opposition syrienne

Le rapport de la Ligue Arabe donne des preuves de l’implication de la CIA, du MI6 et du Mossad derrière les violences en Syrie

Mossad vs Assad? ‘CIA death squads behind Syria bloodbath’

Et comme c’est arrivé à Hussein et Kadhafi, les accusations de « massacrer son propre peuple ». C’est le scénario de la Libye qui est repris intégralement… « On a des images… il massacre son propre peuple, ce tyran, ce dictateur immonde! les révoltes sont légitimes (même si on les fomente et même si on les arme) »

‘Images show Assad cruelty’   US releases satellite images showing ‘horrible kinds of weaponry’ used against Syrian people

Lizzie Phelan: Western Media Fabricated Mass Killings of Syrian Peaceful Demonstrators

Al-Qaeda infiltrating Syrian opposition, U.S. officials say il y a des nonos qui disent que al qaida existent pas: ils font juste répéter ce que les médias alternatifs racontent. Il y a des gens qui font des attaques et se réclament d’al qaida, al qaida existe et c’est pas des agents sionistes, la question c’est qui est-ce qui manipule ces musulmans terroristes.

VIDEO – US, Israel conspiracies will fail in Syria’

Europe blindly following Israeli interest on Syria

Friendly advice: France, UK to command ousting of Assad?

Officiers turcs arrêtés : le Mossad de plein pied dans l’insurrection en Syrie.

The Islamization of the Arab Spring movement has placed « enormous pressure » on Israeli defenses and progress in the peace process, Benjamin Netanyahu told American Jewish leaders.
C’était l’objectif de ces révoltes du « printemps arabe » fomentées par les sévices secrets sionistes: justifier le sentiment d’insécurité permanente d’Israel, justifier qu’il se « défende…Le sionisme c’est la guerre. Sans guerre, Israël ne peut survivre.

40 agents secrets turcs entraînés par le Mossad capturés en Syrie

Arming Al-Qaeda: US to pump weapons into Syria warzone? 

Syrian Rebels Captured With Israeli Weapons

State Department quietly warning region on Syrian WMDs

With Friends Like ‘Friends of Syria’…

Israel Partisans Prefigure ‘Arab Spring’ at 2009 FPI Forum on ‘Democracy Promotion’

VIDEO – CIA / Mossad Snipers in Syria and the Arab States

VIDEO – US, Israel plot to topple al-Assad Govt’

Asma Al-Assad, Diana of the Middle East: Syria’s First Lady on Gaza

Syrian opposition wish to “be friends” with Israel

MK Herzog: Syrian rebels want peace with Israel

VIDEO – Syria – The CIA and NATO Exposed

VIDEO – Imperialists and their Islamists in Syria: Interview with Aijaz Ahmad

Syria: coup engineers used the same sniper tactic to incite Venezuelans in 2002

Qatar goes public on its arming of “peaceful” Syrian uprising

Lieberman says ‘Israel ready to provide aid to wounded Syrians’

Canada sanctions Syria, McCain calls for air strikes: John Baird, Canada’s Foreign Minister, closes embassy, says « Assad must go »; McCain says US should lead int’l strikes.

McCain calls for airstrike on Syria Statement is as much a critique of President Barack Obama as a rallying call for an international military campaign, accusing the president of being too soft on Assad.

McCain Calls for Bombing Syria ‘We Should Have Learned From Libya’

Selon BHL : « il faut, maintenant, une intervention en Syrie »

In Syria, al Jazeera’s Credibility Implodes

Canada bans all dealings with Syrian central bank, closes Syria embassy

Israel’s No.1 asset [John McCain] in the Senate calls for airstrikes against Syria

Israel mulls ‘charity concert’ for Syrian insurgents

JINSA: Strengthening Israel by promoting Syrian ‘Chalabi’
By Maidhc Ó Cathail
The Passionate Attachment
February 20, 2012
On February 17, subscribers to the mailing list of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) received a message entitled “Want to Know What’s Going On in Syria?” inviting them to a special conference call briefing from Farid Ghadry, co-founder of The Reform Party of Syria. The invitation from the hawkish Israel lobby think tank — whose half-accurate motto is “Securing America, Strengthening Israel” — to the February 22 briefing reads:

In October of 2001, Mr. Ghadry, along with several Syrian-Americans, formed the Reform Party of Syria. A constitution was written and a constructive and comprehensive program has been put in place to bring regime change to Syria. Today, the party is enjoying the tacit support from many organizations and people in the U.S. administration and think tanks in Washington.
Mr. Ghadry and the other co-founders of RPS are hoping to return to Syria one day to rebuild the country on the basis of principles of real economic and political reforms that will usher democracy, prosperity, freedom of expression, and human rights in addition to lasting peace with open borders with all of Syria’s neighboring countries.

Not mentioned but well-understood by the men from JINSA is that the well-connected Syrian “reformer” has been groomed to facilitate that unlikely democratic utopia by leading Iraq war architect Richard Perle, a prominent member of JINSA’s advisory board until a few weeks ago. But as the Prince of Darkness’s biographer wrote in a 2007 Los Angeles Times article:

Unfortunately for Perle, Ghadry is seen in many quarters as a front man for Israel. Not only is he a dues-paying member of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful Israeli lobby in Washington, but a recent column on his Web site, titled “Why I Admire Israel,” seems to play right into the hands of those who believe the Bush administration’s obsession with regime change in the Middle East is really all about protecting Israel. Did Perle, the savviest of Washington power players, believe that Ghadry’s tub-thumping for Tel Aviv would make him more popular in Syria?
“No,” Perle replied. “I don’t. But he’s his own man. I don’t always understand what he’s doing and why he’s doing it.”
So, in his quest for idealistic dissidents to do in the Middle East what the Walesas and Havels achieved in Eastern Europe, Perle and his acolytes have tapped the discredited Ahmad Chalabi for Iraq, the suspect Amir Abbas Fakhravar for Iran and the allegiance-challenged Fahrid Ghadry for Syria. They’re just not making heroes like they used to.

Perhaps Farid Ghadry’s pro-Israel image problem is why there appears to be no mention of his conference call briefing on the JINSA website. There is, however, one rather revealing reference to Perle’s Syrian Chalabi. In its Events & Programs section, under “New York Cabinet Meetings 2009, 2010 & 2011,” there is the following brief entry:

“The Role of Syria in the Middle East: Friend of Iran, Host to Hamas, and Patron of Hizbullah” – Farid Ghadry, President, Reform Party of Syria

To put all this into the broader context of the supposedly Israel-threatening “Arab Spring” — which the LA Times reference to Perle’s “quest for idealistic dissidents to do in the Middle East what the Walesas and Havels achieved in Eastern Europe” seems to prefigure — a seminal event, which I have previously written about, was held almost five years ago that brought together Israel partisans concerned with “rolling back Syria” among other regional rivals and their native collaborators:

Under the direction of Natan Sharansky, the former Israeli minister who resigned his cabinet seat in 2005 in protest over Ariel Sharon’s Gaza disengagement plan, the [Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies] held a “Democracy and Security” conference in Prague in 2007. It brought together Israeli officials; their American neoconservative sympathizers with their favourite Middle Eastern dissidents in tow — most notably, Richard Perle’s Israel-admiring Syrian protégé Farid Ghadry; and the newly-installed Eastern European democrats swept to power in the wake of a wave of neocon-backed “color revolutions,” the latter group presumably serving to inspire the Arab and Iranian participants to emulate them.

So, if you want to know what’s going on in JINSA’s road to regime change in Damascus, please RSVP to jcolbert@jinsa.org or call 202-667-3900, Ext. 224.
Maidhc Ó Cathail has written extensively on Israel’s push for regime change in Syria.

Is there a difference between Bahrain and Syria?

Mohamed Omar, a Swedish freelance writer, has written an interesting piece on the difference between the “Arab Spring” unrest in two very different countries:

The opposition in Bahrain is a genuine popular movement against an unpopular US and Zionist backed tyrant while the opposition in Syria can be divided in to two main parts. A genuine part which is peaceful, against foreign interference and for democratic reforms and a not so genuine part which is militant, dominated by not so democratic Wahhabi fanatics and Muslim Brotherhood activists, funded and armed by foreign powers, including the Saudi and Qatari Wahhabi dictatorships. This part of the opposition is completely opposed to dialogue and democratic reforms.
Some elements within this disingenuous opposition, which does not seem to have the welfare of the Syrian people as its first priority, are reaching out to the Zionist enemy. Yitzhak Herzog, an alternate on Israel’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee who has previously held ministerial posts, has said the Syrian opposition wants to be friends with Israel.
Zionist media has been working around the clock to demonize the Syrian government while at the same time ignoring the Bahraini uprising and the Saudi crackdown and invasion. It is quite clear which of the two, Assad and Al-Khalifah, the Zionists prefer.

But is it so clear? While the Israel lobby has not surprisingly led the push for regime change in Damascus, they haven’t exactly ignored the opposition in Bahrain either. Fikra Forum, which describes itself as an “online community that aims to generate ideas to support Arab democrats in their struggle with authoritarians and extremists,” features articles sympathetic to the Bahraini opposition, such as “How Saudi Arabia Thwarted Uprisings in Yemen and Bahrain,” “Bahraini Reform and the Saudi Veto,” and “Invading Bahrain is an Old Saudi Objective.” The forum is closely associated with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank created by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee “to do AIPAC’s work but appear independent.” One could say that Fikra Forum was created by the Washington Institute to do WINEP’s work but appear independent. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, WINEP’s work appears to involve supporting unrest not only in countries hostile to Israel, but throughout the Middle East.


VIDEO – Roland Dumas : les Anglais préparaient la guerre pour ISRAËL en Syrie deux ans avant les manifestations en 2011
Voir aussi: Roland Dumas, ancien ministre français des affaires étrangères: « Israël contrôle le service de renseignement français »
Roland Dumas: « Israël contrôle la France, elle se trompe à l’égard d’Assad »


Sur ce blog:

Après la Libye, la Syrie?  

« De la dictature à la démocratie »

L’ancien responsable de l’Unité de traque de Ben Laden à la CIA estime que l’Islam radical est une menace imaginaire

Al Qaida ou Al Mossad?

Le nouveau leader d’al Qaida est-il Israélien?

Un Cohen dans les rangs d’al Qaida?

Les attentats revendiqués par al-Qaida… sur un site israélien de propagande

Incroyable! « al-Qaida » dément les théories du complot, défend Israël et attaque l’Iran et le Hezbollah!

Le croisé anti-terrorisme Lieberman lié à un groupe pro-terrorisme

Joe Lieberman parle au nom des États-Unis d’Amérique (rien de moins): « Les USA sont prêts à attaquer l’Iran »

McCain et Lieberman: « bombardez la Lybie »

Wiesel, Lieberman et Dershowitz se joignent à Hagee pour présenter une pétition visant l’inculpation d’Ahmadinejad pour ‘incitation au génocide’

La soif de sang frénétique de John McCain: après la mort de Kadhafi, les « dictateurs » comme Assad, Poutine, les Chinois doivent avoir peur…

Un esclave des Bronfman-Rothschild, John McCain, menace Poutine: « Cher Vlad, le #printemps arabe s’en vient dans un quartier près de chez vous »

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment


(…) Parmi elles figurent les organisations américaines National Democratic Institute (NDI), International Republican Institute (IRI) et Freedom House, ainsi qu’une allemande, la fondation Konrad Adenauer.

US ‘used NGOs to create chaos in Egypt’: minister

An Egyptian minister seen as the driving force behind impending trials of democracy activists, including 19 Americans, told investigators that Washington funded their groups to create a state of prolonged chaos in Egypt, official media reported Monday.

International cooperation minister Fayza Abul Naga, believed to be the instigator of a judicial probe into foreign-funded civil society groups, made the accusation in testimony to the investigating judges in October.

Abul Naga, one of the few remaining ministers from president Hosni Mubarak’s era, added that the United States and Israel wanted to hijack Egypt’s uprising that toppled Mubarak a year ago to serve the interests of Washington and the Jewish state.

“The United States and Israel could not create a state of chaos and work to maintain it in Egypt directly, so they used direct funding to organisations, especially American, as a means of implementing these goals,” the official MENA news agency quoted her as saying, in the first public disclosure of the claims.

The impending trials of 44 activists, including 19 Americans, have deepened a rift between the traditional allies, with the State Department hinting that the crackdown could jeopardise American aid to Egypt.

Abul Naga said “the January 25 uprising came as a surprise to the United States, and it slipped from its control when it transformed into a people’s revolution.”

“That was when the United States decided to use all its resources and instruments to contain the situation and push it in a direction that promotes American and also Israeli interests,” the agency quoted her as saying.

MENA reported that a judicial investigation into the funding of several civil society groups found that the United States had diverted aid promised for infrastructure to the NGOs.

Cairo prosecutors backed by police in December stormed the offices of the US-funded International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House as part of a probe into the NGO’s alleged illegal foreign funding.

They were among 17 offices of local and international NGOs raided.

The crackdown was part of a wider campaign by Egypt’s military rulers to silence dissent after months of criticism of its human rights record, analysts said.

The ruling generals, who took charge of the country after an uprising forced president Hosni Mubarak to resign a year ago, traditionally had close ties with the United States, the Egyptian military’s most generous foreign benefactor.

The aid workers are accused of “setting up branches of international organisations in Egypt without a license from the Egyptian government” and of “receiving illegal foreign funding.”

NGOs in Egypt: Promoting Democracy or Destabilization?

Levin and McCain: Egypt’s military aid really is in jeopardy

Egypt state media accuses U.S. of spreading anarchy

Lest We Forget: Israel honors 9 Egyptian spies

The Regime Change, Inc. sandstorm mistakenly dubbed the ‘Arab Spring’

The Dirty History of Pro-Democracy Groups in U.S.

Report: Israeli’s Egyptian spy network exposed

Egypt Says It Will Lift Travel Ban, Allowing American Defendants to Leave

WaPo: NED “pro-democracy” training key to Egyptian uprising’s success Admits the Washington Post:

Nonprofit, pro-democracy groups have trained thousands of young Egyptians in political activism and organizing, an education that played a key part in the success of last year’s uprising.


VIDEO – ‘US and Israel interested in turbulent Egypt’  

U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) (C) talks during a news conference with other U.S. senators during their visit to Egypt, in Cairo February 20, 2012. (Reuters / Asmaa Waguih)

Uncle NED Quote of the Day

 Dismissing claims that “democracy assistance NGOs” are engaged in regime change, NED’s Democracy Digest cites “independent analyst” Thomas Carothers, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

“The same activities have been carried out in Belarus for at least 12 years and haven’t produced very much,” he told AFP. “This idea that there is some kind of sinister technology that very quietly, the US or certain European actors go into countries and prepare them for revolution, is colorful and sounds like a good spy movie.”

Just because they haven’t succeeded in bringing down Lukashenko yet, the Egyptians must be fantasists!

What do the Israel lobby, human rights, and democracy promotion have in common?
Good question. Perhaps we need to ask the well-connected Committee to Protect Journalists. Here’s the very revealing bio (emphasis added) of one of their staff members:
Mohamed Abdel Dayem
Before joining CPJ in December 2008, Mohamed Abdel Dayem was a research analyst at the Save Darfur Coalition, where he was responsible for researching and producing all of the coalition’s written materials. Abdel Dayem was also involved in increasing the coalition’s outreach and coordination with activists, governments, and the media in the Middle East and Muslim world at large. In late 2006 and early 2007, Abdel Dayem worked at the National Endowment for Democracy, where he managed the Endowment’s Iraq portfolio. Prior to that, he spent nearly five years at Human Rights Watch, conducting research and media outreach on countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Abdel Dayem has also worked at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He has also been a consultant to a variety of NGOs, including the International Center for Transitional Justice, the Open Society Institute’s Iraq Revenue Watch, the Fund for Global Human Rights, and the InternationalCenter for Journalists, among others. A graduate of the University of Central Florida, where he majored in political science and anthropology, Abdel Dayem also has an M.A. from the School of Advanced International Studies at the JohnsHopkins University, where he specialized in international law, conflict management and international economics. Aside from English, Abdel Dayem is fluent in Arabic and German. He has lived and traveled extensively in the Middle East.
Read Mohamed Abdel Dayem’s blog.

Egypt appoints new judges to hear trial of 43 democracy workers including 16 Americans

Israel’s Grand Design: Leaders Crave Area from Egypt to Iraq

Sur ce blog:

Le business de la révolution: « De la dictature à la démocratie »

Un esclave des Bronfman-Rothschild, John McCain, menace Poutine: « Cher Vlad, le #printemps arabe s’en vient dans un quartier près de chez vous »

Un officiel égyptien accuse Israël d’avoir fomenté le chaos en Égypte (29 janvier 2011)

L’American Jewish Committee derrière les mensonges humanitaires qui ont rendu possible la guerre en LibyeL’American Jewish Committee derrière l’ « intervention humanitaire » en Libye

L’actuel président du National Endowment for Democracy, le marionnettiste du « printemps arabe », serait un ancien de l’ADL

‘A CLEAN BREAK’: un document incontournable du gvt israélien pour comprendre le projet du Grand Israël et les agressions impérialistes au Moyen-Orient

La main des services secrets sionistes et occidentaux derrière les affrontements entre chrétiens et musulmans en Égypte

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment




Israël: l’option d’une attaque contre l’Iran se précise – « Pour éviter une nouvelle Shoah » 

Les Israéliens débattent surtout de la nécessité d’informer l’allié américain avant de frapper les sites nucléaires.

La guerre que se livrent en secret Israël et l’Iran a connu lundi un nouvel épisode. Benyamin Nétanyahou a accusé Téhéran d’avoir manigancé deux attentatsvisant des voitures des ambassades de l’État hébreu à New Delhi et en Géorgie, qui ont fait un blessé. «L’Iran, qui est derrière ces attaques, est le plus grand propagateur du terrorisme dans le monde», a lancé le premier ministre.
Ces déclarations illustrent l’extrême tension actuelle entre les deux pays. La probabilité de frappes militaires contre l’Iran n’est plus mise en doute par grand’ monde en Israël. L’inconnue porte plutôt sur le calendrier, la grande question étant de savoir si l’État hébreu peut se permettre d’attaquer seul les installations nucléaires iraniennes, sans le feu vert au moins tacite de Barack Obama.
En attendant, les deux pays fourbissent leurs armes. Téhéran affirme que le Mossad, l’agence de renseignements israélienne, serait à l’origine de l’assassinat en deux ans, sur le territoire iranien, de cinq savants atomistes et d’un général responsable du programme de développement de missiles à longue portée. L’État hébreu est également montré du doigt pour une campagne de sabotage informatique, qui aurait permis de mettre hors service des centaines de centrifugeuses utilisées pour enrichir l’uranium. Selon des experts étrangers, le Mossad, en attaquant sur plusieurs fronts, aurait permis de retarder de plusieurs années le programme nucléaire iranien.

Éviter une «nouvelle Shoah»

Mais tous les responsables israéliens admettent qu’il ne s’agit que d’une tactique de «retardement». Autrement dit, malgré tous les «incidents» et des sanctions internationales de plus en plus dures, les Iraniens devraient produire leurs premières bombes atomiques d’ici à un an environ. Selon les médias,Benyamin Netanyahou et Ehoud Barak, son ministre de la Défense, estiment, dans ces conditions, qu’Israël doit attaquer pour éviter une «nouvelle Shoah».
Cette position ne fait pas l’unanimité. Pour lancer une attaque, le chef du gouvernement doit obtenir le soutien de la majorité des 14 membres du cabinet de sécurité, ce qui n’est pas acquis pour le moment. Autre condition: l’appui sans réserve du chef d’état-major, le général Benny Gantz. Or, dans ce cas aussi, il ne semble pas que le premier ministre soit totalement sûr de son fait. Seule certitude: le précédent patron de l’armée, le général Gaby Ashkenazi, était hostile à une offensive qu’Israël mènerait seul.
Les commentateurs sont également très partagés. Les «modérés» redoutent une crise avec le grand allié américain si l’État hébreu décide d’agir sans en informer au préalable Washington. De plus, les responsables militaires prévoient qu’en cas d’attaque contre l’Iran, Israël doive s’attendre à devenir la cible de milliers de roquettes et de missiles tirés à la fois par les islamistes palestiniens du Hamas, à partir de la bande de Gaza au sud, et par le Hezbollah libanais, voire la Syrie de Bachar el-Assad au nord.
Pour tenter de calmer le jeu et éviter de paniquer l’opinion publique, Benyamin Nétanyahou a ordonné la semaine dernière à ses ministres et aux généraux de faire silence dans les rangs à propos de l’Iran. Sa consigne a été respectée. Mais ce mutisme officiel ne rend les préparatifs guerriers que plus crédibles.
Le Figaro – 14/02/12
Résumons : Le Mossad assassine 5 savants iraniens, c’est normal. L’Iran attaque, selon Israël, deux ambassades, fait 1 seul blessé, c’est un Etat terroriste qui veut organiser une « shoah ». Il faut sans doute être israélien pour trouver cela logique(via rivarol blog)

 Un dirigeant sioniste français veut « vitrifier » l’Iran


[Mercredi 29/02/2012 18:26]

Parmi tous les dangers qui guettent Israél et parmi tous les ennemis qui œuvrent à sa destruction ou en rêvent, l’Iran est certainement le péril le plus menaçant. Sa volonté désormais avérée même pour les sceptiques d’acquérir le nucléaire militaire, impose à Israël et à ce qui reste éventuellement du monde civilisé, une action défensive et préventive. Certains théoriciens voudraient nous faire croire que l’équilibre de la terreur permet d’éviter toute confrontation. C’était peut être le cas d’une certaine façon entre l’Occident et le bloc soviétique où l’équilibre créé par des armes de destruction massive était dissuasif pour les deux parties. Cette logique n’est pas applicable pour un pays musulman où n’existe aucune rationalité et où l’esprit d’analyse est embué par une religion-idéologie de conquête et de guerre. Les musulmans peuvent trouver dans l’islam la volonté de devenir tous des martyrs et de déclencher une destruction catastrophique qui sera une « guerre sainte ». Ils peuvent estimer, et d’ailleurs ils en sont persuadés, que la mort de centaines de milliers de « shahid » pour prix de la destruction d’Israël reste une opération viable. Une fois disparu le rempart que représente Israël pour la défense d’un occident émasculé et inconscient, l’invasion de l’islam pourra régler le sort de l’Europe anciennement judéo-chrétienne.
Il est évident et les impuissances occidentales le répètent à longueur de discours, qu’il faut empêcher l’accession de l’Iran à la capacité nucléaire militaire. Ils le répètent mais ne feront rien comme ils n’ont rien fait de réel jusqu’à maintenant. L’Europe qui est née à Munich n’est pas morte à Auschwitz. Elle perdure et son histoire est parsemée de compromissions et de renoncements.
Daladier a laissé son empreinte et les métastases du quai d’Orsay ont rongé ce qui restait de sain à l’Elysée.
Les sanctions…
Les sanctions économiques ont eu l’effet d’une piqûre de moustique sur un missile blindé et n’ont même pas ralenti la progression iranienne. Seul un virus venu à point nommé et le taux de mortalité curieusement élevé parmi les ingénieurs iraniens ont permis de ralentir la marche vers l’apocalypse islamique.
L’Europe continuera à pondre des déclarations creuses, inutiles et surtout inefficaces, Obama continuera de tout faire pour freiner Israël et permettre ce qui pourrait être son véritable dessein de doter l’Islam d’une puissance nucléaire.
Le peuple juif, dans sa partie consciente, sait le tribut payé pour ne pas avoir cru de suite aux menaces à son encontre. Ne pas avoir cru aux discours tenus à Berlin a causé au peuple d’Israël un holocauste et au monde un cataclysme sanglante et effroyable.
Ne pas croire aux imprécations de l’Adolf de Téhéran ne pas écouter la traduction de ses discours, ignorer ses promesses et ses menaces, oublier les foules en délire dans les rues iraniennes vociférant contre Israël et l’Occident, risque de nous mener au désastre.
La presse ne cesse de décrire les difficultés que représenterait une attaque aérienne israélienne pour détruire l’infrastructure nucléaire iranienne. Un nombre impressionnant d’avions de chasse et de bombardiers, le ravitaillement en vol, les bombes capables de percer les bunkers enfouis au plus profond, les radars et la défense anti-aérienne, les réactions des alliés iraniens dans la région ! Tout cela sans oublier les dizaines et centaines de milliers de missiles, roquettes et obus aux mains des terroristes du Hezbollah, du Hamas et de l’OLP. Tout cela sans discourir sur la cinquième colonne et ces arabes qui se jucheront sur les toits pour espérer voir pleuvoir les obus sur Israël.
Supposons qu’Israël ait assez de cerveaux, assez de volonté et d’expérience militaire pour pouvoir accomplir une attaque indispensable. Toutes ces théories et ces exposés des difficultés inhérentes à la destruction du potentiel létal iranien, ne font que refroidir les ardeurs et servir les intérêts des défenseurs de l’Iran et de ces pacifistes toujours prêts à être vaincus.
L’arme nucléaire…
Il existe pourtant un autre langage que nous pourrions utiliser. Imaginons un instant qu’Israël soit doté de l’arme nucléaire !
Il est évident que l’utilisation d’une bombe atomique serait parfaitement concevable en cas de danger mortel planant sur Israël.
Imaginons encore une déclaration de source « autorisée » affirmant que, si Israël disposait de l’arme nucléaire, il l’utiliserait contre l’Iran. Mieux encore, il l’utilisera contre l’Iran.
Apres tout, vitrifier l’Iran serait dans la lignée de la destruction justifiée de Hambourg et Dresde aux mains des nazis, de la destruction d’Hiroshima et Nagasaki aux mains des alliés japonais du Reich.
Gageons qu’une telle « fuite » aurait des effets bénéfiques immédiats.
« Mein Kampf » et le Coran…
Tout d’abord le rat de Téhéran irait se terrer dans le puits le plus profond emportant avec lui son livre de chevet « Mein Kampf » avec le Coran et la photo de Khomeiny à Neauphle-le Château.
Les puissances occidentales, après avoir condamné Israël et tenté de lui lier les mains, commenceront vraiment à agir pour éliminer le péril atomique iranien de manière concrète. Non pas pour le salut d’Israël mais pour éviter un embrasement qui leur fait peur. Il est même probable que les avions israéliens se verraient ouvrir certaines bases plus rapprochées de la cible et qui lui restent fermées pour le moment à condition d’oublier toute option nucléaire. L’Onu et ses Ban ki Moon voteront des résolutions déclarant que l’usage de la bombe atomique sera condamné. Autant les déclarations belliqueuses et antisémites d’Ahmedindjad (ou d’un Mahmoud Abbas) ne provoquèrent quasi aucune réaction car il est « concevable » de vouloir détruire le peuple juif quand on est arabe ou musulman, autant cette petite phrase israélienne suscitera un tollé général. Et pourtant, la vitrification de l’Iran doit être prise en compte et si nécessaire pour notre existence, doit être effectuée.
L’Occident a toujours eu à choisir entre un arabe fanatique et barbare et un bon juif civilisé et sage. Le choix était évident pour gagner la tranquillité d’esprit : calmer le barbare. Mais si le choix sera entre ce même barbare et un Juif furieux, déchainé et capable de prouesses technologiques, on peut estimer que les chancelleries choisiront de calmer le plus dangereusement efficace.
Si seulement l’Etat d’Israël avait une bombe atomique…et des dirigeants capables d’exploiter son existence !
Bien sûr, la meute des loups hurlera.
Et le silence se fera quand le Lion de Juda rugira.
Jacques Kupfer.

Le juif Jacques Kupfer veut vitrifier l’Iran

C’est ce qu’on apprend dans cet article paru dans Novopress:

11/03/2012 –
Dans un récent article, “Vitrifier l’Iran” paru dans Israël7, Jacques Kupfer, co-président du Likoud mondial et membre de l’exécutif de l’Organisation sioniste mondiale, énonce ce qui lui parait  une évidence : “L’Adolf de Téhéran” (comprendre Ahmadinedjad) est en train de se doter de l’arme nucléaire. Selon Kupfer, les sanctions économiques ont eu “l’effet d’une piqûre de moustique sur un missile blindé“, et si “un virus venu à point nommé et le taux de mortalité curieusement élevé parmi les ingénieurs iraniens  ont permis de ralentir la marche vers l’apocalypse islamique“, il ne saurait être question d’en rester là. Mais, toujours selon l’auteur, un bombardement classique par l’aviation israélienne des infrastructures nucléaires iraniennes n’est en rien la solution finale au danger mortel que représenterait le nucléaire iranien.
C’est donc tout naturellement que le co-président du Likoud mondial propose l’utilisation massive de l’arme atomique contre la République islamique. ” Après tout, précise Kupfer, vitrifier l’Iran serait dans la lignée de la destruction justifiée de Hambourg et Dresde aux mains des nazis, de la destruction d’Hiroshima et Nagasaki aux mains des alliés japonais du Reich.”
Dans cet article “Vitrifier l’Iran”  le co-président du Likoud mondial fait un “rêve” : “Si seulement l’Etat d’Israël avait la bombe atomique…“. Gageons que pour la quatrième puissance nucléaire du monde, ce rêve est déjà réalité.

Notre ami de Novopress oublie certains points de l’article qui valent leur pesant de zyklon B. En parlant de la politique d’équilibre de la terreur le juif Kupfer explique que: «Cette logique n’est pas applicable pour un pays musulman où n’existe aucune rationalité et où l’esprit d’analyse est embué par une religion-idéologie de conquête et de guerre. Les musulmans peuvent trouver dans l’islam la volonté de devenir tous des martyrs et de déclencher une destruction catastrophique qui sera une « guerre sainte ». Ils peuvent estimer, et d’ailleurs ils en sont persuadés, que la mort de centaines de milliers de « shahid » pour prix de la destruction d’Israël reste une opération viable. Une fois disparu le rempart que représente Israël pour la défense d’un occident émasculé et inconscient, l’invasion de l’islam pourra régler le sort de l’Europe anciennement judéo-chrétienne». Sympas le Jacques! Le salut de la race blanche décandente passe par le sionisme, ben voyons! rappelons que la colonisation de la Palestine est allé de paire avec la colonisation de l’Europe. (…)
«L’Europe qui est née à Munich n’est pas morte à Auschwitz. Elle perdure et son histoire est parsemée de compromissions et de renoncements». Monsieur est trop bon!

February 07, 2012 | 27 comments

Israel Can’t Go It Alone on Iran Nuke Threat – Using Holocaust Guilt to Pressure World Into War

Dual US and Israeli journalist and Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg uses the tried and true justification for the US to go to war on behalf of world Jewry: the persecution of Jews by the Nazi regime.


‘To Never Forget’

« A photograph of the Auschwitz flyover hangs today in offices across the Israeli defense establishment. In the Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv, the photos I saw were signed by General Eliezer Shkedi, who was the air force commander at the time. The inscription on these photos read, “To remember. To never forget. To rely on no one but ourselves.”

This past weekend, Eshel was appointed commander of the Israeli air force. It will fall to him to plan and execute the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, should Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu order him to do so. Senior U.S. officials think that Netanyahu is preparing to launch such an attack in the coming months.

Netanyahu has never kept hidden his feelings about Iran. This is what he told me three years ago: “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying.”

Iran represents the definitive, post-Nazi Jewish nightmare: a regime that openly argues for the destruction of Israel and is seeking nuclear weapons. The Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said just last week, “The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor that should be removed and will be removed, God willing.” The regime seems bent on building weapons that could actually bring about the obliteration of Israel and its six million Jews. »

By conjuring the Holocaust, Netanyahu brought Israel closer to war with Iran
Netanyahu compared Iran to Nazi Germany, its nuclear facilities to death camps, and his current trip to the White House to a desperate plea to former U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt by the U.S. Jewish community to bomb Auschwitz. (…) It was the same reason former Prime Minister Menachem Begin used to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981: preventing the possibility that Jewish children would face the peril of another Holocaust. Now it’s the turn of his successor, Netanyahu, to remove the danger hovering over the heads of Jewish children. (…) The Holocaust talk has but one meaning: they force Israel to go to war and strike the Iranians. The justifications against an attack, weighty as those may be, turn to fumes when put up against the Warsaw Ghetto, Auschwitz, and Treblinka. No calculus of missiles falling on Tel Aviv, rising oil prices and economic crisis can hold water when compared to genocide.

Why Israel must strike Op-ed: Main Shoah lesson is that active anti-Semites must be stopped when they’re small

Un pas de plus vers la guerre entre Israël et l’Iran


Un pas de plus vers la guerre, et encore le prétexte de la Shoah, alors que l’Iran ne menace absolument pas Israël… la situation est inverse, en réalité.

Lu dans Le Nouvel Observateur :

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Le discours pugnace prononcé par Benjamin Netanyahu devant le lobby pro-israélien Aipac à Washington a convaincu l’opinion publique israélienne qu’une guerre avec l’Iran est désormais plus qu’une hypothèse.

Le Premier ministre israélien a notamment fait référence à l’Holocauste, citant une lettre de 1944 par laquelle les Etats-Unis rejetaient une demande de responsables juifs de bombarder le camp de concentration d’Auschwitz. Le message était clair: Israël ne peut compter que sur lui-même pour se défendre.

« En tant que Premier ministre d’Israël, je ne laisserai jamais mon peuple vivre sous la menace de l’anéantissement« , a dit Benjamin Netanyahu à l’Aipac après son entretien avec Barack Obama à la Maison blanche.

« Nous avons donné du temps à la diplomatie, nous avons laissé du temps aux sanctions. Nous ne pouvons plus attendre davantage« , a-t-il dit.

Ce discours n’est pas passé inaperçu en Israël, où analystes, commentateurs et anciens responsables militaires ont noté le durcissement de ton de Benjamin Netanyahu à l’égard de l’Iran, que l’Etat juif accuse de chercher à se doter de la bombe atomique.

« Le pistolet n’est pas seulement chargé, son cran de sécurité a été enlevé« , a déclaré à Radio Israël Uzi Dayan, ancien général et conseiller à la sécurité nationale.

Israël a maintes fois répété qu’il ne laisserait pas Téhéran se doter de l’arme nucléaire et cherché à convaincre Washington d’accroître la pression sur l’Iran pour qu’il renonce à son programme.

Pour les experts israéliens, les sanctions économiques imposées par les Etats-Unis et l’Union européenne ne seront efficaces que si elles sont couplées à une menace sérieuse de frappe militaire.


Certains Israéliens ont longtemps pensé que les déclarations va-t-en guerre de leurs dirigeants, qui se sont dits prêts par le passé à bombarder l’Iran avec ou sans l’aide des Américains, étaient une menace en l’air.

Aujourd’hui, les mêmes estiment que Benjamin Netanyahu est allé trop loin dans la surenchère verbale pour rester les bras croisés si Téhéran ne renonce pas clairement à ses ambitions.

« Netanyahu a renvoyé l’image d’un homme qui a pris sa décision« , écrit l’éditorialiste David Horovitz sur son site internet, TimesOfIsrael.

Barack Obama a appelé Israël à laisser les sanctions porter leurs fruits et s’il a redit pendant son entretien avec Benjamin Netanyahu que toutes les options étaient sur la table, les mots choisis par les deux hommes traduisent une nette différence d’approche qui pourrait avoir de lourdes conséquences sur le calendrier.

Le président américain a ainsi parlé d’empêcher l’Iran d’ »obtenir » la bombe atomique; le Premier ministre israélien de l’empêcher de la « développer ».

Cela signifie qu’Israël n’entend pas permettre à Téhéran de se doter des équipements nécessaires à l’assemblage d’une bombe, expliquent des officiels israéliens. En d’autres termes, Tsahal pourrait juger nécessaire de frapper militairement l’Iran beaucoup plus tôt que l’armée américaine.

« Nous voulons que l’Iran soit privé de la capacité à développer une bombe, pas seulement qu’il renonce à son programme nucléaire« , dit un responsable sécuritaire sous le sceau de l’anonymat.


L’approche israélienne est fidèle à la « doctrine Begin », du nom de l’ancien Premier ministre Menachem Begin, qui avait fait bombarder en Irak la centrale nucléaire d’Osirak en 1981 sur la seule suspicion qu’elle pourrait un jour servir à produire du plutonium pour des têtes nucléaires.

Ce raid aérien avait été présenté comme une démonstration qu’Israël « ne permettrait en aucune circonstance à un ennemi de développer des armes de destruction massive menaçant le peuple israélien« .

Le discours de Benjamin Netanyahu devant l’Aipac est, à ce jour, le témoignage le plus explicite de son adhésion à cette doctrine de frappe préventive.

Reste néanmoins au Premier ministre israélien à convaincre son opinion publique du bien-fondé d’une guerre. Un sondage a montré la semaine dernière que moins d’un Israélien sur cinq est favorable à ce que Tsahal bombarde l’Iran seule.

« L’Israël d’aujourd’hui ne souscrit pas (à la doctrine Begin) », souligne Uri Dromi, ancien porte-parole de feu le Premier ministre Yitzhak Rabin, qui compare l’escalade verbale entre Israéliens et Iraniens à l’atmosphère qui avait précédé le début de la Première Guerre mondiale.

« Il (Netanyahu) nous prépare à la guerre mais je ne suis pas sûr qu’on y soit prêts. Ce n’est pas un calcul, c’est un pari« , dit-il.

Beaucoup d’Israéliens doutent que leur pays soit préparé aux conséquences d’une guerre, qui se traduirait très certainement par des représailles de l’Iran et, peut-être, de ses alliés du Hezbollah au Liban.

Cela ne tient donc pas du hasard si, quelques heures après le discours de Benjamin Netanyahu à Washington, le ministre de la Défense civile, Matan Vilnai, a envoyé ce message par sms: « Israël a la capacité opérationnelle d’intercepter des missiles d’où qu’ils viennent. Aujourd’hui, chaque citoyen sait qu’il a la responsabilité de se préparer à faire face à une situation d’urgence. »

Voyez encore, le cas de Elie Wiesel qui a convaincu Bush de faire péter l’Irak et Saddam Hussein:

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate who persuaded Bush to invade Iraq
From a Voice of America review of George W. Bush’s book Decision Points:

Another person who had a deep impact on his war decision was holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Elie Wiesel.
“There was passion in his 74-year-old eyes when he compared Saddam Hussein’s brutality to the Nazi genocide,” the former president remembered.
“Mr. President,” Wiesel said, “You have a moral obligation to act against evil,” Bush wrote.

Debunking Anti-Iran Propaganda: The Myth of the « New Holocaust »

The Holocaust is a good reason, not a bad excuse, for attacking Iran

Terror in the Shadow of the Holocaust When four Iranian dissidents were murdered by Iranian agents in Berlin, a group of courageous Germans, driven in part by Holocaust guilt, fought to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Does AIPAC want war? If a bill pushed by Lieberman passes, it could give the US “political authorisation for military force” against Iran.

Lieberman Edges US to War with Iran

Iran is not Auschwitz Bombing Iran, not Iran’s bomb, could destroy Israel.

By conjuring the Holocaust, Netanyahu brought Israel closer to war with Iran

Kristol instructs “American friends of Israel” to persuade Obama “to stand arm in arm” with Israel on Iran

Israel’s non-stop Iran spite puts ties with US in firing line

Iran: Insane Israeli Hypocrisy and Iraq-Style WMD Lies
Netanyahu v Obama – What next?

Le Mossad et la CIA sont d’accord: L’Iran ne cherche pas à fabriquer des armes nucléaires
American and Israel Intel Services agree–Iran not building Nukes

Millions of Evangelical Christians Want to Start WWIII to Speed the “Second Coming”…


Sur ce blog:

“Ils menacent de sanctions et de représailles militaires tous ceux qui émettent des doutes sur la Shoah et le 11 septembre » — Président Ahmadinejad

Inversion accusatoire : l’empire israélite accuse l’Iran d’être « la plus grave menace pour la paix dans le monde »

L’Iran ne croit pas la fable convenue du 11 septembre ; les États-Unis en mal de casus belli l’accusent d’avoir monté le coup

Guerres sionistes vers la délivrance ultime

The Jewish War of Survival

Pendant que les partis nationalistes européens pourfendent l’Islam et accueillent l’immigration à bras ouverts, le Hamas dénonce l’escroquerie de l’Holocauste

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment


par Bernamej (voir biquette 2012)
Pour la version CACHERE :

Voir aussi:
Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment


Youtube – Scheuer: America’s Warmongering Foreign Policy Is ‘Beholden to the Israelis’
(Michael Scheuer est l’ancien directeurde l’Unité de traque de Ben Laden à la CIA)
Emergency Committee for Israel (including Bill Kristol) VS Ron Paul
VIDEO – Israel creates a super PAC to attack Ron Paul

VIDEO -Fox whines Ron Paul wont just support war and Israel

Une soif de sang difficile à cacher

American Free Press

Smear Machine Ready to Sling Mud Against All Who Won’t Bow to Israel

Smear Machine Ready to Sling Mud Against All Who Won’t Bow to Israel

By Michael Collins Piper


Makes Israel nervous?          Smeared by Zionists.      Zionist propagandist.        High-ranking Zionist.

A leading critic of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is purveying smears of “anti-Semitism” against some influential liberal groups by unfavorably comparing their stance to the nationalist, America-first point of view expressed by The Spotlight, the predecessor of AMERICAN FREE PRESS.
The liberal groups—which are closely associated with the Obama administration—are perceived, like the president and Paul, to be insufficiently supportive of Israel. Washington insiders see this as the latest effort by the Israeli lobby to undermine Obama’s already shaky support among Jewish voters.
A key propagandist involved in the affair is James Kirchik who won widespread media favor for authoring a hit piece on Paul, accusing him of purveying racism and anti-Semitism in Paul’s privately published newsletter—and, yes, attempting to “link” Paul to The Spotlight, among other supposedly horrible things.
One of a select few in the media whose writings appear in both the “liberal” New Republic and the “conservative” Weekly Standard—which, despite differences on domestic issues are otherwise vigorous advocates for Israel (and both of which published Kirchick’s attacks on Paul)—Kirchick used the forum of Israel’s daily Ha’aretz to sling his latest mud.
Describing The Spotlight as “one of the most notorious newspapers ever published in America,” and “for many years the country’s premier hate  rag,” Kirchick complained that The Spotlight charged there were high-ranking political figures who, in The Spotlight’s estimation, placed “Israel first.” Now, to Kirchick’s dismay, he claims such liberal groups as the Center for American Progress (CAP) and Media Matters for America (MMA) are echoing such terminology, which, he says, “is an indication of just how deep the rhetoric of the far right has seeped into the discourse of the mainstream left.”
In fact, what this means is that people on both the traditional “right” and “left” are getting fed up with inordinate Israeli lobby influence on American foreign policy.

« It’s no secret that many
Jews believe Obama is
a threat to Israel’s future »
The items in controversy were not even published or endorsed by CAP, but, instead, appeared on the private Internet accounts of two CAP staffers. Yet supporters of Israel cite these items in an effort to smear CAP, and, by extension, the Obama White House.
One of the CAP staffers referred to “Israel firsters”—and he has since left the CAP staff. The second “controversial” item described a member of the Senate as more loyal to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—the lobby for Israel—than to his own constituents. Associates of CAP and MMA were also slammed for openly discussing the clout of Jewish campaign contributions in the American political process, as though such discussion was beyond the pale.
The attacks on the liberal groups originated with Josh Block—a former AIPAC functionary—who packaged an assembly of CAP-connected writings, calling them an “outrageous vilification of pro-Israel Americans.”
The fact that CAP is—as The Washington Post has noted—“closely aligned with the White House” and “an idea generator for Obama’s Washington” is being repeatedly bandied about, to the point that it is now “complicating the president’s reelection outreach to some Jewish voters,” reflecting what another influential Washington daily, Politico, has called “Obama’s Jewish problem.” That problem is that key Jewish groups and leaders view the president to be insufficiently supportive of Israel, and their views are reverberating in the American Jewish community at large.
While—responding to the attacks—CAP declared the private writings of its staffers to be “inappropriate” and rushed to assert its own support for Israel, the Post noted that “the critics are not mollified.” The Postcited Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who said “the language is corrosive and unacceptable” and Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who said the statements were “anti-Semitic and borderline anti-Semitic,” adding that the ADL was concerned “this . . . think tank . . . does influence the administration.”http://cdn1.tabletmag.com/wp-content/files_mf/1289587328foxman.big
The Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman (pictured
left) is worried that the policy advice President
Obama is getting may be “anti-Semitic.”
The Post said the controversy “could add friction to the already tense relationship between Obama and many pro-Israel Jews,” which, of course, was reflected in the recent call by a prominent figure in the Atlanta Jewish community for Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, to assassinate the president.
On Dec. 7, 2011, The Washington Times reported that Doris Wise Montrose—the president of the Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors—charged that there was an “ongoing campaign by the White House to undermine Israel.” At the same time, Morton Klein, the president of the Zionist Organization of America, alleged evidence of “the hostility of the administration to Jews in Israel and its misplaced sympathy for Muslims and radical Muslims.”
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is  the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty  Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth,  The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem. You can order any of these books  with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397.

American Free Press

• Plutocrats ramp up efforts against Rep. Ron Paul
• Launch media smear campaign in New York Times

Ron Paul Attacked
Ron Paul – targeted by New York Times
By Michael Collins Piper
December 31, 2011

AMERICAN FREE PRESS got frontline mention as the very first words in the first paragraph of a muddled smear of Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul published as a lengthy hit piece beginning on the front page of The New York Times on Dec. 26. That article was followed up by a lead editorial by the Times in its Dec. 28 issue denouncing what it called “Mr. Paul’s Discredited Campaign,” citing its own article as the evidence. The Times article was clearly a sustained effort to undermine Paul, making no pretense otherwise.
Constituting no less than 80 full column inches, the articled zeroed in on AFP at the get-go and focused on the fact that AFP has promoted the book The Ron Paul Revolution, presenting an overview of Paul’s speeches and writings over the last two decades.*
The Times ranked AFP as its lead “evidence” that—in its view—unseemly groups and individuals endorse Paul’s efforts. The Times said a variety of “white nationalists,” “far right groups,” “white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists”—and other villains—are rallying behind Paul.
Although the Times never categorized AFP per se, it described this paper by reporting that AFP “markets books like The Invention of the Jewish People and March of the Titans: A History of the White Race.”
Obviously seeking to impute “anti- Semitism” to AFP by referencing the book The Invention of the Jewish People, what the Times didn’t mention is that the book was written by an Israeli Jewish academic, first published in Hebrew in Israel where it was a national bestseller. Most people would not know that, and that’s what the Times counted on.
And while the Times was horrified AFP would carry an advertisement from another publisher on the history of the white race—proof somehow that AFP was “racist”—it never occurred to the Times that a book about the white race would seem no more shocking to the average American than books, for example, about the history of Africans, Chinese or Indians, which are in every library and bookstore.
The Times’ smear is an obvious effort to force Paul to denounce those who have united behind him and to divide Paul’s diverse groups of supporters and set them at odds with one another.
*Call 1-888-699-6397 toll free to charge your copy of The Ron Paul Revolution (softcover, 286 pages, $20 plus $5 S&H; or five copies for $70 plus $10 S&H; inside the U.S.) by calling AFP toll free at 1-888-699-6397 and charge your subscription to a major credit card. See AFP’s website at www.americanfreepress.net.

Saine critique des idées de Ron Paul et surtout, de la manière dont il prépare le terrain pour son bien étrange fils… plus néocon que les néocons!

The Piper Report March 12, 2012 RBN

Ron Paul supporters do not necessarily support the Tea Party movement; nor  any other particular parties and organizations. Mike also explores nefarious bank scam connections held by Christopher Bollyn.
Reports from a  delegate meeting in Nevada show Ron Paul leading the count for representatives in the electoral college.
Download Here




Audit the Fed! House Overwhelmingly Passes Bill to Open Federal Reserve

August 01, 2012   AFP

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building

By Michael Collins Piper

It’s finally happened. On July 25, the U.S. House of Representatives approved by an overwhelming margin a measure calling for an audit of the privately controlled Federal Reserve System banking monopoly, often mistakenly believed to be a “government” entity.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a longtime—and for many years virtually the only—congressional proponent of a Fed audit, was the prime mover behind the bill, which was numbered H.R. 459.

Titled the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2012, H.R. 459 calls for “a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks by the comptroller general of the United States before the end of 2012.”

The House approved the bill by a vote of 327-98. Of 240 Republicans, 238 were in favor, with one lone GOP member—Bob Turner (N.Y.)—voting “no.” Another GOP member, Steve Stivers (Ohio) did not vote. House Democrats were essentially split on the issue with a slight majority (97 in number) voting against, while 89 stood with the GOP majority. Five Democrats chose not to vote.

Click here to see how your congressperson voted.

Since 30 years ago—when Liberty Lobby, the Washington-based populist institution, and its national weekly newspaper, The Spotlight, forerunner of AMERICAN FREE PRESS—were urging Congress to rally behind Paul’s efforts to bring public focus on the Federal Reserve System (and the need for an audit thereof), critics called this a “fringe issue.” No more. Instead, a wide range of House members of both parties—“liberal” and “conservative” alike—eagerly joined Paul to co-sponsor H.R. 459, fully conscious of growing public awareness of this issue.

The burgeoning support for the audit-the-Fed measure is the consequence of energetic efforts by patriots nationwide who have, for decades, focused on the problems surrounding essentially unregulated control of the American economic system by this private money monopoly.

The House vote is a landmark event, a tribute to not only Paul’s prescience and persistence on the issue, but also to the passionate efforts of good patriots—like the readers of AFP—who have kept the heat on Congress on this issue.

The Senate is expected to take up its own version, S. 202, soon. Approval there may face an uphill battle since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has vowed it will never be voted on in the Senate. However, concerted public pressure—particularly during an election year—could turn the tide. To contact your senator, you can call the congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and urge support for S. 202. Call Reid and tell him to bring the issue to a Senate vote.

Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.


Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

L’homme le plus puissant de Washington D.C., selon GQ: le juif orthodoxe Eric Cantor


CANTOR THE POWERFUL: House Majority Leader tops GQ’s “50 most powerful people in Washington list.”

Eric Cantor, républicain sioniste, juif orthodoxe, est devenu le plus puissant leader de la majorité républicaine à la Chambre des représentants de toute l’histoire des États-Unis. Son pouvoir est tel qu’il rivalise celui du président lui-même, car si la Chambre peut faire pression sur le président, l’inverse n’est pas vrai.

It’s an ill Arab Spring wind…

On March 5, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) introduced H.R. 4133 [.pdf], the U.S.-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which was also cosponsored by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.) and Ranking Member Howard Berman (D-Ca.) “to express the sense of Congress regarding the United States-Israel strategic relationship, to direct the President to submit to Congress reports on United States actions to enhance this relationship and to assist in the defense of Israel, and for other purposes.”
One of the reasons for introducing the resolution is stated as follows:

The Middle East is undergoing rapid change, bringing with it hope for an expansion of democracy but also great challenges to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region, particularly our most important ally in the region, Israel. The past year has witnessed the fall of some regimes long considered to be pillars of stability in the Middle East and a rise in the influence of radical Islamists throughout the region.


Another Senator for Israel By Philip Giraldi
The Passionate Attachment
June 13, 2012
It is ironic that the hard core supporters of Israel among the neoconservatives are hoping for a Republican victory in the fall even though the party that has passionate Israel firsters most deeply embedded continues to be the Democrats. To be sure, Eric Cantor, Republican majority leader in the House and the only Jewish congressman from the GOP, has done some heavy lifting for Benjamin Netanyahu, including advising the Israeli Prime Minister that congress would protect him in any conflict with President Barack Obama. Republican from Florida Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is descended from Sephardic Jews, has also burnished her pro-Israel credentials as chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee while other Republicans from the Bible belt reflexively praise Israel as, one assumes, a tenet of their faith.
But the breadth and depth of outspoken advocates of Israel in the Democratic Party goes far beyond anything the Republicans can muster. Thirteen Jewish Senators are all Democrats as are 26 of the 27 Jewish members of the House. The Democratic National Committee is headed by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz while Steny Hoyer, who is not Jewish, is Minority Whip in the House of Representatives and an outspoken passionate supporter of Israel. Other frequent sponsors of resolutions favoring Israel and condemning Iran and the Palestinians include Howard Berman, Steve Israel, Steve Rothman, Jan Schakowsky, Brad Sherman, Benjamin Cardin, Carl Levin, Frank Lautenberg, Charles Schumer and Joe Lieberman. The late Tom Lantos, often referred to as Israel’s congressman, was also a Democrat. Many of Israel’s friends have characteristically sought and attained powerful positions on committees that deal with foreign and defense policies to enable them to directly influence legislation favorable to Israel. (read the rest…)


Voir aussi:

Eric Cantor, dangereux juif orthodoxe intégriste, leader de la majorité républicaine au Congrès, protégera les allocations à Israël

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

Un autre grand comique, propriétaire et éditeur d’un journal juif américain, soutient qu’il ne prônait pas vraiment l’assassinat d’Obama

Quelques excuses et la mauvais blague est toute pardonnée…

« Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.
Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?
Another way of putting “three” in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives … Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?
You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.« 
Ce qui revient à dire, dans la langue de Molière:
« Troisième option, donner l’ordre pour que les agents du Mossad basés aux États-Unis éliminent ce président qui n’est pas considéré comme étant amical envers Israël afin qu’il soit remplacé par le Vice-président actuel [NdT: Joe Biden est connu pour ses positions pro-sionistes], et qu’il donne l’ordre indiscutable que la politique des États-Unis est basée sur le fait que le pays se rangera toujours aux côtés de l’État juif pour l’aider à oblitérer ses ennemis.
Oui, vous avez bien lu cette “troisième option”. Ordonner l’assassinat du président des États-Unis afin de préserver l’existence d’Israël. Réfléchissez-y. Si un tel scénario à la Tom Clancy m’est passé par la tête, est-ce que vous ne pensez pas qu’une telle idée – aussi insondable soit-elle – a pu être discutée dans les plus hautes sphères du pouvoir israélien?
Une autre manière de mettre cette “troisième option” en perspective consisterait à dire: Jusqu’où iriez vous pour sauver une nation composée de sept millions de vies… juifs, chrétiens et arabes?
Vous devez penser, comme moi, que toutes les options sont sur la table. »

Israel working on worst case Dr. Ron Paul assassination plan

Israel working on worst case Dr. Ron Paul assassination plan. Plan mentions Obama’s name but is actually set for worst case if Dr. Paul gets elected President. Setup leaked by CIA to Pro american Journalist Michael Collins Piper. One chosen editor even called for Israel to kill Obama if he is not servile enough to Israel which was more fluff to hide the real target.
Michael Collins Piper, veteran JFK researcher and author of « The Final Judgement, » exposes the storyline and official government version of a potential assassinate plot of President Obama, or a future president in the book « In the President’s Secret Service » by New York Times best selling author Ronald Kessler.
Kessler goes on to blame a future assassination plot on affirmitive action, the Secret Service’s hiring of too many unqualified African-American agents, and also the Obama administration for their lapses in security.
Kessler is in effect creating a kind of plausible deniability on behalf of the government along with a possible « official government version » of the event.
Prominent Jewish Leader: Assassinate Barack Obama At the height of a growing frenzy among American friends of Israel who demand the United States attack Iran, a leader of the Jewish community publicly called for Israel’s Mossad to assassinate President Barack Obama in order to save Israel from Iran.

Traduction du blog de Tancrède le Normand : http://penserrendlibre.wordpress.com

Sacrifier Obama pour Israël

Au sommet d’une frénésie grandissante parmi les amis américains d’Israël qui demandent une attaque américaine de l’Iran, un chef de la communauté juive a publiquement demandé au Mossad israélien d’assassiner le Président Barack Obama pour sauver Israël de l’Iran.
Le 13 Janvier 2012, Andrew Adler, rédacteur en chef et éditeur de l’Atlanta Jewish Time, se joignant à un concert de voix toujours plus furieuses, a déclaré en colonne qu’Israël avait trois options (toutes violentes) pour garantir sa sécurité. La première option est d’attaquer ses ennemis du Hezbollah et du Hamas. Le deuxième est attaquer l’Iran. La troisième option : “Donnez le feu vert pour les agents du Mossad basés aux États-Unis pour écarter le Président jugé inamical à l’encontre d’Israël pour que le vice-président actuel prenne sa place et dicte avec vigueur que la politique des États-Unis inclut son aide à l’état juif pour effacer ses ennemis.
Pour s’assurer que les lecteurs avaient bien compris ce qu’il disait, Adler a souligné son appel au meurtre d’Obama en écrivant : “oui, vous lisez correctement. Ordonner une frappe sur un président pour préserver l’existence de l’Israël.
Il a ajouté : “Imaginez bien que, si j’ai pu pensé à ce scénario à la Tom Clancy, peut-elle ne pas avoir été discutée dans les cercles les plus fermés en Israël ?… Vous devez croire, comme je le fais, que toutes les options sont sur la table.”
Forcés de commenter à cause de l’indignation publique provoqués par ces propos, d’autres chefs juifs ont affirmé que c’était “juste l’opinion d’un homme” mais la vérité est que cet homme connu pour être profondément religieux et depuis longtemps actif dans les affaires juives — est l’éditeur d’un journal influent servant une des communautés les plus riches et les plus puissantes dans une région métropolitaine essentielle.
Bien qu’Abe Foxman de l’Anti-Defamation Ligue(ADL) de B’nai B’rith et d’autres lobbys juifs ait dénoncé les opinions franches exprimées par un l’un des leurs, leur indignation a semblé à certains observateurs être plus mise sur le fait que la franchise d’Adler a trop ouvertement exposé le point de vue partagé par nombre de ses co-religionnaires et leur profonde colère contre le Président Obama perçu pour être hostile à Israël.
By Michael Collins Piper of the American Free Press

Prominent Jewish Leader: Assassinate Barack Obama

The Atlanta Jewish Times' Andrew Adler publishes opinion piece saying Obama's assassination among Israel's options in heading off nuclear Iran
By Michael Collins Piper
At the height of a growing frenzy among American friends of Israel who demand the United States attack Iran, a leader of the Jewish community publicly called for Israel’s Mossad to assassinate President Barack Obama in order to save Israel from Iran.
On Jan. 13, Andrew Adler, editor and publisher of The Atlanta Jewish Times—joining an ever-more-boisterous chorus of angry voices—wrote a column declaring Israel had three options (all violent) to ensure its security. The first option was to attack its enemies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The second was to attack Iran. The third option: “Give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”
To ensure readers understood what he was saying, Adler underscored his call for Obama’s murder, writing: “Yes, you read [that] correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence.”
He added: “Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles? . . . You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.”
News of this open call by a Jewish leader for the president’s assassination did not receive any notice outside the Jewish community until after an independent Internet website discovered the story and publicized it. In fact, most major news outlets completely suppressed this important story.
Forced by public outrage to comment, other Jewish leaders asserted this was “just one man’s opinion” but the truth is that one man—known to be deeply religious and long active in Jewish affairs—was the publisher of an influential newspaper serving one of the wealthiest and most powerful communities in a pivotal metropolitan area.
Although Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith and other Jewish lobby kingpins denounced the candid opinions expressed by one of their own, their outrage seemed to some observers to be more hinged on the fact that Adler’s honesty too openly exposed the point that there is deep anger toward Obama by those who perceive the president to be hostile to Israel.
As far back as its July/August 2009 issue, Commentary, the magazine of the American Jewish Committee, referred to Obama’s “turn against Israel”—just one notable example of this mindset.
Adler’s viewpoint reflects the attitude of many in the pro-Israel community, evidenced by heavy-handed attacks on the president appearing in Jewish community newspapers from the beginning of his presidency.
Chemi Shalev admitted in an essay in Israel’s Ha’aretz on Jan. 21 that Adler’s views do reflect the thinking of what Shalev referred to as “many.”
Commenting that “Adler’s crazy and criminal suggestions are not the ranting of some loony-tune individual and were not taken out of thin air,” Shalev said Adler’s anger was “the inevitable result of the inordinate volume of repugnant venom” spewed at Obama by “many who still believe he is a Muslim, who are convinced that he wants to destroy Israel and who seriously debate whether he is more like Ahmadinejad than Arafat or. . .more like Hitler than Haman.”
Some speculate the Adler affair was stage-managed from the start—a contrived provocation to stir up more discussion in the Jewish community of Obama’s intransigence toward Israel. Adler himself said he “wanted to get a reaction,” and he did: Jewish people across America are aware—now more than ever—that many of their leaders are hostile to Obama because of his policy toward Israel.
The Secret Service claims it is “investigating,” although few believe Adler will be prosecuted. In the meantime, Adler “resigned” as editor of his own newspaper and put it up for sale.
The call for Obama’s assassination does come at a time when pro-Israel voices are howling for Obama to wage war against Iran on Israel’s behalf.
On Jan. 18, The Wall Street Journal—controlled by hardline pro-Israel billionaire Rupert Murdoch—published a screaming pro-war commentary titled “The Mortal Threat from Iran.” The author—Mark Helprin—is an American conservative who holds membership in the influential Council on Foreign Relations and who is also a former member of both the Israeli infantry and the Israeli air force.
Helprin declared that “any president of the United States fit for the office . . . should order the armed forces of the United States to attack and destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons complex.”
Acknowledging Americans would suffer retaliatory attacks from Iran, Helprin concluded it would be worth the cost to put an end to such a “vengeful, martyrdom-obsessed state in the midst of a never-subsiding fury against the West.”
This hysterical bellicosity appearing in the otherwise staid Wall Street Journal is not out of the ordinary. It is found in much of the media as the pressure for war escalates.
The question remains: Will Obama be intimidated by the threats, or will he withstand the demands of the powerful minority who want war?
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397.

Major Media Suppressing Obama Assassination Story

Obama in the Crosshairs

By Michael Collins Piper
As AFP predicted in the Feb. 6 edition, the call by the publisher of The Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew Adler, for Israel’s Mossad to utilize its American-based assets to assassinate Barack Obama has been almost entirely suppressed by the mainstream media. In contrast, the story has been big news in Israel and widely reported in Jewish community newspapers all across America.
Most astonishing—in response to Adler’s provocation—is that there are many Jewish writers openly acknowledging there is a deep hatred for Obama within the Jewish community, which most Americans presume to be strongly supportive of the president.
A widely circulated analysis originating on Jan. 24 with the influential Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA), admitted Adler’s remarks were “an extreme expression of a viewpoint that carries great currency among Obama’s Jewish critics: that the president represents a serious danger to Jews and to Israel,” adding that “while few of those critics might go as far as Adler, it doesn’t take much discussion in certain Jewish circles to find those who see something far more sinister in Obama than a president whose policies are bad for the Jews and Israel.”
JTA quoted Randy Silver, a Glenview, Ill. businessman, who asserted that he believes “Obama’s overriding goal is to have Israel destroyed. [Obama] put steps in motion to bring about the destruction of the state of Israel.”
A New Yorker told JTA that “[Obama is] not a Hitler in the sense that he’s anti-Semitic and wants to put every Jew into a concentration camp—at least not as we see things right now.”
Andrew Adler’s call for Mossad hit teams
to rub out Obama is big news in the Jewish
community but has been suppressed in
the mainstream.
JTA noted that “many longtime observers of the Jewish political scene” say the Jewish opposition to Obama reveals “an unprecedented level of vitriol.”
Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, told JTA: “I’ve never seen as much enmity toward a president by American Jews as I do toward Obama. . . . Among those who care about Israel, he surely is to blame for it. Every chance he gets, he blames Israel.”
And although there have been attempts to paint Adler’s Atlanta Jewish Times as being somehow without influence, one of Adler’s regular columnists is Chuck Berk, a leader of the Republican Jewish Coalition, who—as recently as Dec. 30—was pictured in the Times in the company of Israel’s consul general in Atlanta, along with the governor of Georgia and several state senators.
In the meantime, Scotty Reid—columnist for a black-oriented Internet site, ThyBlackMan.com—raised important questions: “Are there Israeli assassination teams in the U.S.? If Israeli Mossad agents are based in the United States, what they are doing?”
Reid also noted that, “Adler is not just some crazed or mentally impaired individual publishing outlandish conspiracy theories.” Instead, Reid emphasized, Adler is not only publisher of a weekly newspaper but also producer of a local television show on which he has interviewed a number of Israeli government officials.
While JTA suggested most Jews still claim to support Obama, it did not mention that polls showing significant Jewish opposition to Obama could be enough to cause Obama to lose the electoral votes of key states, particularly in the Northeast, where politically active Jews in large numbers reside.
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397.

Israel Has Long History of Political Murders

By Edward R. Fields
As AFP has reported, The Atlanta Jewish Times publisher Andrew Adler, in an editorial on Jan. 13, suggested that Israel’s Mossad should consider assassinating President Barack Obama. The Secret Service should take serious note of this, as Jewish and pro-Israeli groups have a long history of advocating and even carrying out assassinations of top officials deemed a threat.
Of late, Iran’s nuclear scientists have been specific targets of Israeli assassins. At least six have been murdered in the past few years. On Jan. 11, 2012, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was killed in broad daylight after an explosive was placed on his car in downtown Tehran. On Nov. 29, 2010, Majid Shahriari was killed when terrorists on a high-speed motorcycle attached a magnetic bomb to his car in busy traffic. In a separate attack that same, day another bomb exploded, severely wounding Fereydoon Abbasi, who now heads Iran’s atomic energy project. A year earlier, on Jan. 12, 2010, Massoud Ali Mohammadi died when terrorists set off a bomb as he walked out of his front door. Three others have been murdered in similar attacks.
Two years ago, a prominent Hamas diplomat from the Gaza Strip was murdered in his hotel room in Dubai by several Jewish agents. They held a pillow over his head, smothering him to death. Some 13 conspirators were involved, all of whom used stolen foreign passports, including one from America.
Victor Ostrovsky was a case officer in Israel’s Mossad. He defected to Canada in 1990 and wrote the book By Way of Deception. Ostrovsky states that the Mossad has 1,200 employees and a special assassination unit called the “Kidon.” He writes that they do not need a large number of agents because: “There is a significant and loyal cadre of the worldwide Jewish community.”
Political Assassinations by Jews is a book by Nachman Ben-Yehuda published by State University of New York Press. It studies over 100 major attacks by Jewish terrorist groups going back to 1902. The more prominent cases include:
• Swedish peace negotiator Count Folke Bernadotte wanted to give western Galilee to the Jews and the Negev and Jerusalem to Jordan. On Sept. 17, 1948, his car was passing through Jerusalem when a jeep blocked its way. Four Jews in military dress got out of the truck with tommy guns and riddled Bernadotte and his French aide. Yitzhak Shamir’s Lehi group was responsible. Shamir would later be elected Israeli prime minister.
• British Baron Walter Moyne was minister for Egypt and Palestine. On Nov. 16, 1944, two Lehi agents, Eliahu Hakim and Beit Zouri, waited in the bushes near Moyne’s home. When Moyne and his driver arrived, the pair jumped out and shot both to death. The Lehi killers later released a statement that: “Moyne was personally responsible for Britain’s anti-Zionist policy.”
Dating back to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Jews played a major role in the assassination of the czar’s leaders. The Social Revolutionary Party assassinated six of the top officials of the imperial government from 1901 to 1911. The Russian premier, Pyotr Stolypin, was shot in cold blood by Jewish lawyer Mordecai Bogrov in 1911.
Edward R. Fields is the publisher of the Georgia-based political newsletter The Truth At Last.

TUT Podcast Jan 30, 2012

The Jewish threat to assassinate Obama–typical ‘out of the overflow of the heart the Jewish mouth speaks’ or something more organized? We are joined by Keith Johnson, Mark Dankof and Michael Collins Piper to discuss the latest threat from Israel that Obama better shape up lest he be shipped out in a pine box.
Uriel Heilman
Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) (Analysis)
January 24, 2012 – 12:00am

As wacky as Adler’s column was, it was an extreme expression of a viewpoint that carries great currency among Obama’s Jewish critics: that the president represents a serious danger to Jews and to Israel.
While few of those critics might go as far as Adler, it doesn’t take much discussion in certain Jewish circles to find those who see something far more sinister in Obama than a president whose policies are bad for the Jews and Israel.
“I think Obama’s overriding goal is to have Israel destroyed,” said Randy Silver, a businessman from Glenview, Ill. “He puts steps in motion to bring about the destruction of the State of Israel.”
One New Yorker who insisted on anonymity said, “He’s not a Hitler in the sense that he’s anti-Semitic and wants to put every Jew into a concentration camp — at least not as we see things right now.”
He also said he believes that if Obama hangs on for a second term, he’ll find a way to stay in the White House beyond that, even though the Constitution bars a president from serving a third term.
Noah, a physician from the New York’s Westchester County suburb who asked that his full name be withheld, told JTA: “I will admit to serious questions about whether he’s a Muslim and whether he hates Jews. It’s a possibility. I’m very uncomfortable with him.”
To be sure, such views constitute a minority viewpoint even among Obama’s Jewish detractors, and the American Jewish community has been — and largely remains — a stronghold of support for Obama. In 2008, Obama won an estimated 78 percent of the Jewish vote, and even though his popularity in the Jewish community has dwindled during his Oval Office tenure, it has declined far less among Jews than among the general U.S. population. A Gallup poll released four months ago showed Obama with a 55 percent approval rating among Jews, though an American Jewish Committee poll released at approximately the same time showed the president with a 45 percent approval rating. Still, the AJC poll showed that Obama would win the Jewish vote against any hypothetical Republican candidate by at least 18 percentage points.
Obama is hardly the first president to be called an anti-Semite or hostile to Israel. In 1991, George H.W. Bush found himself the subject of withering Jewish criticism when he sought to delay $10 billion in loan guarantees for Israel unless Jerusalem agreed to a settlement freeze in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, said he remembers holding a news conference to denounce Jewish characterizations of Bush as Satan and evil.
But the rhetoric and conspiracy theories against Obama seem to constitute an unprecedented level of vitriol, say many longtime observers of the Jewish political scene.
“I’ve never seen as much enmity toward a president by American Jews as I do toward Obama,” said Morton Klein, the national president of the Zionist Organization of America. “I’ve never heard people say, as they say to me, ‘I hate him.’ ”
Klein, who called on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to disinvite Obama from its annual policy conference last year and thinks AIPAC should bar Obama from this year’s conference, lays the blame on the president.
“Among those who care about Israel, he surely is to blame for it,” Klein said. “Every chance he gets he blames Israel.”
Foxman says that extreme hatred of Obama is not so much about the president’s policies as it is about America’s economic troubles, the sense that Israel faces greater existential threats today than at any time in the last 30 to 40 years, and the Internet, which amplifies and spreads radical voices and conspiracy theories.
“All of these add an anxiety element that intensifies fear and anxiety,” Foxman told JTA. “Attitudes have intensified.”
Then there’s Obama himself — a black president with the middle name Hussein who has been accused even by some Jewish Democrats of not being able to show sympathy for Israel in his kishkes.
“Here’s a president who doesn’t show emotion on anything, and the Jewish community is used to emotion,” Foxman said.
Democrats blame the Republicans for the vitriol; Republicans say Democrats are practicing divisive politics.
Obama’s most vehement Jewish critics are not the only ones who accuse Obama of being a secret Muslim, a socialist and a threat to America. Many Tea Party activists have sounded similar themes, with some going so far as to decry his adminsitration as pursuing Nazi-like policies.
But Obama’s most extreme Jewish critics also accuse him of seeking to erase the Jewish character of the Jewish state and plotting to wage war against Israel or the Jews. They see anti-Semitic overtones even in Obama’s hiring of Jewish advisers.
“A Jacob Lew or a Rahm Emanuel is a danger to the Jewish people because they make treif look kosher,” Silver, the Illinois businessman, said of the current and former Obama chiefs of staff. “I think these are anti-Jewish Jews. They make Obama look like he’s not a threat, but he’s a clear and present danger to Israel.”
A Jewish New Yorker named Clive said of Lew’s hire, “We know that Pharaoh hired Joseph because it suited him, but down the road when it didn’t suit him he made his family slaves.”
Pamela Geller, a Jewish writer whose blog, Atlas Shrugs, is a popular source of information for anti-Obama conspiracy theorists, says Obama is trying to stir up Muslim enmity toward Jews.
“The President of the United States is advancing jihad against the oath of office that he took,” Geller wrote in April 2010. “If he is agitating Muslims against Jews, will he declare war on Israel?”
Obama administration officials repeatedly have denounced these sorts of accusations as patently false and waged a campaign in the Jewish community to highlight the president’s record on issues of Jewish concern, ranging from domestic issues to Obama’s pushes for Iran sanctions and endorsement of unprecedented U.S.-Israel military cooperation.
But ultimately, for that subset of the Jewish community that sees ominous signs in Obama’s record, the concern isn’t so much what Obama has done so far in his three years in office as it is what he might do in the future.
« He takes baby steps and is slowly putting things in play to do Israel damage in the long run, » Silver said. « There’s a strategy behind this. »

Nov 27 2011 – Man with ‘Israel’ tattoo charged with attempting to assassinate Obama


The Emergency Committee for Israel in a full-page ad in The New York Times attacked President Obama’s treatment of the Jewish state

VIDEO – Obama Campaign Ad: « America and Israel: an Unbreakable Bond »

The Obama administration formally announced its intention to ask Congress to waive a ban on funding UNESCO over its recognition of Palestinian statehood.

Israeli officials disappointed with Obama meeting

I don’t trust Obama Op-ed: We can’t count on US president to protect Israel at the expense of his personal interests

Republican candidates addressing AIPAC’s policy conference focused their addresses on what they said were the Obama administration’s failures to head off a nuclear Iran.

Obama: ‘Premature’ strike on Iran would have consequences for U.S.

Netanyahu in AIPAC speech: Israel cannot afford to wait much longer on Iran

Campagne anti-Obama et préparation pour un nouveau parti « centriste » aux États-Unis

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

Maîtres du monde, maîtres de l’humour: Netanyahou accuse le New York Times et Haaretz de donner le ton de la campagne anti-Israël à travers le monde

Journalist: Netanyahu told me Israel’s biggest enemies are N.Y. Times, Haaretz

(JTA) – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel’s two greatest enemies are The New York Times and Haaretz, the editor of The Jerusalem Post said in a speech.
Steve Linde, addressing a conference in Tel Aviv of the Women’s International Zionist Organization, said Wednesday that Netanyahu made the remark to him about the newspapers at a private meeting « a couple of weeks ago » at the prime minister’s office in Tel Aviv.
“He said, ‘You know, Steve, we have two main enemies,’ ” Linde said, according to a recording of the WIZO speech provided to JTA. “And I thought he was going to talk about, you know, Iran, maybe Hamas. He said, ‘It’s The New York Times and Haaretz.’ He said, ‘They set the agenda for an anti-Israel campaign all over the world. Journalists read them every morning and base their news stories … on what they read in The New York Times and Haaretz.’ ”
Linde said he and other participants at the meeting asked Netanyahu whether he really thought that the media had that strong a role in shaping world opinion on Israel, and the prime minister replied, “Absolutely.”
The Prime Minister’s Office could not be reached immediately for comment.
Sur ce blog:

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

‘A CLEAN BREAK’: un document incontournable du gvt israélien pour comprendre le projet du Grand Israël et les agressions impérialistes au Moyen-Orient

Iran – Dans l’attente du prétexte

En omettant de nommer ce document par son nom, nous évitons d’attirer l’attention du public sur les liens démontrés entre ce projet israélien officiel et les révoltes cashères (encouragées par l’Occident) du soi-disant « printemps arabe ». Plus clair que ‘Rebuilding America’s Defense’ du PNAC, plus évolué que ‘A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties’, aucun autre document officiel, à part A Clean Break, ne décrit aussi nettement le plan de déstabilisation des pays voisins d’Israël au profit de ce dernier.


Canadian Researcher: US Targeting Syria to Change Region’s Geo-Political Reality

OTTAWA: Canadian writer and researcher Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya said that the encirclement of Syria has long been in the works since 2001, and that permanent NATO presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Syrian Accountability Act are part of this initiative, adding that this roadmap is based on a 1996 Israeli document aimed at controlling Syria. The document’s name is « A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. »
In an article published on the Canadian website globalresearch.ca, Nazemroaya said that the 1996 Israeli document, which included prominent U.S. policy figures as authors, calls for “rolling back Syria” in 2000 or afterward. The roadmap outlines pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon, diverting the attention of Damascus by using an anti-Syrian opposition in Lebanon, and then destabilizing Syria with the help of Turkey and other Arab countries, in addition to creating the March 14 Alliance and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

He said that the first step towards this was the war on Iraq and its balkanization, fomenting sectarian divisions as a means of conquering Syria and creating a regional alliance against it.

Nazemroaya noted that the U.S. initiated a naval build-up off the Syrian and Lebanese coasts, which is part of Washington’s standard scare tactics that it has used as a form of intimidation and psychological warfare against Iran, Syria, and the Resistance Bloc, all while the mainstream media networks controlled by Arab clients of the U.S. are focusing on the deployment of Russian naval vessels to Syria, which can be seen as a counter-move to NATO.

He also said that the city of al-Ramtha in Jordan is being used to launch attacks into Daraa and Syrian territory, adding that Turkish and Lebanese media said that France has sent its military trainers into Turkey and Lebanon to prepare conscripts against Syria, and that the so-called Free Syrian Army and other NATO-GCC front organizations are also using Turkish and Jordanian territory to stage raids into Syria, and Lebanon is also being used to smuggle weapon shipments into Syria.

Nazemroaya that there are companies that have not left Syria and are actually used to siphon money out of Syria, with the goal of preventing any money from going in, while they want to also drain the local economy as a catalyst to an internal implosion in Syria.

He said that, regarding Turkey, « Ankara has been playing a dirty game, » as Turkey initially pretended to be neutral during the start of NATO’s war against Libya while it was helping the National Transitional Council in Benghazi, stressing that Erdogan’s government does not care about the Syrian population but rather wants Syria to submit to Washington’s demands, adding that Turkey has been responsible for recruiting fighters against Syria.

« For several years Ankara has been silently trying to de-link Syria from Iran and to displace Iranian influence in the Middle East. Turkey has been working to promote itself and its image amongst the Arabs, but all along it has been a key component of the plans of Washington and NATO. At the same time, it has been upgrading its military capabilities in the Black Sea and on its borders with Iran and Syria, » Nazemroaya wrote, adding that Turkey also agreed to upgrade Turkish bases for NATO troops.

He affirmed that it’s no mere coincidence that Senator Joseph Lieberman started demanding at the start of 2011 that the Pentagon and NATO attack Syria and Iran, nor is it a coincidence that Tehran has been included in the recent Obama Administration sanctions imposed against Damascus, saying that Damascus is being targeted as a means of targeting Iran and, in broader terms, weakening Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing in the struggle for control over the Eurasian landmass.

Nazemroaya said that the U.S. leaving Iraq will cement the Resistance Bloc, dealing a major strategic blows to Israel and the U.S., stressing that Washington is working to create a new geo-political reality by eliminating Syria, in addition to activating the so-called “Coalition of the Moderate” that it created under George W. Bush Jr. and directing it against Iran, Syria, and their regional allies.

« For half a decade Washington has been directing a military arms build-up in the Middle East aimed at Iran and the Resistance Bloc, » he said, noting that the U.S. sent massive arms shipments to countries in the region including Israel and started to openly discuss murdering figures, all of which constitutes a pathway towards possible military escalation that could go far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East and suck in Russia and China and their allies.


IASPS (israeli site):

A Clean Break : A New Strategy for Securing The Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ « Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000. » The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled « A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, » is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.
Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, « New Middle East »—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s « peace process. » That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:
  • Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, « comprehensive peace » to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.
  • Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.
  • Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.
This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.
A New Approach to Peace
Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize « land for peace »— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes « peace for peace, » « peace through strength » and self reliance: the balance of power.
A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:

We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading « land for peace » will not secure « peace now. » Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years–is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, « peace for peace, » is a solid basis for the future.

Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards of accountability.
Securing the Northern Border
Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:
  • striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.
  • paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
  • striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a « Brotherhood Agreement » in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.
Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the « supernote » — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.

Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan « comprehensive peace » and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting « land for peace » deals on the Golan Heights.
Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.
But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the ‘natural axis’ with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria’s territorial integrity.
Since Iraq’s future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.
Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.
King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.
Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians
Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize.
A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed. Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance, including closing Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub’s operatives in Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel and the United States can establish a Joint Compliance Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the PLO meets minimum standards of compliance, authority and responsibility, human rights, and judicial and fiduciary accountability.

We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the same minimal standards of accountability as other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm peace cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary obligations to its own people cannot be counted upon to fulfill its obligations to its neighbors.

Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of power. Jordan has ideas on this.
To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a special effort to reward friends and advance human rights among Arabs. Many Arabs are willing to work with Israel; identifying and helping them are important. Israel may also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan, have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may also want to better integrate its own Arabs.
Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship
In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to « land for peace » concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.
Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and 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.
To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises — moves which will electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter real threats to the region and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.
Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict

TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.

Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.
Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its « exhaustion, » which threatens the survival of the nation.
Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: « Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important–element in the history of the Middle East. » Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.
Participants in the Study Group on « A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000: »
Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader
James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University


A Clean Break

A Clean Break ‘A Clean Break’ (War for Israel) agenda of the Likudnik JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons (pages 261-269/318-321 of James Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War‘ book):
Get your own copy of A Pretext for War Now!*

Also see video:Condoleezza Rice Lied

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

The following excerpts come from pages 261-269 of Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War‘ book*:

« Then Bush addressed the sole items on the agenda for his first high level national security meeting. The topics were not terrorism–a subject he barely mentioned during the campaign –or nervousness over China or Russia, but Israel and Iraq. From the very first moment, the Bush foreign policy would focus on three key objectives: get rid of Saddam, end American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and rearrange the dominoes in the Middle East. A key to the policy shift would be the concept of pre-emption.The blueprint for the new Bush policy 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 orginally 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 Stategic 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 it’s 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 it’s strategic environment, they said.This would be done, they recommended to Netanyahu, by re-establishing the principle of pre-emption and by rolling back it’s 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 recommendation of Feith, Perle and Wurmser was for Israel to once again invade Lebanon with air strikes. But this time to counter potentially hostile reactions from the American government and public, they suggested using a pretext. They would claim that the purpose of the invasion was to halt Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure located there. They were subjects in which Israel had virtually no interest, but they were ones, they said, with which America can sympathize.Another way to win American support for a pre-emptive war against Syria, they suggested, was by drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program. This claim would be that Israel’s war was really all about protecting Americans from drugs, counterfeit bills, and WMD–nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

It was rather extraordinary for a trio of former, and potentially future, high-ranking American government officials to become advisors to a foreign government. More unsettling still was a fact that they were recommending acts of war in which Americans could be killed, and also ways to masquerade the true purpose of the attacks from the American public.

Once inside Lebanon, Israel could let loose–to begin engaging Hizballah, Syria and Iran, as the principle agents of aggression in Lebanon. Then they would widen the war even further by using proxy forces–Lebanese militia fighters acting on Israel’s behalf (as Ariel Sharon had done in the 80′s)–to invade Syria from Lebanon. Thus, they noted, they could invade Syria by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

As soon as that fighting started, they advised, Israel could begin « striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper [emphasis in original]. »

The Perle task force even supplied Nentanyahu with some text for a television address, using the suggested pretext to justify the war. Years later, it would closely resemble speeches to justify their own Middle East wars; Iraq would simply replace Syria and the United States would replace Israel:

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive towards its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.

The task force then suggested that Israel open a second front in its expanding war, with a focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq–an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right–as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.

For years the killing of Saddam Hussein had been among the highest, and most secret, priorities of the Israeli government. In one stroke it would pay Saddam Hussein back for launching Scud missiles against Israel, killing several people, during the Gulf War. Redrawing the map of the Middle East would also help isolate Syria, Iraq’s ally and Israel’s archenemy along its northern border. Thus, in the early 1990′s, after the US-led war in the Gulf, a small elite team of Israeli commandos was given the order to train in absolute secrecy for an assassination mission to bring down the Baghdad ruler.

The plan, code-named Bramble Bush, was to first kill a close friend of the Iraqi leader outside the country, someone from Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit. Then, after learning the date and time of the funeral to be held in the town, a funeral Hussein was certain to attend, they would have time to covertly infiltrate a team of commandos into the country to carry out the assassination. The murder weapons were to be specially modified « smart » missiles that would be fired at Hussein as he stood in a crowd at the funeral.

But, the plan was finally abandoned after five members of the team were accidently killed during a dry run of the operation. Nevertheless, removing Saddam and converting Iraq from threat to ally had long been at the top of Israel’s wish list.

Now Perle, Feith, and Wurmser were suggesting something far more daring–not just an assassination but a bloody war that would get rid of Saddam Hussein and also change the face of Syria and Lebanon. Perle felt their « Clean Break » recommendations were so important that he personally hand-carried the report to Netanyahu.

Wisely, Netanyahu rejected the task force’ plan. But now, with the election of a receptive George W. Bush, they dusted off their pre-emptive war strategy and began getting ready to put it to use.

The new Bush policy was an aggressive agenda for any president, but especially for someone who had previously shown little interest in international affairs. We’re going to correct the imbalances of the previous administration on the Mideast conflict, Bush told his freshly assembled senior national security team in the Situation Room on January 30, 2001. We’re going to tilt it back toward Israel. . . .Anybody here ever met Ariel Sharon? Only Colin Powell raised his hand.

Bush was going to reverse the Clinton policy, which was heavily weighted toward bringing the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinians to a peaceful conclusion. There would be no more US interference; he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw fit, with little or no regard for the situation of the Palestinians. The policy change was exactly as recommended by the Perle task force’s « Clean Break » report.

I’m not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon, Bush told his newly gathered national security team. I’m going to take him at face value. We’ll work on a relationship based on how things go. Then he mentioned a trip he had taken with the Republican Jewish Coalition to Israel. We flew over the Palestinian camps. Looked real bad down there, he said with a frown. Then he said it was time to end America’s efforts in the region. I don’t see much we can do over there at this point, he said.

Colin Powell, Secretary of State for only a few days, was taken by surprise. The idea that such a complex problem, in which America had long been heavily involved, could be simply brushed away with the sweep of a hand made little sense. Fearing Israeli-led aggression, he quickly objected.

He stressed that a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army, recalled Paul O’Neill, who had be sworn in as Secretary of the Treasury by Bush only hours before and seated at the table. Powell told Bush, the consequences of that could be be dire, especially for the Palestinians. But Bush just shrugged. Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things, he said. Powell seemed startled, said O’Neill.

Over the following months, to the concern of Powell, the Bush-Sharon relationship became extremely tight. This is the best administration for Israel since Harry Truman, said Thomas Neuman, executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs « JINSA » a pro-Israel advocacy group. In an article in the Washington Post titled « Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Middle East Policy, » Robert G. Kaiser noted the dramatic shift in policy.

For the First time, wrote Kaiser, a US administration and a Likud government in Israel are pursuing nearly identical policies. Earlier US administrations, from Jimmy Carter through Bill Clinton’s, held Likud and Sharon at arm’s length, distancing the United States from Likud’s traditionally tough approach to the Palestinians. Using the Yiddish term for supporters of Sharon’s political party to the new relationship between Bush and Sharon, a senior US government official told Kaiser, « The Likudniks are really in charge now. »

With America’s long struggle to bring peace to the region quickly terminated, George W. Bush could turn his attention to the prime focus of his first National Security Council meeting; ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein. Condoleezza Rice led off the discussion. But rather than mention anything about threats to the United States or weapons of mass destruction, she noted only that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region. The words were practically lifted from the « Clean Break » report, which had the rather imperial-sounding subtitles: « A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. »

Then Rice turned the meeting over to CIA Director George Tenet, who offered a grainy overhead picture of a factory that he said « might » be a plant « that produced either chemical or biological materials for weapons manufacture. » There were no missiles or weapons of any kind, just some railroad tracks going to a building; truck activity; and a water tower–things that can be found in virtually any city in the US. Nor were there any human intelligence or signals intelligence reports. There was no confirming intelligence, Tenet said.

It was little more than a shell game. Other photo and charts showed US air activity over the « no fly-zone, » but Tenet offered no more intelligence. Nevertheless, in a matter of minutes the talk switched from a discussion about very speculative intelligence to which targets to begin bombing in Iraq.

By the time the meeting was over, Treasury Secretary O’Neill was convinced that « getting Hussein was now the administration’s focus, that much was already clear, » But, O’Neill believed, the real destabilizing factor in the Middle East was not Saddam Hussein but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict–the issue Bush had just turned his back on. Ten years after the Gulf War, said O’Neill, « Hussein seemed caged and defanged. Clearly, there were many forces destabilizing the region, which we were now abandoning. »

The war summit must also have seemed surreal to Colin Powell, who said little during the meeting and had long believed that Iraq had not posed a threat to the United States. As he would tell German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer just a few weeks later, « What we and other allies have been doing in the region, have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. . . .Containment has been a successful policy. »

In addition to the « Clean Break » recommendations, David Wurmser only weeks before the NSC meeting had further elaborated on the way the United States might go about launching a pre-emptive war throughout the Middle East. America’s and Israel’s responses must be regional not local, he said. Israel and the United Staes should adopt a coordinated strategy, to regain the initiative and reverse their region-wide strategic retreat. They should broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the center of radicalism in the region–the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran, Tripoli, and Gaza. That would re-establish the recognition that fighting with either the US or Israel is suicidal. Many in the Middle East will then understand the merits of being an American ally and of making peace with Israel.

In the weeks and months following the NSC meeting, Perle, Feith and Wurmser began taking their places in the Bush administration. Perle became chairman of the reinvigorated and powerful Defence Policy Board, packing it with like-minded neoconservative super-hawks anxious for battle. Feith was appointed to the highest policy position in the Pentagon, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. And Wurmser moved into a top policy position in the State Department before later becoming Cheney’s top Middle East expert.

With the Pentagon now under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz–both of whom had also long believed that Saddam Hussein should have been toppled during the first Gulf War–the war planners were given free reign. What was needed, however, was a pretext–perhaps a major crisis. Crisis can be opportunities, wrote Wurmser im his paper calling for an American-Israeli pre-emptive war throughout the Middle East.

Seeing little reason, or intelligence justification, for war at the close of the inaugural National Security Council meeting, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was perplexed. Who, exactly, was pushing this foreign policy? He wondered to himself. And « why Saddam, why now, and why [was] this central to US interests? »

The following excerpts come from pages 318-322 of Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War‘ book*:

« Hadley and Libby were part of another secret office that had been set up within the White House. Known as the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), it was established in August 2002 by Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card, Jr., at the same time the OSP (Office of Special Plans) was established in Feith’s office. Made up of high-level administration officials, its job was to sell the war to the general public, largely through televised addresses and by selectively leaking the intelligence to the media.

In June 2002, a leaked computer disk containing a presentation by chief Bush strategist Karl Rove revealed a White House political plan to use the war as a way to « maintain a positive issue environment. » But the real pro-war media blitz was scheduled for the fall and the start of the election season « because from a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August, » said Card.

At least once a week they would gather around the blonde conference table downstairs in the Situation Room, the same place the war was born on January 30, 2001, ten days into the Bush presidency. Although real intelligence had improved very little in the intervening nineteen months, the manufacturing of it had increased tremendously. In addition to Hadley and Libby, those frequently attending the WHIG meetings included Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, communications gurus Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; and legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio.

In addition to ties between Hussein and 9/11, among the most important products the group was looking to sell as Labor Day 2002 approached were frightening images of mushroom clouds, mobile biological weapons labs, and A-bomb plants, all in the hands of a certified « madman. » A key piece of evidence that Hussein was building a nuclear weapon turned out to be the discredited Italian documents purchased on a street corner from a con man.

The WHIG began priming its audience in August when Vice President Cheney, on three occasions, sounded a shrill alarm over Saddam Hussein’s nuclear threat. There « is no doubt, » he declared, that Saddam Hussein « has weapons of mass destruction. » Again and again, he hit the same chord. « What we know now, from various sources, is that he . . . continues to pursue a nuclear weapon. » And again: « We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon. »

Facing network television cameras, Cheney warned, « We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. . . . Among other sources, we’ve gotten this from firsthand testimony from defectors, including Saddam’s own son-in-law. » The relative was Hussein Kamel, who defected to Jordan in 1995 with a great deal of inside information on Iraq’s special weapons programs, which he managed. He was later convinced by Saddam to return to Iraq, but executed by the ruler soon after his arrival.

But what Kamel told his interrogators was the exact opposite of what Cheney was claiming he said. After numerous debriefings by officials from the United States, the UN, and Jordan, he said on August 22, 1995, that Saddam had ended all uranium-enrichment programs at the beginning of the Gulf War in 1991 and never restarted them. He also made clear that « all weapons –biological, chemical, missile, nuclear–were destroyed. » Investigators were convinced that Kamel was telling the truth, since he supplied them with a great deal of stolen raw data and was later murdered by his father-in-law as a result. But that was not the story Feith’s OSP, Bush’s WHIG, or Cheney wanted the American public to hear.

At the same time that Cheney began his media blitz, Ariel Sharon’s office in Israel, as if perfectly coordinated, began issuing similar dire warnings concerning Hussein and pressing the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq. Like those from Cheney, pronouncements from Sharon’s top aide, Ranaan Gissin, included frightening « evidence » — equally phony — of nuclear, as well as biological and chemical, threats.

« As evidence of Iraq’s weapons building activities,  » said an Associated Press report on the briefing, « Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq’s Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin. ‘Saddam’s going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational,’ he said. . . . Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, Gissin said. »

It was clear, based on the postwar reviews done in Israel, that Israeli intelligence had no such evidence. Instead, the « evidence » was likely cooked up in Sharon’s own Office of Special Plans unit, which was coordinating its activities with the Feith/Wurmser/Shulsky Office of Special Plans. The joint get-Saddam media blitz would also explain the many highly secret visits by the Israeli generals to Feith’s office during the summer..

« Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Minister said Friday, » the AP report continued.  » « Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage with serve no purpose,’ Gissin told the Associated Press. ‘It will only give him [Saddam] more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction.’ »

As expected. Sharon’s callw as widely publicized and increased pressure on Congress, which often bows to Israel’s wishes, to vote in favor of the Bush war resolution. « Israel To U.S.: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack, » said a CBS News headline. « Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday, » said the report.

The story also made the news in London, where the Guardian newspaper ran the headline: « Israel Puts Pressure on US to Strike Iraq. » It went on, « With foreign policy experts in Washington becoming increasingly critical of the wisdom of a military strike, and European governments showing no willingness to support an attack, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, wants to make it clear that he is the US president’s most reliable ally. »

It was as if the Feith-Wurmser-Perle « Clean Break » plan come full circle. Their plan for Israel to overthrow Saddam Hussein and put a pro-Israel regime in his place had been rejected by former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Now Bush, with Sharon’s support, was about to put it into effect.

Across the Atlantic, British Prime Minister Tony Blair also contributed to the war fever by releasing a much-hyped report that reinforced the White House theme that Iraq was an imminent threat not only to the United States but also to Britain. In addition to including a reference to the bogus Iraq-Niger uranium deal, the report — later dubbed the « doggie dossier »–made another frightening claim. It warned that Iraq could launch a deadly biological or chemical attack with long-range ballistic missiles on British tourists and servicemen in Cyprus with just forty-five minute’s notice.

Only after the war would it be publicly revealed that the reference was not to a strategic weapon that could reach Cyprus, but simply to a short-range battlefield weapon that could not come anywhere close to Cyprus. And because all the missiles were disassembled, even to fire on them on the battlefield would take not forty-five minutes but days of assembly and preparation. At least three times prior to the war, Blair was warned by intelligence officials that the report was inaccurate, but he made no public mention of it.. « 

* The paperback edition of A Pretext for Warincludes new Afterword


Crimes of Zion (Blog)

(…) The real driving force behind the U.S. government’s insane hunger for war is Israel: the zionist regime itself, zionist agents inside the U.S. political system who represent Israel’s interests and work to further them via lobbying, funding and other means, [8] and those who work to realise the objectives of Israel from within the highest levels of the U.S. government and beyond, even to the extreme detriment of the U.S. itself, as American leaders and policy-makers, and as representatives of the American people. The so-called neo-conservatives are the most powerful and obvious example of the latter, and their rise to power was, in many ways, the final phase of the Israeli coup d’etat. [18] [19]

The Ziocons

The American neocons (most of them Jewish, many of them Israeli ‘dual nationals‘, and all of them ardent zionists) [20] [21] are openly loyal to Israel and their hawkish foreign policy reflects it. U.S. foreign policy under the neocons is barely distinguishable from Israeli foreign policy, because that’s basically what it is [22] [23]. Israel has long sought to weaken and destabilise its Arab neighbors as a means to improve and ensure its own security [24] while simultaneously disrupting support given to the indigenous Palestinians by Arab groups and nations sympathetic to their cause. In The Israeli Origins of Bush II’s War Stephen J. Sniegoski writes:

Because Israel’s neighbors opposed the Zionist project of creating an exclusivist Jewish state, the idea of weakening and dissolving those neighbors was not an idea just of the Israeli Right but a central Zionist goal from a much earlier period, promoted by David Ben-Gurion himself. As Saleh Abdel-Jawwad, a professor at Birzeit University in Ramallah, Palestine, writes:

« Israel has supported secessionist movements in Sudan, Iraq, Egypt, and Lebanon and any secessionist movements in the Arab world which Israel considers an enemy. Yet the concern for Iraq and [Israel's] attempts to weaken or prevent it from developing its strengths has always been a central Zionist objective. At times, Israel succeeded in gaining a foothold in Iraq by forging secret yet strong relationships with leaders from the Kurdish movement. »[25]

It’s by no coincidence that we’re seeing the U.S. use the same modus operandi right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. Thanks to a well-established network of powerful Jewish Bush administration executives and the Israel lobby at large, the Zionist agenda has become America’s agenda, and the new preemptive war-for-Israel doctrine of post-9/11 USA has become official American policy.

The ziocons made their policy views clear well before 9/11 in the document called A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm [26], prepared back in 1996 for Israel’s psycho right wing Likud party, led by then prime minister Benjamin « Bibi » Netanyahu. It was authored by a group of rabidly zionist neoconservative Jews including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, on behalf of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), and proposed a hawkish plan based on military preemption, a more aggressive approach to the Palestinian ‘problem’, the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, and the eventual elimination of the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran – the kind of ideas that only sit well in the minds of madmen and belligerent Jewish supremacists. A Clean Break stated, in part:

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.

There was nothing new in the Clean Break paper, it was just good old fashioned zionism: territorial expansion by force in the name of a ‘Greater Israel’. Its authors, Richard Perle (Israeli dual national), Douglas Feith (also an Israeli dual national) and David Wurmser (another zionist Jew) would all go on to hold powerful positions in the Bush administration where they’ve worked tirelessly to realise the vision they outlined for Netanyahu in the Clean Break document [27] – Feith as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Wurmser as Middle East Adviser to Dick Cheney, and Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board.

Richard « The Prince of Darkness » Perle is a particularly nasty zionist. Aside from his treasonous role in the U.S. government, he’s a member of such pro-Israel think tanks as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) , the Center for Security Policy (CSP), the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP, which is basically an offshoot organisation of AIPAC), and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) [28]. He’s also a director of the Jerusalem Post, a personal friend of former Israeli prime minister and arch-zionist Ariel « The Butcher » Sharon, an ex-employee of Soltam, an Israeli weapons manufacturer [29], and a spy for Israel [30] [30b].

When prominent ziocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan founded the Project For A New American Century (PNAC) [31] in 1997, Perle and Feith were keen to come to the party along with a whole host of other ardent zionist neocons such as Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis « Scooter » Libby, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, Elliot Cohen, Norman Podhoretz et al [32], and the following year in 1998, the PNAC group sent Bill Clinton a letter [33] urging him to attack Iraq and oust Saddam from power, in keeping with the policy advice given to Israel by the same group years earlier in the Clean Break document. From the letter:

« Such uncertainty [about Iraqi WMDs] will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. » [34]

By « world », of course, they meant « Israel », since Saddam was never a threat to America, and PNAC knew it. In December of 1998, Clinton went ahead with PNAC’s advice and heavily bombed Iraq, citing the security of its neighbours as part of his reason for doing so:

« Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. » [35]

Clinton’s attack on Iraq left Saddam in power though, which wasn’t good enough for the PNAC ziocons. That was made Kristol clear with the September 2000 publication (just before Bush’s non-election) of their infamous 90 page long ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ (RAD) policy document [36.pdf], in which they advocated more of the same aggressive, warmongering strategy proposed earlier in the Clean Break paper. RAD was just a massively beefed up version of Israel’s Clean Break dressed up to look as though it had American interests at heart. Peter Shaenk put it this way in an article called Once a Company Man, Always a Company Man:

When PNAC was founded, a group of neo-cons wrote a spin-off paper elaborating on « Clean Break ». It was entitled « Rebuilding America’s Defenses » or RAD. The title implies that agents of Israel, (Perle and co.) got together and wrote a policy paper that was concerned only with America’s future security and establishment as the preeminent world power. A PAX Americana if you will. They even got Dick Cheney to participate to give it a more « American » look and less of an « Israeli » front group image. [37]

When Bush was not-elected in January 2001 [38], the ziocons’ time had come. No less than twelve of PNAC’s members scored prominent positions in his administration – Dick Cheney, Vice President; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Rabbi Dov Zakheim, Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon [39]; Richard Armitage, Deputy Sec. of State; Lewis « Scooter » Libby, Chief of Staff to Cheney; Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; Richard Perle, Member, Defense Policy Advisory Board; John Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Elliot Abrams, Special Asst. to the President; Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Zalmay Kahlilzad, Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Iraq; and James Woolsey, Member, Pentagon Defense Policy Board [40]. It was nothing short of an Israeli political takeover of the U.S. government. The pieces had been put in place to implement the ziocon vision outlined in A Clean Break and RAD, and now all that was needed was the false flag attacks of 9/11 [41] [42] [43]to kickstart and justify the neocon wet dream of endless Israeli proxy wars in the Middle East in the name of the oxymoronic « war on terror ». (…)

Préparation de l’échiquier du « choc des civilisations » : Diviser, conquérir et régner au Moyen-Orient

par Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-12-13

Le plan Yinon : l’ordre à partir du chaos…
Le plan Yinon, qui constitue un prolongement du stratagème britannique au Moyen-Orient, est un plan stratégique israélien visant à assurer la supériorité d’Israël dans la région. Il souligne qu’Israël doit reconfigurer son environnement géopolitique par la balkanisation des États arabes, soit la division de ceux-ci en États plus petits et plus faibles.
Les stratèges israéliens voyaient l’Irak comme l’État arabe représentant leur plus grande menace stratégique. C’est pourquoi l’Irak a été caractérisé comme la pièce maîtresse de la balkanisation du Moyen-Orient et du monde arabe. En Irak, sur la base des concepts du plan Yinon, les stratèges israéliens ont réclamé la division de l’Irak en un État kurde et deux États arabes, l’un shiite, l’autre sunnite. La première étape de ce plan était une guerre entre l’Irak et l’Iran, abordée dans le plan Yinon.
En 2006 et en 2008, les publications de l’armée étasunienne Armed Forces Journal et The Atlantic ont respectivement publié des cartes ayant circulé abondamment et lesquelles suivaient de près les grandes lignes du plan Yinon. Outre la division de l’Irak, également recommandée par le plan Biden, le plan Yinon appelle à la division du Liban, de l’Égypte et de la Syrie. La partition de l’Iran, de la Turquie, de la Somalie et du Pakistan fait également partie de cette vision. Le plan Yinon réclame par ailleurs la dissolution de l’Afrique du Nord et prévoit qu’elle débutera en Égypte et débordera au Soudan, en Libye et dans le reste de la région.
Protection du domaine : redéfinition du monde arabe…
Bien que tordu, le plan Yinon est en marche et voit le jour dans « A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm » (Une nette rupture : Une nouvelle stratégie pour protéger le domaine), un document de politique israélienne écrit en 1996 par Richard Perle et le groupe d’étude sur « Une nouvelle stratégie israélienne vers l’an 2000 » pour Benjamin Netanyahou, le premier ministre d’Israël à l’époque. Perle était alors un ancien secrétaire adjoint au Pentagone pour Ronald Reagan et est devenu par la suite conseiller militaire pour George W. Bush et la Maison-Blanche. Le groupe d’étude comprenait par ailleurs James Colbert (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), Charles Fairbanks Jr. (Johns Hopkins University), Douglas Feith (Feith and Zell Associates), Robert Loewenberg (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), Jonathan Torop (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), David Wurmser (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies) et Meyrav Wurmser (Johns Hopkins University).
Les États-Unis réalisent à bien des égards les objectifs précisés dans le texte de politique israélienne de 1996 visant à protéger le « royaume ». Par ailleurs, le terme realm, « domaine » ou « royaume », sous-entend la mentalité stratégique des auteurs. Realm fait soit référence au territoire sur lequel règne un monarque ou aux territoires soumis à son règne mais gérés et contrôlés par des vassaux. Dans ce contexte, le terme realm, est utilisé pour signifier que le Moyen-Orient constitue le royaume de Tel-Aviv. Le fait que Perle, un homme ayant essentiellement fait carrière comme officiel du Pentagone, ait contribué à écrire le document sur Israël soulève la question de savoir si le souverain conceptualisé du royaume représente Israël, les États-Unis, ou les deux.
Protéger le royaume : L’avant-projet israélien pour déstabiliser Damas
Le document de 1996 demande de « repousser la Syrie », aux environs de l’an 2000 ou après, en poussant les Syriens hors du Liban et en déstabilisant la République arabe syrienne avec l’aide de la Jordanie et de la Turquie. Ces événements se sont respectivement produits en 2005 et en 2011. Le document indique : « Israël peut modeler son environnement stratégique en coopération avec la Turquie et la Jordanie, en affaiblissant, en endiguant et même en repoussant la Syrie. Afin de contrecarrer les ambitions régionales de la Syrie, les efforts pourraient viser à expulser Saddam Hussein du pouvoir, un objectif stratégique en soi important pour Israël [1].
Comme première étape de la création d’un « nouveau Moyen-Orient » dominé par Israël et encerclant la Syrie, le texte demande de chasser Saddam Hussein du pouvoir à Bagdad et fait même allusion à la balkanisation de l’Irak et à la formation d’une alliance stratégique régionale contre Damas qui comporterait un « Irak central » sunnite. Les auteurs écrivent : « Toutefois la Syrie entre dans ce conflit avec de potentielles faiblesses : Damas est trop préoccupé par la nouvelle donne régionale pour permettre toute distractions sur le front libanais. De plus Damas craint l’ »axe naturel » avec Israël d’un côté, l’Irak central et la Turquie de l’autre, et la Jordanie, au centre, qui exercerait une pression sur la Syrie et la détacherait de la péninsule saoudienne. Pour la Syrie, ce pourrait être le prélude à la reconfiguration de la carte du Moyen-Orient, ce qui menacerait l’intégrité territoriale du pays [2] ».

Perle et le groupe d’étude « Nouvelle stratégie israélienne vers l’an 2000 » recommande également de mener les Syriens hors du Liban et de déstabiliser la Syrie en utilisant des personnalités de l’opposition libanaise. Le document dit : « [Israël doit détourner] l’attention de la Syrie en utilisant des éléments de l’opposition libanaise pour déstabiliser le contrôle exercé par la Syrie au Liban [3]. »C’est ce qui arriverait en 2005 après l’assassinat d’Hariri ayant contribué à déclencher la soi-disant « révolution des cèdres » et à créer l’Alliance du 14 mars, un groupe farouchement anti-Syrien contrôlé par le corrompu Saïd Hariri.

Le document demande par ailleurs à Tel-Aviv de « saisir l’opportunité afin de rappeler au monde la nature du régime syrien [4] ». Cela convient parfaitement à la stratégie israélienne consistant à diaboliser ses opposants par des campagnes de relations publiques. En 2009 des médias israéliens ont ouvertement admis que, par le biais de ses ambassades et missions diplomatiques, Tel-Aviv avait lancé une campagne médiatique mondiale et organisé des manifestations devant les ambassades iraniennes pour discréditer les élections présidentielles en Iran avant même qu’elles n’aient lieu [5].
L’étude fait aussi mention de ce qui ressemble à la situation actuelle en Syrie : « Il va de soi, et c’est le plus important, qu’Israël a intérêt à appuyer diplomatiquement, militairement et opérationnellement les actions de la Turquie et de la Jordanie contre la Syrie, comme en protégeant des alliances avec des tribus arabes à travers le territoire syrien et hostiles à l’élite dirigeante syrienne [6]. Les bouleversements de 2011 en Syrie, le mouvement des insurgés et la contrebande d’armes par les frontières jordanienne et turque sont devenus des problèmes majeurs pour Damas.

Dans ce contexte, il n’est pas surprenant qu’Israël, alors dirigé par Ariel Sharon, ait dit à Washington d’attaquer la Syrie, la Libye et l’Iran après l’invasion étasunienne de l’Irak [7]. Finalement, il importe de savoir que le document de 1996 préconise également une guerre préemptive pour modeler l’environnement géostratégique d’Israël et sculpter le « nouveau Moyen-Orient » [8]. Il s’agit d’une politique que les États-Unis adopteraient aussi en 2001.(…)
The ‘Land of Israel’ Myth This rather more realistic map of the southern Levant, c.830 BC, shows the multitude of small states that actually ruled the area.
The Philistine and Phoenician city-states, the kingdoms of Aram-Damascus, Ammon, Moab and Edom all existed during the time of David and Solomon, and for a long time after, but an Israeli propaganda map always has to show the wishful thinking of an aggressive state that then, as now, invaded all its neighbours.



The Neocons… They’re Back



Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the former director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, calls these neocons the new crazies. But are they?

Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, John Bolton, Michael Ledeen

AMEU – Each of the above played a prominent role in the buildup to the U.S. war in Iraq, as detailed in our Sept.-Oct. 2004 Link “Timeline for War.” Eight years later, Americans are again being told that another Middle East country is threatening us — and Israel.
Those who pushed for regime change in Iraq are now pushing for regime change in Iran by all necessary means, including force. They are commonly re- ferred to as neoconservatives, or neocons, and while our cover title proclaims they’re back, truth is, they never went away.

The Neocons Today

Between June 5 – 6, 2007, an international gathering called the Democracy & Security Conference took place in Prague, the Czech Republic.
Sponsored, in part, by the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies in Jerusalem, its List of Participants included Sheldon Adelson, the casino and hotel magnate, worth an estimated $21.5 billion, who, with his wife Miriam, recently gave $22 million to Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign, a campaign in which the former speaker referred to Palestinians as “an invented people.”
Other participants included: Natan Sharansky, a member of the Likud party who, in 2006, formed the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies and who, in 2009, became chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel, the organization in charge of immigration and absorption of Jews worldwide into the Jewish state; Richard Perle, former chair of the Bush administration’s Defense Policy Board during the invasion of Iraq in 2003; Jose Maria Aznar, former prime minister of Spain, who actively encouraged and supported the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq; and U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman, also an outspoken supporter of the Iraq invasion.
There, too, was Reza Pahlavi, identified on the List of Participants as “Opposition Leader to Clerical Regime of Iran.” He is Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, son of the deposed Iranian dictator Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi and heir to the Peacock throne, who now lives in Maryland, from where he calls for regime change in Iran. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the major pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., and the conservative Washington D.C. think tank, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), have both come out for regime change in Iran, and AIPAC has indicated its support for the return of Reza Pahlavi to the throne.
Once again the drums of war are beating to topple yet another Middle East leader. In our Sept.-Oct. 2004 Link “Timeline for War,” we traced the buildup to President Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. Now, in this issue, we go back to look at the protagonists of that war—often referred to as neoconservatives or neocons—and we ask what are they up to now?

Richard N. Perle

Our 2004 Link traced Richard Perle’s pivotal role among the neocons in launching President Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Dubbed “The Prince of Darkness,” he was chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board (DPB), which provided the rationale for war and coordinated public opinion both inside and outside the administration.
In 2006, Perle traveled to Libya twice to meet with Col. Qadhafi. He went as a paid senior adviser to the Monitor Group, a Boston-based consulting firm, whose project was to enhance the profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi. Other prominent figures the Monitor recruited to travel to Libya were Princeton Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis and Nicholas Negroponte, the brother of John Negroponte, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and first ever director of national intelligence. The Monitor group charged the government of Libya $250,000 per month ($3-million per year), plus expenses that were not to exceed $2.5 million.
Also in 2006, Perle received a phone call from an Iranian prisoner, a 30-year-old “student” by the name of Amir-Abbas Fakhravar. From his cell in the notorious Evin prison in Iran, Fakhravar had been phoning the pro-monarchist satellite station in Los Angeles. How he came by a phone in prison is unknown. Equally astonishing is his explanation that the prison authorities, after torturing him, let him out of prison to take a university exam, expecting him to return voluntarily. Instead, he went on the lam for 10 months before showing up in Dubai, where Perle was there waiting for him.
From Dubai, Perle arranged Fakhravar’s entry into the United States, and commenced his public relations tour with a private lunch at the American Enterprise Institute, where the “opposition leader” met State Department and Pentagon officials, as well as the neoconservative hawk, Michael Ledeen.
The celebrated dissident was interviewed by Perle in a 2007 documentary, “The Case for War: In Defense of Freedom,” part of a PBS series “America at the Crossroads.” In it, Fakhravar called upon Americans to send the Marines into his country to stop the Hitler-like dictators from making nuclear bombs.
In a Jan. 20, 2007 interview with Ynet, Fakhravar predicted that, if the West did launch a military attack on Iran, “the top brass will flee immediately … many of the mid-level officials will shave off their beards, don ties, and join the (civilians) in the street.”
And in meetings with members of the U.S.- Iranian community, Fakhravar said that he respected Reza Pahlavi and would support the people of Iran if they voted for a constitutional monarchy.
Likewise, in a visit to Israel, he assured his television audience that the Iranians loved Jews.
During this time, more than one commentator observed that Richard Perle, who was promoting Amir-Abbas Fakhravar, was the same Richard Perle who had boosted the cause of Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi exile who provided much of the misinformation that had led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
These days Perle criticizes the Obama administration for not supporting Iranian dissidents in exile and anti-government protesters on the inside. Why? Because it is in America’s interest to do so. And why is that? Because, as he explained in a Feb. 18, 2011, Newsmax interview, “The Iranians are killing Americans at every opportunity in the places we are now fighting. They support terrorism around the world, and they’re headed toward nuclear weapons.”
In a Dec. 15, 2011 interview with Kurt Nimmo of Infowars.com, he put it bluntly: “I do not think there is any question about it, I am willing to accuse Iran of building nuclear weapons.”
And what if we don’t act? The Prince of Dark ness offered his own Occam’s choice in a 2004 book, “An End to Evil”: “There is no middle way for Americans,” warned Perle, “it is either victory or holocaust.”

Paul D. Wolfowitz

Four days following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush gathered his national security team at Camp David for a war council. Years later, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would recall that the first person in the room to bring up going after Iraq was his deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz.
Wolfowitz’s determination to topple Saddam was reinforced by an unlikely foreign national by the name of Shaha Riza. Paul and Shaha had met in 1999 and had become romantically involved, even though each at the time was married. A British national and Muslim, with family roots in Libya, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia, Shaha held a degree in International Relations from Oxford University, with a focus on spreading democracy in Middle Eastern countries.
After the 2000 election, Wolfowitz was on the short-list to head the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.). That was until his wife of 30 years, Clare Wolfowitz, wrote a letter to president-elect George Bush telling him that her husband’s extra-marital affair with a foreigner posed a national security risk. A mutual friend of the Wolfowitzes, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, tried to dissuade Clare from sending the letter, but she sent it. And it worked. Wolfowitz’s name was removed from consideration. Again, Scooter Libby, at the time Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, intervened to have his boss recommend Wolfowitz for deputy secretary of defense under Donald Rumsfeld.
From this post Wolfowitz would emerge as the most hawkish of the administration’s Iraq policy advocates. Bringing democracy to Saddam’s dictator- ship was, he insisted, “doable;” the U.S. would be greeted as liberators; Iraqi oil would pay for the re- construction costs, and military estimates of needing several hundred thousand troops to do the job were “widely off the mark.”
By March 2005, the “doable war” in Iraq had resulted in the killing of over 1,000 U.S. soldiers and an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 Iraqi civilians. It was at this time that President Bush promoted his deputy secretary of state by nominating him to head the World Bank. On March 31, 2005 Paul Wolfowitz was unanimously approved as the Bank’s president. Two years later, he was forced to resign.
The issue, again, was Shaha Riza. She was already employed by the World Bank when Paul took over, which presented a problem since the Bank’s ethic rules precluded sexual relationships between a manager and a staff member, even if one reports to the other indirectly through a chain of supervision. So Riza was assigned a job at the State Department under Liz Cheney, the daughter of the vice- president, with the task of promoting democracy in the Middle East. To compensate her for any potential disruption in her career prospects, Wolfowitz directed the Bank’s human resources chief to increase her salary from $132,660 to $193,590 per year, tax- exempt.
When news of this broke in the Washington Post on March 28, 2007, it sparked calls for the resignation of the Bank’s president. An investigation was launched at the Bank and Wolfowitz handed in his resignation on April 28, 2007.
Today Paul Wolfowitz works for the American Enterprise Institute, known to Washington insiders as Neocon Central.
And he continues the drumbeat for war. In a June 19, 2009 op-ed piece in the Washington Post, the intellectual godfather of the Iraq war criticized Obama for not imposing democracy in Iran, warn- ing, “It would be a cruel irony if, in an effort to avoid imposing democracy, the United States were to tip the scale towards dictators who impose their will on people struggling for freedom.”
By this time 4,315 U.S. military had been killed in the Iraq war, along with some 1.3 million Iraqis.

Lewis “Scooter” Libby

He’s known as “Scooter “— once, when his father watched him crawling across his crib as a baby, he exclaimed, “he’s a scooter!” and the name stuck. True to his name, as Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, he paid multiple visits to the C.I.A. prior to the Iraq war in order to strong-arm its analysts into reporting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) as well as links to al-Qaeda. He also provided classified government information to The New York Times reporter Judith Miller that formed the basis of her front-page articles highlighting Iraq’s WMDs. And it was Libby who prodded then- Secretary of State Colin Powell to include in his Jan. 29, 2003 U.N. speech specious reports from a disreputable Iraqi source code-named Curveball about the existence of mobile biological weapons labs in Iraq.
As in the case of Paul Wolfowitz, however, what ultimately got Libby into trouble was a woman. Her name was Valarie Plame Wilson.
In February 2002, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador, was asked by the C.I.A. and other agencies to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. Wilson returned saying the claims were false.
In a July 6, 2003 op-ed for The New York Times, Wilson faulted President Bush for saying in his Jan. 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq sought to buy nuclear material in Niger. He went on to warn that, if his report had been ignored because it didn’t fit preconceptions about Iraq, “a legitimate case can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.”
Several days later, columnist Robert Novak re- vealed that Wilson’s wife, Valarie Plame, was an undercover C.I.A. operative specializing in weapons of mass destruction.
Joseph Wilson shot back that the outing of his wife was retaliation for his article and that revealing Valarie’s cover effectively ended her career, not to mention putting in jeopardy the lives of her covert contacts.
An investigation ensued to find out who leaked the name to Novak. The New York Times produced documents that showed that Scooter Libby may have first learned of Plame’s covert identity from Vice President Cheney. Libby denied under oath he had anything to do with it.
Ultimately, Libby was found guilty on four felony counts of making false statements to the F.B.I., lying to a grand jury and obstructing a probe into the leak. He was acquitted of one count of lying to the F.B.I. On June 8, 2007, he was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000. Soon after, he resigned his post as Cheney’s chief of staff.
On July 2, 2007, President Bush commuted his sentence but, despite strong urging from his vice president, he did not grant Scooter a presidential pardon before leaving office. On March 20, 2008, I. Lewis Libby was disbarred from the practice of law, at least until 2012.
Still he speaks out. In a Sept. 7, 2010 interview on Fox TV, he warned that he didn’t think sanctions would work, and that Iran would have the bomb within a year.

Douglas J. Feith

He graduated magna cum laude both from Harvard University and, in 1981, from Georgetown University Law Center. That year he joined President Reagan’s National Security Council (N.S.C.) as a Middle East analyst. A year later he was fired after becoming the focus of an F.B.I. inquiry into his giving classified N.S.C. information to an Israeli embassy official in Washington.
Soon after, Douglas Feith was rehired as special counsel to then-Assistant Secretary to the Secretary of Defense, Richard Perle.
In 2001, with help from Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, Feith joined the Bush administration as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, the third most senior official in the U. S. Department of Defense. Returning the favor, Feith then worked to have Perle chosen as chairman of the Defense Policy Board.
During this time, Feith created the Office of Strategic Influence, whose purpose was to influence policymakers by submitting biased news stories into the foreign media as a build-up to the Iraq war.
He also headed the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans, a unit he and Wolfowitz created that was closely tied to a parallel intelligence unit within the Israeli prime minister’s office. Its purpose was to provide key Bush administration people with raw intelligence on Saddam’s Iraq, much of it coming from Ahmad Chalabi, the opportunistic head of the exiled Iraqi National Council.
On Aug. 27, 2004, CBS News broke the story about an F.B.I. investigation of a possible spy for Israel who was working for the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith. The spy, later identified as Lawrence Franklin, was caught passing classified presidential directives and other sensitive documents to an AIPAC lobbyist who, in turn, passed them on to Israel. Franklin pled guilty to several charges of espionage, for which he received a sentence of just under 13 years in prison— later reduced to 10 months house arrest. Two AIPAC employees were also indicted, but their cases were dismissed.
In Jan. 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that his undersecretary would be “stepping down.” Later that year, Feith joined the faculty of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Services at Georgetown University as a Professor and Distinguished Practitioner in National Security Policy; the appointment created an uproar among the school’s faculty. Two years later, the school opted not to renew his contract.
In Feb. 2007, the Pentagon’s inspector general issued a report charging that Feith’s office “developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers.”
Currently, Douglas Feith is director of the Center for National Security Strategies and a Senior Fellow at the conservative think-tank, the Hudson Institute.
Dalck Feith, Douglas’s father, was a Holocaust survivor, and a member in Betar, the militaristic, pre-Likud Zionist youth movement in Poland founded by Ze’ev (Vladmir) Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky, whose assistant was Benjamin Netanyahu’s father, declared that every Jew had the right to enter Palestine, that a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan was the only guarantee of Jewish survival, that all Arabs hate Jews, and that active retaliation and overwhelming Jewish armed force were needed to ensure that the displaced population did not fight to retake their land, a reaction he considered quite natural.
Dalck’s son Douglas has hewed to the Likud worldview—both in calling for the overthrow of the Iraqi government, and now for regime change in Iran. In a Winter 2010 inFocus article entitled “Obama’s Failure to Lead,” he argued passionately that the time for talk was past: “There is no realistic prospect that Iran’s leaders can be negotiated out of their determination to obtain nuclear weapons.”
Condoleezza Rice, it is reported, made the com ment, following one of Douglas Feith’s presenta tions to the National Security Council, “Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we’ll invite the ambassador.”

David Wurmser

In fact, according to a June 2, 2007 New York Times article, Condoleezza Rice, at the time secretary of state, was pressured to play down the hawkish talk circulating in Washington of a military option against Tehran. Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had called those wanting to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities the “new crazies.” The Times article went on to note that such hawkish statements had been made by a former Pentagon official who was then principal deputy assistant for national security affairs to Vice President Dick Cheney.
His name was David Wurmser.
We first met David Wurmser in our “Timeline for War” Link, on July 9, 1996, when he and his wife Meyrav joined with Douglas Feith and Richard Perle to develop a foreign policy paper for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which called for Israel to overthrow Saddam Hussein and install a pro-Israel regime in his place.
Wurmser next showed up in our July 31, 1998 entry, when he met with Israel’s U.N. representative Dore Gold in an effort to get Israel to put pressure on the U.S. Congress to approve a $10 million grant to Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress, whose goal was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
In a Nov. 1, 2000 op-ed piece in the Washington Times, Wurmser, now at the American Enterprise Institute, called on the U.S. and Israel to broaden the conflict in the Middle East. The United States, he argued, needs “to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza—in order to reestablish the recognition that fighting with either the United States or Israel is suicidal.”
Shortly after that piece, Wurmser was named by the incoming Bush administration to the post of principal deputy assistant for national security affairs in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.
On Sept. 12, 2001, the day following the 9/11 attacks, Douglas Feith, now Rumsfeld’s undersecretary of defense for policy, tasked Wurmser to form a secret intelligence unit that would report directly to him; called the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, its purpose was to find loose ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in order to counter C.I.A. analysts who had found no credible links between the two.
In July 2007, with the war in Iraq well underway, Wurmser left his position with Dick Cheney to found Delphi Global Analysis, a risk-assessment consulting business, with offices in Washington and Israel. While its clients include hedge fund managers and investment bankers, the firm, we are told, also handles a few “sensitive” projects in Israel.
Delphi’s co-founder is David’s wife, Dr. Meyrav Wurmser. Born in Israel and a member of the Likud party, she wrote her doctoral thesis on Revisionist Zionism behind the Herut and Likud parties. She is co-founder of the Middle East Media Research Insti- tute (MEMRI), which critics have accused of disseminating the most extreme, often inaccurate, views from the Arabic and Persian media. In 2008, she was listed as a member of the board of advisors of the Endowment for Middle East Truth, a group that was involved in the distribution of 28 million DVDs of the film “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West,” a film in which parallels are drawn between Nazi Germany and a monolithic Islam. Twenty-eight million DVDs of the film were provided to at least 70 newspapers that placed them at the doorstep of subscribers in swing states prior to the 2008 presidential election.
Also listed on Delphi’s brochure as a Visiting Scholar is Lee Smith, senior editor at the Weekly Standard. In a Feb. 23, 2012 article in The Tablet, Smith quoted David Wurmser as saying that Israel’s war against Iran’s nuclear program was well under way, with lots of money over the past decade having been spent on all sorts of anti-Iranian options, such as computer worms like Stuxnet, covert operations like the assassination of nuclear scientists, sabotage of military installations, and, possibly, commando raids and air strikes.
Yet as prepared as Israel is, according to Wurmser, it is the United States that should use its military might to topple Tehran. Why? Because Iran is America’s enemy. And how does America go about doing this? Just before he left Vice President Cheney’s office, Wurmser wrote a paper advocating that the U.S. must go to war with Iran, not to set back its nuclear program, but to achieve regime change. To establish a casus belli, the U.S. would launch airstrikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps training camps in Iran in retaliation for their smuggling explosives into Iraq that kill and maim Americans fighting there. Iran then would retaliate, which would allow for a rapid escalation of U.S. military force. Cheney acted on Wurmser’s advice and tried to get Bush to provoke a war with Iran over Iraq. But Pentagon officials turned it down.
Now, the head of Delphi Global Analysis warns, it’s “crunch time” for Israel’s leaders. He notes a marked shift in Israel’s security establishment, the surest sign being President Shimon Peres’s warning that a nuclear Iran poses an existential threat to Israel and is “a real danger to humanity as a whole.” And he adds this about his personal friend, Prime Minister Netanyahu, “It’s not just about Bibi and his his- torical legacy anymore. He doesn’t need to be a leader in a Churchillian mode, because the consensus on attacking Iran is broad-based.”
In the presidential campaign of 2011-2012, candidate Newt Gingrich revealed the names of his foreign policy advisors. Among them was David Wurmser.

William Kristol

On June 18, 2007, the Holland America Line’s M.S. Oosterdam arrived in the port of Juneau. On board were three of the Weekly Standard’s top writers: Fred Barnes, the magazine’s executive editor, Michael Gerson, former speechwriter for President Bush, and the magazine’s founder William Kristol.
Upon disembarking, they went straight for lunch to the newly elected governor’s mansion, a white wooden Colonial house with six two-story columns. By the time they returned to the cruise ship, the conservative pundits had fallen in love with Sarah Palin.
And no one more than William Kristol. It did not go unnoticed that the Alaskan governor displayed the flag of Israel in her office, nor that she attended Protestant evangelical churches that believe the preservation of the state of Israel is a biblical imperative, nor that she understood Israel’s fear of an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons. Months before John McCain picked her for his running mate, Kristol predicted on Fox News Sunday that “McCain’s going to put Sarah Palin… on the ticket.” As one commentator put it: “Kristol was out there shaking the pom-poms… and things always work out so well when Kristol engages his pom-poms.”
Bill Kristol received his PhD from Harvard University. He is the son of Irving Kristol, long associated with the American Enterprise Institute and Commentary magazine, and considered by many the godfather of neoconservatism.
Kristol is one of three board members of Keep America Safe, a think tank co-founded by Liz Cheney, which includes former McCain campaign managers Michael Goldfarb and Aaron Harrison. Formed to counter what it considers Obama’s undercutting of America’s war on terror, it promotes the foreign policy objectives of the former vice president, including his support for enhanced interrogation techniques.
Kristol is also co-founder and board member of the Emergency Committee for Israel (E.C.I.). Launched in 2010 as the most pro-Israel of all pro-Israel groups, it was first located in the same office as the old Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, whose Washington, D.C., address happens to be that of Orion Strategies, a consultancy run by Randy Scheunemann—once Sarah Palin’s chief foreign policy advisor. Much of E.C.I.’s initial funding came from hedge fund managers, including $100,000 from Daniel Loeb and $50,000 from Jonathan Jacobson.
E.C.I.’s favorite tactic is publishing ads that attack politicians and political analysts who question America’s unconditional support for Israel. Its campaign to push the U.S. into war with Iran was highlighted in a recent 30-minute video that mocked President Obama’s “unshakeable” commitment to Israel’s security, particularly his record on Iran. Prior to the March 2012 meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama, E.C.I.’s Super PAC spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to intimidate critics of the Israeli prime minister and his call to attack Iran sooner rather than later. This included a full-page ad in The New York Times that went after two liberal advocacy groups, the Center for American Progress and Media Matters, denouncing their work as anti-Israel, even anti-Semitic, and disclosing the phone numbers of the groups’ donors.
A March 18, 2012 New York Times article cited critics who warned that hawkish voices like E.C.I.’s were indeed pushing the United States closer to military action against Iran and closer to yet another war in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, Bill Kristol, the pundit who, 11 years ago, said that President Bush had to attack Iraq because “Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight,” now tells Fox News Sunday, “It would be much better if we use force to delay the Iranian nuclear program than if Israel did.”

John R. Bolton

On May 1, 2005, the London Sunday Times published a leaked document in which the chief of Britain’s intelligence agency MI6, Richard Dearlove, advised Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush had decided on attacking Iraq, even though the case for WMDs was “thin.” This, according to the British intelligence head, was not a problem, because “intelligence and facts were being fixed [by the U.S.] around the policy.”
Who was cooking the books?
This was a question that the House Government Reform Committee Member Rep. Henry Waxman wanted answered. Following an investigation that included “sensitive and unclassified” papers provided by the State Department, Waxman fingered John Bolton.
Bolton, known as the neocons’ neocon, was at the time the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. According to Waxman, in December 2002, Bolton arranged for false information about Iraq’s procurement of yellowcake uranium from Niger to be put in a Fact Sheet that went out to the United Nations and the media, despite the fact that the information had been assessed to be false in C.I.A. intelligence evaluations. Bolton, under oath, denied he had anything to do with the Fact Sheet, to which Waxman replied: “When you’re in charge of arms control and the biggest issue is whether we were going to war against Iraq on the issue of nuclear weapons… don’t you think you have some responsibility to know what’s going on?”
In another case involving the undersecretary of state, the May 6, 2006 issue of the Jewish publication The Forward reported that Bolton had been reprimanded for having unauthorized contacts with officials of Israel’s intelligence service Mossad without seeking “country clearance” from the State Department. And in its May 9, 2005 edition, US News and World Report carried the story that Bolton allegedly used his position as the Bush administration’s top arms control official to shield Israel from charges of violating U.S. laws that prohibit the use of U.S. arms for “non-defensive” purposes. The case involved Israel’s July 23, 2000 use of a U.S.-made F-16 bomber to drop a one-ton bomb on a house in a densely populated area of Gaza, killing 14 civilians and injuring more than 100.
In 2005, Bolton was nominated by President Bush to the post of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations—the same institution he allegedly fed false information to. Due to a Democratic filibuster, however, Bush had to wait until congress adjourned before making a recess-appointment. Bolton resigned his U.N. post in December 2006, when the recess-appointment ran out and it was clear he would not receive Senate confirmation.
Before joining the Bush administration, Bolton was at the American Enterprise Institute, which is where he is today. He opines from time to time as a Fox News Channel commentator, and he is involved with other conservative think tanks such the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). In 2010, he contemplated running for president of the United States in 2012, but later thought better of the idea.
Meanwhile, the neocons’ neocon continues boldly on the warpath. In 2009, he suggested to a University of Chicago audience that Israel should consider a nuclear strike against Iran. And in a Feb. 22, 2012 Washington Times article, he promised that a world where Iran has nuclear weapons will be far more dangerous than a world after an Israeli military strike.

Michael A. Ledeen

If Bolton arranged for the false information to go into the Fact Sheet, who falsified the information?
Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism operations at the C.I.A., was asked in a 2005 interview if the man behind the forging of the Niger documents that President Bush used to launch a preemptive war against Iraq was Michael Ledeen, then assistant to Undersecretary of State Douglas Feith. Cannistraro replied: “You’d be very close.” Philip Giraldi, former C.I.A. counterterrorism officer, confirmed that Ledeen was the logical intermediary in coordinating the falsification of the documents. Ledeen has denied he had anything to do with it.
Michael Ledeen, a leading neo-conservative, left the American Enterprise Institute in 2008, where he had been for 20 years, to take a fellowship at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (F.D.D.). Other neocons affiliated with the F.D.D. include Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Newt Gingrich, and Douglas Feith’s father, Dalck who gave the F.D.D. $100,000. Additional donors to the F.D.D. are: Leonard Abramson, founder of U.S. Healthcare, whose family foundation gave over $800,000 between 2001-2004; the Seagram company heirs, Edgar and Charles Bronfman, who have given over $1 million; and Home Depot cofounder Bernard Marcus, who contributed $600,000 between 2001-2003. A 2003 investigative report in The American Conservative put F.D.D.’s annual budget at close to $3 million. In 2008, an F.D.D. spokesman, Brian Wise, confirmed that the foundation had received at least one grant from the U.S. State Department worth $487,000.
Ledeen believes that trying to negotiate with the Iranian regime is nothing short of appeasement. The U.S., he advocates, should work closely with the “Iranian people” to bring about regime change by arming opposition forces inside the country, by acts of sabotage, by targeted assassinations, by sanctions, by rallying the Iranian community in exile. The most promising ally in this last effort, according to Ledeen, is the former shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi.
The crown prince, in turn, has sought closer ties with the neocons, particularly with Ledeen. He addressed the board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which Ledeen co-founded and whose members at one time or another included Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, and Douglas Feith. The prince had also met privately with top Israeli officials, including Benjamin Netanyahu. Indeed, his links to Israel go back to the early 1980s, when he had approached Ariel Sharon with a plan to overthrow the mullahs in Iran.
On May 19, 2003, at a press conference attended by Ledeen, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback announced that he would introduce a bill, the Iran Democracy Act, seeking $50 million dollars to promote democracy in Iran and to fund Iranian opposition groups. Supporters of the Iran Democracy Act included the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Commenting on this support, former AIPAC director, Morris Amitay, noted that it was natural for Jewish groups to openly back regime change in Iran.
The introduction of such a bill was significant because it would extend financial support to Iranian opposition groups, much as the congress did in the case of Ahmed Chalabi’s National Iraqi Congress. Washington, in effect, would be taking a decisive step towards making regime change in Iran official U.S. policy.
Prior to congressional action, Reza Pahlavi spoke at a private briefing on Capitol Hill organized by the Iranian Jewish Public Affairs Committee (IJPAC). In it he urged Hill staffers to support the idea of funding the Iranian opposition. Later, the president of IJPAC in Los Angeles, Pooya Dayanim, observed in the The Forward: “There is a pact emerging between hawks in the administration, Jewish groups and Iranian supporters of Reza Pahlavi to push for regime change.” Jews, he added, were “in love with Pahlavi” because they saw his father’s reign as a golden era for Jews.
In the end, the bill did not pass. Enough senators apparently were able to recall America’s disastrous role in bankrolling Ahmed Chalabi. The bill did pass, however, as a non-binding Sense of the Senate Resolution, denouncing Iran’s lack of democracy. As such it achieved its main goal of hindering the State Department from exploring further dialogue with Tehran.
Most recently, Michael Ledeen was heard commenting on a March 12, 2012 60 Minutes interview with Israel’s ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan, in which the former spymaster urged that Iran’s dissidents be better supplied militarily, its nuclear labs sabotaged and more of its scientists targeted for assassination. Ledeen praised the interview. No one, however, noted the inconvenient fact that it was Dagan’s organization, the Mossad, that had built the shah’s hated SAVAK police apparatus—that led to the anti-shah revolution.

Security Democracy

Those two words—the words chosen for the title of that 2007 conference in Prague—are key to understanding how the Jewish state is portrayed today.
Most Americans know Israel as “the only democracy in the Middle East.” And, because it is surrounded by undemocratic, despotic regimes, its security necessitates having military hegemony in the area, which includes its own arsenal of over 200 nuclear bombs, as well as the full force of the U.S. military. Americans get it when Prime Minister Netanyahu comes before them and says that he, as the leader of a sovereign state, has the duty to make sure that Iran does not get the bomb that would threaten to wipe out his small democracy.
Zionists, particularly pro-Likud Zionists, see it differently.
Israel is not a democracy. No one put this more bluntly than Ariel Sharon. Quoted in an article entitled “Democracy and the Jewish State,” in Yedioth Ahronoth, May 28, 1993, the former prime minister noted that it is no accident that the words “democracy” or “democratic” are absent from Israel’s Declaration of Independence. What did the framers of Israel’s constitution have in mind? Sharon answers: “The intention of Zionism was not to bring democracy, needless to say. It was solely motivated by the creation in Eretz-Israel of a Jewish state belonging to all the Jewish people and to the Jewish people alone. That is why any Jew of the Diaspora has the right to immigrate to Israel and to become a citizen of Israel.” Eretz-Israel, by the way, here refers to the biblical land area roughly corresponding to what is known today as Palestine, Canaan, the Promised Land and the Holy Land; it includes all of the West Bank.
Israeli anthropologist Jeff Halper pointed out in our April-May 2012 Link that Israel began exercising its exclusive claim over Eretz-Israel in 1948 when, after seizing half of the partition area allocated to the Arabs, it reduced the Palestinian population living within its expanded borders from 950,000 to 154,000—a drop of 80%. Then, following the occupation of 1967, it established “facts on the ground” to foreclose any coherent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state. In fact, Israel denies even having an occupation, since it believes all Palestinian lands are part of its biblical inheritance. Those Palestinians who were living on Eretz-Israel in 1948 were caretakers, waiting for the owners to return. And those currently living in Israel or on the West Bank are there at the sufferance of the Jewish people.
So what causes the hostility of Arabs toward Israel? Again, the clearest answer comes from the Zionist militant Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the leader for whom Benjamin Netanyahu’s father worked. Jabotinsky saw the Zionist movement as a colonial project, no different from European colonialism. In his 1923 es-say “The Iron Wall,” he argued that attempts at dialogue with the Arabs are fantasy, as no nation—and he recognized the Palestinian people as such—would agree to a foreign entity being established on its lands. His conclusion: Jews must be so dominant militarily as to make it impossible for any of its neighbors to impede its colonial ambitions. Part of this strategy is keeping those neighboring regimes weak. Iraq is a case in point.
Iran is another. In April 1951, the shah of Iran, then the constitutional monarch, appointed Mohammad Mosaddegh prime minister. He turned out to be an exceptionally popular social reformer, introducing unemployment compensation, health-care benefits, land reform laws, and public works projects. He also strengthened democratic political institutions by limiting the monarchy’s powers, cutting the shah’s personal budget, and transferring royal lands back to the state.
He also called for the nationalization of Iran’s oil industry. On May 1, 1951, Mosaddegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), later known as British Petroleum or BP, which was the pillar of Britain’s economy and its influence in the Middle East. In response, the British government announced a blockade of all Iranian oil, reducing Tehran’s income to near zero.
The prime minister also severed all relations with Israel. The shah had welcomed the Jewish state as a “little America” in the heart of the Middle East, and he pursued a policy of friendship in order to keep in good with the Zionist lobby in the U.S., which he saw as wielding great influence in the congress and in the media. Mosaddegh, on the other hand, saw Israel as the tool of Anglo-American hegemony in the Middle East. His popularity rose.
In August 1953, the shah, who opposed many of his prime minister’s reforms, including his nationalization of AIOC, dismissed him. Mosaddeqh refused to go, his followers rioted, and the shah fled to Rome.
Winston Churchill called his war-time friend, now U.S. president, Dwight Eisenhower and suggested that Mosaddegh, despite his disgust with socialism and all his democratic reforms, was, or would become, dependent on the Soviet Union. Eisenhower agreed that the Iranian prime minister should go. Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior C.I.A. officer, the C.I.A. and British intelligence funded and led a covert operation to depose Mosaddegh with the help of military forces loyal to the shah.
The plot, called “Operation Ajax,” hinged on orders signed by the shah to dismiss the prime minister and replace him with Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans. Mosaddegh was deposed and on August 22, 1953, the shah returned in triumph. A few weeks later, the U.S. government granted Iran a $45-million emergency loan. Two months after that, Iran resumed diplomatic relations with Great Britain. On August 5, 1954, a new compact was made with the AIOC, and the oil company was compensated for its seized property. The following year the Iranian government and American oil interests in Iran concluded an agreement for an unprecedented 25-75 percent division of profits in favor of Iran.
With the monarchy restored, relations with Israel strengthened. In July 1960, Iran recognized the Jewish state. Israelis, in turn, used their influence in Washington to convince congress to continue the sale of American military equipment to Tehran, while, at the same time, the shah, using his vast oil revenues, purchased up to $500,000,000 worth of arms and police equipment from Israel in an arrangement called “Project Flowers.”
And the shah was buying something else. In 1957, he enlisted Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, the Mossad, and the C.I.A., to create SAVAK, the dreaded secret police force, whose personnel was trained by Mossad to suppress all opposition to the shah, with no limits on the use of torture tools to break dissenters. Over the years SAVAK killed and tortured thousands of Iranians.
It took some 27 years before an exiled cleric, who had been smuggling anti-shah, anti-U.S., anti-Zionist audiocassette sermons into Iran—the precursor of today’s social media uprisings—returned in triumph to establish an Islamic republic.
In March 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright expressed her regret that Mosaddegh had been ousted, admitting that “the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America.”
Following the shah into exile was his son Reza Pahlavi, born October 31, 1960, who, upon his father’s death in 1980, became heir apparent to the Peacock throne. This is the man, now 51 years old, who participated in the pro-Likud sponsored conference in Prague. Beginning in 2003, the heir began ad- dressing the Iranian community via the internet and satellite television, earning him the sobriquet “The Internet Prince.”
The activism of the exiled, pro-Israel shah-in-waiting did not go unnoticed by the neoconservatives.

Back to the Future

In our Link “Timeline” article, it was on Oct. 1, 2002 that the C.I.A. delivered to the White House its National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.) on the case for war with Iraq. This was a classified report reflecting the consensus of analysts from 16 agencies, and we now know that in it the C.I.A. hedged its judgments about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, admitting it wasn’t sure he had them.
Three days later, C.I.A. director George Tenet issued an unclassified white paper, with 79 of the original 93 pages whitened out. This report concluded that Baghdad in fact had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking to reconstitute its nuclear program.
Over the next two weeks, a joint resolution authorizing the use of force was passed by both houses of congress.
We now come to the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran released in 2010. In it the analysts found credible evidence that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 at the direction of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who issued a fatwa—recently reaffirmed—against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. According to a March 18, 2012 front-page article in The New York Times, “American intelligence analysts still believe that the Iranians have not gotten the go-ahead from Ayatollah Khamenei to revive the program.”
Israeli intelligence experts also warn against attacking Iran. In April of this year, Yuval Diskin, recently retired chief of Shin Bet, Israel’s FBI, accused the Netanyahu government of “misleading the public” about the likely effectiveness of an aerial strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Such a strike, warned Diskin, would dramatically accelerate Iran’s nuclear program.
Even the present head of the Israel Defense
Forces, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, concluded in an April 25, 2012, interview with Haaretz that he did not think Iran’s top leadership would risk building a nuclear weapon.
Not to be deterred, Netanyahu sounds the alarms of war at every opportunity. At an AIPAC gathering on March 12, 2012, the Israeli prime minister warned that “time was running out to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and diplomacy wasn’t working.” And his recently formed unity government with Shaul Mofaz, the Iranian-born head of Kadima, the nation’s largest opposition party, has heightened fears of an Israeli attack on Iran. On May 11, 2012, Israel’s TV Channel 10 reported that authorities in Washington, D.C., were worried that the Netanyahu/Mofaz alliance brought together two influential party leaders who would both favor an attack on Iran.
Meanwhile, the neocons here at home issue their own dire warnings.
John Bolton has dismissed the N.I.E. assessment as “famously distorted.” In a March 28, 2012 posting on GerardDirect.com, he wrote that diplomacy and sanctions were not working and that the only real alternative left to a nuclear Iran was “a pre-emptive military force.”
And Douglas Feith, writing in the February 12, 2012 National Review Online, concluded: “There is no realistic prospect that Iran’s leaders can be negotiated out of the determination to obtain nuclear weapons.”
William Kristol continues to chide President Obama for putting off action against Iran. In an Oct. 24, 2011 issue of the Weekly Standard, he declared: “It’s long since time for the United States to speak to this [Iranian] regime in the language it understands, force… We can strike at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and weaken them. And we can hit the regime’s nuclear weapons program, and set it back. And lest the administration hesitate to act out of fear of lack of support at home, congress should consider authorizing the use of force against Iranian entities that facilitate attacks on our troops… and against the regime’s nuclear weapons program.”
Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the former director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, calls these neocons the new crazies. But are they? They are well educated, most with post-graduate degrees, many from ivy-league colleges. They are passionately dedicated to advancing the best interests of Israel; Sheldon Adelson, one of the few neocons to have served in the U.S. military, regrets that the uniform he wore was not an Israeli uniform. They have vast sums of money to spend on think-tanks, media outlets—and politicians.
And, despite their championing of a calamitous war in Iraq, and notwithstanding the most recent N.I.E. report, and even assessments from Israeli intelligence agencies, they believe they can convince Americans, and certainly most members of congress, that the United States should send its young men and women yet again into another Middle East war.
Truth is, they are not the crazies.
Source: Americans for Middle East Understanding

The Source of America’s Wars – Kristol Clear




Israel’s Grand Design: Leaders Crave Area from Egypt to Iraq

by John Mitchell Henshaw
Nearly 34 years ago, an America-firster used The American Mercury magazine to warn of the danger posed by Zionism and its rule of Washington and the Mideast. John Henshaw wrote this article shortly after Israel laid claim to the annexed land  during 1967 Arab-Israeli war. This article first appeared in the spring of 1968.
The metamorphosis of tiny Israel from a midget to a giant is in the making. The grand design of Judaic-Zionist expansionist doctrine is to seize all the oil-rich lands from the shores of the Euphrates to the banks of the Nile.
In defining the aims of Zionism, Hebrew scholar Levnoch Osman recently said: « In our eternal Book of Books (the Torah), the lofty ethical teachings of which are cherished by all mankind, the land of Israel is described not as a long, narrow strip of land with wavy, crooked borders, but as a state with broad natural borders. God has promised to Patriarch Abraham the following:


« I give unto them the land where they have sown their seed, from the river of Egypt unto the great river of Euphrates’ (Genesis 15:18). And so, in order to realize the words of this prophecy, the Israeli state had to continue, not in the borders it has today but within its broad historical boundaries. »
And as far back as 1952 Moshe Dayan, the present Israeli defense minister, declared:


« Our task consists of preparing the Israeli army for the new war approaching in order to achieve our ultimate goal, the creation of an Israeli empire. »
The British historian Arnold J. Toynbee, who served as an adviser on Near Eastern affairs to the British delegation at the Versailles Conference, in a newspaper article published in June last year stated the Zionist aims in these words:
We are Jews, the living representatives of Judah, one of the 12 tribes of Israel that conquered most of Palestine in the 13th century B.C. We held Judah’s share of the conquered territory for seven centuries, till we were deported by Nebuchadnezzer in 587 B.C. We were back again within less than half a century, and we then held Judea, once more, for the next 773 years, till we were evicted by the Romans in A.D. 135. We have never renounced our claim to the land of Israel. We have always hoped, believed, and proclaimed that we shall get this land back again. It is our land, we contend.
After another 1,883 years we did recover a foothold there in 1918, and during the half-century since then, by devoted hard work, ability and military valor, we have built up our present national State of Israel, and have inflicted three smashing defeats on the Arabs, who have been trying to evict us again.
We want to have a country of our own again, like other peoples and like our own ancestors. We also need to have a country of our own, because, since the conversion of the Roman empire to Christianity in the fourth century A.D., we have been penalized and persecuted by the Western Christian majority among whom we have had to live.
The persecution has culminated in the unprecedented crime of genocide, which has been committed against us in our lifetime by a Western people, the Germans, in Europe. We are not going to let the Arabs commit the same crime of genocide against us here, in our own land of Israel.
Genocide in Six-day War


Apologist Toynbee omitted mentioning the fact that the Jews themselves are currently engaged in genocide. During the Sis-Day War last summer, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan ordered Brig. Gen. Yesha’ahu Gavish, the Israeli commander of the Sinai campaign, to ruthlessly drive the hapless Egyptian troops into the Sinai Desert to die of thirst, hunger and heat. Temperature on the arid Sinai rise to more than 100 degrees during the day. For over two weeks thousand of wretched Egyptian stragglers wandered over the swirling wastes finally drop dead in their tracks.
U.S. reconnaissance planes flying on the perimeter of the Sinai Desert took hundreds of pictures of the stragglers and reported there were 50,000 Egyptians dead or dying on the desert at the time. The U.S. Air Force loaded 60,000 gallons of water in five-gallon jerry-cans on pallets and prepared to drop them in the area where stragglers were observed. However, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara ordered the projected mission of mercy halted after he received phone calls from White House foreign policy-planner Walt Rostow and UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg.
This flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war amounted to genocide, designed to destroy a whole nation.
Newspaper reporters visiting the war zones in Syria and Jordan, reported that if one sniper in a village fired on Israeli troops, the whole village was destroyed including the women and children. Napalm is frequently used.
This systematic extermination is an ideological doctrine of Zionism. The leading exponent of genocide is the chauvinist Moshe Dayan, whom the Zionists have proclaimed a Biblical « messiah » on a white horse. Arrogant, boastful Gen. Yitzhak Rabin, chief of the Israeli General Staff, who plotted and executed the Six-Day blitzkrieg last June, is in direct charge of the projected expansionist program from the Euphrates to the Nile.
The scope of this ambitious scheme of territorial seizures and exploitation has been recognized by at least a few of our American military strategists for years. This writer recalls that a dozen years ago an Army lieutenant colonel, who was a student at the War College, confined that some of his instructors believed the Zionist expansionist policy would provide the spark to ignite World War III.
(Incidentally, the then lieutenant colonel is now one of the top commanding generals in Vietnam.)
By guile, treachery and bloodletting, the Zionists plot to annex all of Jordan, virtually all of Syria, half of Iraq and a large part of Saudi Arabia and all of the rich cotton lands of the Nile Valley. It would be a simpler matter then to grab Yemen, Aden, Muscat, Qatar and Oman with their rich oil development. Israel is already well advanced in the development of its first nuclear warhead.
According to the Zionists’ schedule of operations, within a decade the Israeli empire be the master of the Middle East and take its place as a nuclear superpower on equal footing with the Soviet Union and the United States. David Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company will pay its royalties to the Israeli military usurpers instead of the Arab sheiks.
Fabulous Oil Reserves
The stakes are high in this traditionally British-protected region. The Persian Gulf and adjacent countries hold 70 percent of the non-communist world’s oil reserves and produce half of its oil output. British with-drawl from Aden creates a power vacuum that will inevitably be filled by Israel and the Soviet Union.
The British have expressed the pious hope that their withdrawal would galvanize the Arab rulers into dropping their feuds and really unite in a mutual defense pact. However, the spreading oil boom is intensifying the territorial ambitions of rival kingdoms, sultanates and sheikdoms. Iran is selling oil to Israel, another aggravating factor in Mideast tensions.
Like the tentacles of an octopus the Israeli armed forces struck out in all directions into Jordan, Syria and Egypt in Israel’s Six-Day aggression. Last June. Even when encountering no resistance, the Israeli armored forces abruptly halted at predetermined strategic terrain points; they had accomplished their mission in the first phase of the Zionist Grand Design of imperialistic conquest. It was time to stop and consolidate their gains rather than risk spreading their forces too thin.
Israeli leader Menachem Begin says:

« The return of even one bit of earth to the Arab would be a betrayal of the nation. »


The grandiose idea of an Israeli empire controlling the Middle East is now for the first time arousing great popular enthusiasm among Jews everywhere in the world.
Officially Israel is continuing the pretense of keeping the door open to negotiations that might result in return of the conquered territory, in exchange for Arab recognition of Israel and peace treaty.
Jordan’s King Hussein has reportedly already made a secret and desperate offer to Israel: In exchange for the return of the West Bank of the Jordan River, Hussein agreed to demilitarize it, negotiate border adjustments and even waive his insistence upon regaining the Old City of Jerusalem. Israel rejected the offer. Israeli Minister of Labor Yigal Allon bluntly stated:

« The natural border of the country is the Jordan River – a border that would be established only if Israel kept the West Bank areas it took from Jordan. »


Gen. Aluf Ezer Weizmann, second highest-ranking officer in the Israeli army, is even more adamant: « We shall stay where we are and bring in Jews. We now have the unusual opportunity to consolidate the state for the Jewish people and help prevent future wars. »
« If there is a fourth war, » Defense Minister Moshe Dayan gloats, « we are in a position to win more decisively than ever. »
And he warned that in the « fourth war » the great cities of Cairo, Damascus and Amman will be annihilated. This is in conformity with the genocidal plan.


Israel's Grand Design - Zionists' Dream of Greater Israel
Zionist have their eyes set on all of the land between the Nile and the Euphrates. The plan for a « Greater Israel » is as old as Zionism itself.











Israelis bitterly complain that along with the occupied territory that is three times the size of Israel, they have inherited its population of 1,330,000 Arabs. (…)

Netanyahu: No ‘Lebanon’ will be on the map
At a news conference in Switzerland, on the occasion of the building an Israeli railway there, the German newspaper Die Zeit interviewed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
“Congratulations Mr. Netanyahu, my first question is that does the beginning of the large train line’s construction confirm the announcement of the dissident Syrian Intelligence Office that you will strike Lebanon?”
In reply, Netanyahu stated:
“Yes, and it is not a secret that it will happen with U.S.-Gulf support and that is why they have been warned, but before you ask, you have a look at the new map of the world and see that there is no nation with this name.”
Given that the UN Security Council has listed 388 Israeli airspace violations by Israel against Lebanon, there is no doubt what Israel is planning regarding Lebanon.


Dear Mr. President: Letters from Israel partisans that took America to war

By Maidhc Ó Cathail
The Passionate Attachment
March 14, 2012

According to its June 3, 1997 Statement of Principles, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was created to advance a “Reaganite foreign policy of military strength and moral clarity,” a policy PNAC co-founders, William Kristol and Robert Kagan, had advocated the previous year in Foreign Affairs to counter what they construed as the American public’s short-sighted indifference to foreign “commitments.” Calling for a significant increase in “defense spending,” PNAC exhorted the United States “to meet threats before they become dire.”
The Wolfowitz Doctrine
The idea of preemptive war also known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine—subsequently dubbed the “Bush Doctrine” by PNAC signatory Charles Krauthammer—can be traced as far back as Paul Wolfowitz’s Ph.D. dissertation, “Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East,” which was based on “a raft of top-secret documents” his influential mentor, Cold War nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter, somehow “got his hands on” during a post-Six Day War trip to Israel. The “top-secret” Israeli documents supposedly showed that Egypt was planning to divert a Johnson administration proposal for regional civilian nuclear energy into a weapons program. Among those who signed PNAC’s Statement of Principles were Wohlstetter protégés Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Wolfowitz, who despite having been investigated for passing a classified document to an Israeli government official through an AIPAC intermediary in 1978 would be appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration, where he would be the first to suggest attacking Iraq four days after 9/11; Wolfowitz protégé I. Lewis Libby, who later “hand-picked” Vice President Dick Cheney’s staff mainly from pro-Israel think tanks; Elliott Abrams, who would go on to serve as Bush’s senior director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs, his mother-in-law, Midge Decter, and her husband, Norman Podhoretz; and Eliot A. Cohen, who would later smear Walt and Mearsheimer’s research on the Israel lobby’s role in skewing U.S. foreign policy as “anti-Semitic.”
On January 26, 1998, PNAC wrote the first of its many open letters to U.S. presidents and Congressional leaders, in which they enjoined President Clinton that “removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power […] now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.” Failure to eliminate “the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use” its non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the letter cautioned, would put at risk “the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil.” An additional signatory this time was another Wohlstetter protégé, Richard Perle, a widely suspected Israeli agent of influence whose hawkish foreign policy views were shaped when Hollywood High School classmate and girlfriend, Joan Wohlstetter, invited him for a swim in her family’s swimming pool and her father handed Perle his 1958 RAND paper, “The Delicate Balance of Terror,” thought to be an inspiration for Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove.
Having helped sow the seeds of the Iraq War five years before Operation Iraqi Freedom, PNAC wrote a second letter to Clinton later that year. Joining with the International Crisis Group, and the short-lived Balkan Action Council and Coalition for International Justice, they took out an advertisement in the New York Times headlined “Mr. President, Milosevic is the Problem.” Expressing “deep concern for the plight of the ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo,” the letter declared that “[t]here can be no peace and stability in the Balkans so long as Slobodan Milosevic remains in power.” It urged the United States to lead an international effort which should demand a unilateral ceasefire by Serbian forces, put massive pressure on Milosevic to agree on “a new political status for Kosovo,” increase funding for Serbia’s “democratic opposition,” tighten economic sanctions in order to hasten regime change, cease diplomatic efforts to reach a compromise, and support the Hague tribunal’s investigation of Milosevic as a war criminal. Now that “the world’s newest state” (prior to Israel’s successful division of Sudan) is run by a “mafia-like” organization involved in trafficking weapons, drugs and human organs, there appears to be much less concern for the plight of the ethnic Serbian population of Kosovo.

Continue reading…


Making Sense of a Rightwing Israeli Institute’s Ambivalent View of Arab Democracy

By Maidhc Ó Cathail
The Passionate Attachment
June 19, 2012

In the Autumn 2006 issue of its journal, Azure, the Jerusalem-based Shalem Center published an essay by Israeli academic Uriya Shavit entitled “The Road to Democracy in the Arab World.” Sketching the outlines of a new “American” doctrine for democracy promotion in the Middle East, Shavit wrote:

By far the most crucial adjustment the new doctrine must make, however, is the unequivocal public acknowledgment of the possibility that free elections may bring to power forces antagonistic to the West. Without such an acknowledgment, the Arab world will never take the American democratization initiative at face value. Referring to the war in Iraq, many Arab intellectuals have expressed the concern that if the United States has to choose between a tyranny led by a pro-Western leader or an Islamic democracy, it will choose the former. This view is based, for example, on events in Algeria in the early 1990s: The Algerian government cancelled the parliamentary elections in which a victory by the militant Islamic Salvation Front was imminent, with tacit American approval.

Were most Arab countries to hold free elections, Islamist parties would consistently win the majority of votes. This is the expected outcome in both Egypt and Jordan, should free elections be held, and in Syria the Muslim Brotherhood would almost certainly become the largest party, even if it did not win an absolute majority. (emphasis added)

By Autumn 2011, with a number of Arab countries apparently on the road to the Islamist democracy he had predicted, Shavit appears to have changed his views somewhat. In another essay in Azure entitled “Islamotopia: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Idea of Democracy,” he argues that “liberty can’t withstand the political rule of the Koran.” Shavit’s advice for the West:

At the very least, however, it must make plain what it holds to be the essence of democracy, why the political ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood are incompatible with it, and, thus, why it cannot offer economic or diplomatic support to Arab states that follow the path of political Islam. (emphasis added)


Was this the outcome Natan Sharansky, then director of the Shalem Center’s Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies and current head of the Jewish Agency, hoped for when he organized a “Democracy and Security” conference in Prague? One year after the publication of Shavit’s doctrine for democracy promotion in the Middle East, Sharansky brought together

right wing Israelis; their American neoconservative sympathizers, with their favourite Middle Eastern dissidents in tow—most notably, Richard Perle’s Israel-admiring Syrian protégé Farid Ghadry; and the newly-installed Eastern European democrats swept to power in the wake of a wave of neocon-backed “color revolutions,” the latter group presumably serving to inspire the Arab and Iranian participants to emulate them.

Among the participants was Peter Ackerman, then chairman of Freedom House, who would go on to play a key role in preparing the ground for the Arab uprisings of 2011. As the New York Times reported on February 16 last year:

When the nonpartisan International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, which trains democracy activists, slipped into Cairo several years ago to conduct a workshop, among the papers it distributed was Mr. [Gene] Sharp’s “198 Methods of Nonviolent Action,” a list of tactics that range from hunger strikes to “protest disrobing” to “disclosing identities of secret agents.”

Dalia Ziada, an Egyptian blogger and activist who attended the workshop and later organized similar sessions on her own, said trainees were active in both the Tunisia and Egypt revolts. She said that some activists translated excerpts of Mr. Sharp’s work into Arabic, and that his message of “attacking weaknesses of dictators” stuck with them.

Peter Ackerman, a onetime student of Mr. Sharp who founded the nonviolence center and ran the Cairo workshop, cites his former mentor as proof that “ideas have power.”

No doubt his fellow revolutionaries at the Shalem Center would agree.


Israel’s Sinai catastrophe Three decades after signing Egypt treaty, Israel finds itself without Sinai, and without peace
(Nous savons bien qu’ils veulent le reprendre ce Sinai, ça fait partie de leur Grand Israel).


TUT Pod-Broadcast June 20, 2967

Former Mossad chief ‘predicts’ that the Arab spring will not hit Jordan? HOW THE FREAK DOES HE KNOW, unless of course if the ‘Arab Spring’ is a manufactured phenomenon, which it is.

Also–Israel moving tanks into the Sinai in violation of the ’79 peace treaty–a prelude to a repeat of the Six Day War in 1967

Download Here


A Clean Break

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for a clean break.
Here’s a nice little quote from a recent article based on the work of the most excellent Grant Smith of IRmep.
Red highlights are mine:
Material obtained under FOIA by IRmep reveals that during the same time period Jonathan Pollard was active; American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) officials obtained and used stolen classified US confidential business information passed by an Israeli diplomat. Although industry groups such as the US Bromine Alliance filed formal complaints and the FBI investigated, no action was ever taken. Israeli spy-master Rafael Eitan—mentioned in the DIA video— earlier infiltrated the NUMEC facility in Apollo, Pennsylvania at the invitation of its owner Zalman Shapiro. Although FBI investigators obtained eyewitness affidavits of the mass diversion of weapons-grade uranium from the site, presumably into the Israeli nuclear weapons program, a 1978 GAO report concluded no bona fide effort was ever made to properly prosecute Israel’s US based operatives. Victims of NUMEC toxic pollution are currently filing hundreds of millions in health claims as the US Army Corps of Engineers struggles to manage a toxic cleanup that could cost taxpayers up to half a billion dollars.
Israeli espionage against the United States is long-standing, wide-spread, deeply penetrated into both the public and private sector and inimical to the interests of the citizens of the United States. This espionage activity is often discovered and then covered up.  That espionage includes Israel’s getting its hands on nuclear weapons materials to include, but not limited to, uranium – weapons-grade uranium.
Add to that the Lavon Affair and the attack on the USS Liberty and you have not only espionage and theft of nuclear technology but actual military and terrorist attacks.
If Mike Piper is right, you can add to that Israeli participation in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
And lately a very steady and fact-based researcher and writer has been expressing views on at least a couple of interviews he has done recently that Israeli might have had just a bit more than just some foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.  If this person is starting to go in that direction, well, I just find that quite interesting.
Now let’s also add to this witch’s brew the fact of the Israeli lobby’s virtual death grip on both houses of Congress and both parties and its deep infiltration of the executive branch at the very highest levels.
Fortunately, the major media outlets, Hollywood and the US financial sector are controlled by Salafists. Imagine if the same elements who have done and continue to do all of the things mentioned above – imagine if they exercised overwhelming control of our media, entertainment and financial industries. We’d really be fucked the, wouldn’t we?
Now as many of you are aware, IRmep has just obtained a Defense Intelligence Agency video about the threat Jonathan Pollard represented to the interests of the United States. That video is on youtube and on the IRmep site and you ought to give it a listen.  However, it is 15 minutes long, so I don’t expect most of you to watch it.
But here is that video for you if you want to take the time.
Here is another quote from a recent Smith article that in my view shows you exactly how pernicious Israeli infiltration into the Obama administration is.  Red highlighting is mine.
Less widely known is that Israeli front company Telogy was caught in the summer of 2010 illegally shipping nuclear weapons components out of California to Israel.  When such crimes occurred in the past — such as in the case of MILCO smuggling nuclear triggers out of California to Israel — the US at least criminally investigated Israel’s US operatives even while carefully steering around the true masterminds such as Arnon Milchan and high Israeli intelligence officials.  In the case of Telogy, the Obama administration simply leaked tidbits of the export violations to friendly press, helpfully allowing Telogy to quickly roll up its illegal US operations. 
I find it more than a little interesting that the article that the above quote is taken from is entitled “Why Obama Will Free Jonathan Pollard.”
It’s all about Pollard.
Last November I linked to the Amazon page of this book.
Capturing Jonathan Pollard: How One of the Most Notorious Spies in American History Was Brought to Justice
Here, Keith Johnson, working for AFP, interviews the author of that book, Ronald J. Olive, who describes Pollard as having stolen more secrets than any spy in US history. It’s a good short read and ends with a powerful quote by Mr. Oliver who was a key player in the investigation into Pollard’s crimes. Speaking about the many Republican and Democratic members of the House and Senate who support Pollard, he says:
“They don’t know what the true story is,” said Olive. “I wrote my book to tell the story from the inside. It tells them everything they need to know. It’s the true story—not just what Jonathan Pollard is saying now. It’s who he really is, what he really did and the devastation that he caused.”
Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for a clean break.


The Madness of Western Civilization
In the immediate hours and days after the September 11 attacks, propagandist chiefs Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, all appeared on television to put out their twisted narrative that Islamic extremists were responsible for the tragedy, without providing any evidence for their assertions.

JINSA Proposes Iraq War on 9/13/2001
JINSA DEFECTIONS: After canning a longtime staffer, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs lost several of its most prominent advisory board members, including former CIA chief James Woolsey and former Pentagon official Richard Perle.

The High Priests of War: The Secret History of How America’s Neo-Conservative Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire, par Michael Collins Piper

À lire:

La soif de sang frénétique de John McCain: après la mort de Kadhafi, les « dictateurs » comme Assad, Poutine, les Chinois doivent avoir peur…

« De la dictature à la démocratie

L’American Jewish Committee derrière les mensonges humanitaires qui ont rendu possible la guerre en Libye

L’American Jewish Committee derrière l’ « intervention humanitaire » en Libye

L’actuel président du National Endowment for Democracy, le marionnettiste du « printemps arabe », serait un ancien de l’ADL

Philip Zelikow (signataire du PNAC): La Libye est un modèle pour la redivision du Moyen-Orient

>Après la Libye, la Syrie?

Révolutions arabes? ou balkanisation-remodelage du « Grand Moyen-Orient »?

McCain et Lieberman: « bombardez la Libye! »

Louis Farrakhan: la nation libyenne massacrée par les démocraties, les plus grands hypocrites que la Terre ait porté…

Le messager BHL informe Netanyahou que les rebelles libyens vont reconnaître Israël ; Netanyahou remercie Sarkozy d’être intervenu en Lybie

Pourim 2011 et l’attaque atlanto-sioniste contre la Libye

L’inventeur du concept d’ « Axe du Mal » veut y inclure le Pakistan

« Révolutions arabes »ou déstabilisations-remodelage (sionistes) du Moyen-Orient?

Le mouvement juif Néo-conservateur et la guerre en Irak

Les fauteurs de guerres

James Petras lève le voile sur les agents sionistes responsables de la guerre en Irak et du scandale d’espionnage à l’AIPAC

Ron Paul explique le non-interventionnisme dans les affaires étrangères

Non-ingérence / non-interventionnisme

Philip Zelikow (signataire du PNAC): La Libye est un modèle pour la redivision du Moyen-Orient

Un officiel égyptien accuse Israël d’avoir fomenté le chaos en Égypte

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

Rick Santorum, le nouveau candidat sioniste le plus en vue aux États-Unis, représente un grave danger pour la liberté d’expression

The Piper Report Jan 4, 2012

Rick Santorum as–SURPRISE SURPRISE–a paid and willing agent of Jewish interests out to destroy American freedoms.
Download Here

Santorum: ‘There Is No Palestine’

Submitted by Douglas Bloomfield on Mon, 01/02/2012 – 07:29
GOP Presidential contender Rick Santorum, who appears likely to come from far behind to finish in the top 3 in Tuesday’s Iowa Caucuses, is trying to out-do his former Congressional colleague Newt Gingrich when it comes to insulting Palestinians.
Gingrich called the Palestinians an « invented » people who didn’t exist until sometime in the 20th century. Santorum criticized Gingrich’s widely-reported remarks as “provocative,” but his own more extreme views got little attention at the time because he was considered a hopeless back-of-the-pack candidate and not being taken very seriously.
But now that he is rising rapidly in the polls, his comments deserve a second look.
As far as Santorum is concerned, Palestinians don’t exist.
“There are no Palestinians,” he told a questioner at a campaign event in Iowa. You can see the video here.
« All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land, » the former Pennsylvania senator said.
« The West Bank is part of Israel, » which won it as « part of an aggressive attack by Jordan and others » in 1967. Israel doesn’t have to give it back any more than the United States has to give New Mexico and Texas to Mexico, which were gotten « through a war, » he said.

Santorum wants to impose ‘Judeo-Christian Sharia’

Rick Santorum’s Islamophobia Problem

Santorum: ‘There Is No Palestine’

VIDEO – Rick Santorum Owned on Palestine

Bachmann ends her campaign, Perry stays in

Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry had been courting support from evangelical Christians. Bachmann’s announcement that she is dropping out of the race could help boost Santorum, who finished second in Iowa, just eight votes away from front-runner Mitt Romney.

Santorum warns of “Eurabia,” issues call to “evangelize and eradicate” Muslims

Professional Islamophobes such as Pamela Geller, Wafa Sultan, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Walid Phares and the rest have the ear of American and Western politicians. The story below concerning the lunatic Santorum is perfect proof of this. ‘Eurabia’ is a DISTINCTLY ISRAELI idea introduced and promoted by a professional Israeli Islamophobe Bat Ye’or who works closely with Israeli intelligence in providing additional fuel for this bonfire that benefits ONLY ONE entity–THE JEWISH STATE.

It is for this reason that we at TUT urge all people of reason and fairness to make a special point of exposing these agents of destruction for what they are–enemies not only of Muslims but of the entire planet.


For the past two weeks, the entire mainstream American media homed in on newsletters published by Republican Rep. Ron Paul, an anti-imperialist, conservative libertarian who finished third in last night’s Iowa caucuses. Mostly ghostwritten by libertarian activist Llewelyn “Lew” Rockwell and a committee of far-right cranks, the newsletters contained indisputably racist diatribes, including ominous warnings about the “coming race war.” At no point did Paul denounce the authors of the extreme manifestoes nor did he take responsibility for the content.

The disturbing content of Paul’s newsletters was a worthy campaign outrage, and one he should have been called to account for, but why did it gain mainstream traction when the reactionary views of the other candidates stayed under the radar? One reason is that Paul threatened the Republican establishment by attacking America’s neo-imperial foreign policy and demanding an end to the US-Israel special relationship.

Those who pushed the newsletters story the hardest were neoconservatives terrified by the prospect of Paul edging into the mainstream with his call for a total cut-off of US aid to Israel. In fact, the history of the newsletters was introduced to the American public back in early 2008 by Jamie Kirchick, a card-carrying neocon who has said that Muslims “act like savages” and once wrote that I possessed “a visceral hatred of my Jewish heritage.” Having declared former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as their favorite wooden marionette, the neocons had a clear ideological interest in resuscitating the newsletters story once Paul emerged this year as a presidential frontrunner.

Though Romney won Iowa, he succeeded by a mere 8 votes over former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. The mainstream press is now fixated on Santorum, praising him for his “authenticity” and predicting he will continue to win over “gritty Catholics,” as MSNBC host Chris Matthews said today. But now that Santorum is in the limelight, he is also going to be thoroughly vetted. So the question is whether the media will devote anywhere near the same level of attention it gave to Ron Paul’s newsletters as it will to Santorum’s record of hysterically Islamophobic statements and anti-Muslim activism. So far, I have seen nothing to suggest that it will.

In 2007, a few months after Santorum was ousted from the Senate in a landslide defeat, he accepted an invitation from right-wing provocateur David Horowitz to speak at “Islamo-Fascism Campus Awareness Week.” As I documented in my video report on Horowitz’s appearance at Columbia University that year, “Islamo-Fascism” week was a naked ploy to generate publicity for the frenetically self-promoting Horowitz while demonizing Muslim-Americans as a dangerous fifth column who required constant government monitoring and possibly worse. The event was so extreme that even Jewish groups like Hillel known for promoting Zionism on campus rejected it.

There is no video documentation or transcript of Santorum’s speech at Horowitz’s “Islamo-Fascism Awareness” event. However, I was able to find a transcript of a speech Santorum delivered at Horowitz’s invitation in March 2007. During his address, the ex-Senator declared the need to “define the enemy,” but he made little effort to distinguish between the general population of Muslims and violent Islamic extremists. If anything, he seemed to conflate the two.

Here are a few of the remarkable statements Santorum made at Horowitz’s event:

“What must we do to win? We must educate, engage, evangelize and eradicate.”

“Look at Europe. Europe is on the way to losing. The most popular male name in Belgium — Mohammad. It’s the fifth most popular name in France among boys. They are losing because they are not having children, they have no faith, they have nothing to counteract it. They are balkanizing Islam, but that’s exactly what they want. And they’re creating an opportunity for the creation of Eurabia, or Euristan in the future…Europe will not be in this battle with us. Because there will be no Europe left to fight.”

We should “talk about how Islam treats homosexuals. Talk about how they treat anybody who is found to be a homosexual, and the answer to that is, they kill them.”

“…the Shia brand of Islamist extremists [is] even more dangerous than the Sunni [version]. Why? Because the ultimate goal of the Shia brand of Islamic Islam is to bring back the Mahdi. And do you know when the Mahdi returns? At the Apocalypse at the end of the world. You see, they are not interested in conquering the world; they are interested in destroying the world.”

“The other thing we need to do is eradicate, and that’s the final thing. As I said, this is going to be a long war.”

The Islamophobic rant Santorum delivered at an event organized by a known bigot was no less extreme than anything contained in Ron Paul’s newsletters. But don’t wait for the American mainstream press to discuss Santorum’s disturbing views on Muslims as anything other than proof of his “authenticity.”

Résultats du Caucus de l’Iowa, pour les Nuls

1. Va-t-en-guerre Pro-Israël
2. Va-t-en-guerre pro-Israël
3. Ron Paul
4. Va-t-en-guerre pro-Israël
5. Va-t-en-guerre pro-Israël
6. Va-t-en-guerre pro-Israël
7. Va-t-en-guerre pro-Israël


Mercredi 4 janvier 2012

L’Iowa a donné le coup d’envoi de la primaire républicaine hier soir, 3 janvier 2012. Un processus qui s’étalera jusqu’à la Convention républicaine qui aura lieu à Tampa, en Floride du 27 au 30 août et pendant laquelle sera désigné le candidat qui affrontera Barack Obama à l’élection présidentielle.

Avec 15 % des intentions de vote dans l’Iowa, le catholique Rick Santorum, fils d’un immigré italien, est apparu brusquement samedi 31 décembre comme la nouvelle surprise de la primaire républicaine pour l’élection présidentielle américaine de 2012.

Dans de récents sondages Rick Santorum s’approchait du mormon Mitt Romney et devançait les autres candidats cherchant à rassembler l’électorat chrétien fondamentaliste protestant, Michele Bachmann, évangélique luthérienne, et Rick Perry, gouverneur du Texas, anciens favoris des sondages, dont les campagnes se sont effondrées ces derniers mois. Les chrétiens conservateurs des multiples églises protestantes américaines (luthérienne, méthodiste, baptiste et mennonite), ainsi que les catholiques, comme M. Santorum, représentaient une des clés du scrutin dans l’Iowa. En rassemblant cet électorat sous son nom, M. Santorum espèrait s’imposer comme un concurrent viable à l’échelle nationale.
Pari réussi puisque Rick Santorum qui selon un sondage publié samedi 31 décembre par le Des Moines Register, se plaçait en troisième position derrière M. Romney (24 %) et Ron Paul (22 %), enregistrant « la plus forte hausse d’intentions de vote », est arrivé en deuxième position aux primaires républicaines d’hier soir à seulement huit voix de Mitt Romney.
La victoire du favori Mitt Romney , pro-IVG (depuis 2005), lui confère une position confortable pour le prochain scrutin, le 10 janvier dans le New Hampshire. Le vainqueur et son dauphin ont chacun réuni 25 % des suffrages. Ron Paul, libertarien isolationniste violemment opposé à toute emprise de l’État fédéral sur la société et l’économie, qui remonte aux origines de la Constitution américaine, termine à la troisième place, avec 21 % des voix. Newt Gingrich, ancien président de la chambre des représentants, a attiré 13 % des bulletins, devant le Texan Rick Perry (10 %) et Michele Bachmann (5 %).
Le 7 février 2088, devant la Conservative Political Action Conference, Mitt Romney avait déclaré craindre un destin européen pour l’Amérique : « L’Europe affronte un désastre démographique qui est le produit d’une foi affaiblie dans le Créateur, de familles en faillite, d’une absence de respect pour la sainteté de la vie et d’une morale érodée (…). Si nous ne changeons pas de politique, nous deviendrons la France du XXIe siècle. Encore un grand pays, mais pas le leader mondial, la superpuissance » (« Mitt Romney laisse la voie libre à John McCain chez les républicains », Le Monde, 8 février 2008.)

Sans moyens, longtemps resté cantonné dans la queue de «la classe» des candidats en lice, Santorum a gagné sa place dans ce doublé de tête en sillonnant l’Iowa à l’ancienne, se rendant patiemment et systématiquement dans ses 99 comtés pour y défendre sa vision d’une Amérique renouant avec ses valeurs traditionnelles chrétiennes.
L’effondrement progressif des autres candidats chrétiens conservateurs a fini par jeter sous les feux de la rampe ce père de sept enfants, passionné, plutôt bon orateur, qui parle «de reconstruire l’Amérique du bas vers le haut». Santorum affiche des positions très va-t-en-guerre sur l’Iran, pour éliminer son potentiel nucléaire. Il nie le réchauffement climatique et défend la pratique du waterboarding, la torture de la baignoire, utilisée par la CIA à Guantanamo.
Si Rick Santorum est connu pour être un fervent opposant à l’avortement (même en cas de viol), à la contraception et au « mariage » homosexuel, il s’est récemment distingué en déclarant être prêt à frapper les installations nucléaires iraniennes s’il était élu président. Sa haine de l’Iran s’inscrit dans une ligne sioniste pro-israélienne parfaitement néo-mondialiste compatible.
Un blog en langue anglaise nous donne un indice, et indique qu’il y a six ans, malgré que Rick Santorum soit contre l’avortement, il a soutenu un sénateur juif, franc-maçon 33e degré, pro-avortement, Arlen Specter, contre Pat Toomey, candidat anti-avortement (!) : ce soutien est « inexplicable ». Specter est connu pour son hostilité à toute tentative de revenir sur la décision judiciaire Roe vs. Wade ayant abouti à la légalisation de l’avortement. Pat Toomey aurait participé à des évènements dans des localités maçonniques.

53 ans, ancien jeune loup du camp républicain, trois fois élu à la Chambre des représentants puis au Sénat, Rick Santorum a disparu de la scène nationale depuis la perte de son mandat de sénateur de Pennsylvanie, en 2006. Il a survécu politiquement comme éditorialiste sur la chaîne ultra-conservatrice Fox News.

Les Américains redécouvrent aujourd’hui ce père de famille, au look rétro dans ses inamovibles pulls sans manche. Ils s’amusent de le voir représenté sur Google (en deuxième et troisième résultat de recherche pour le mot-clé « Santorum ») par une blague de mauvais goût, par laquelle des activistes avaient cherché à le ridiculiser en 2003, après qu’il eût comparé l’homosexualité à la polygamie et à l’inceste.

Si la rapidité du retour en gloire de M. Santorum fait ainsi apparaître quelques vieilles casseroles, elle l’a également protégé, en Iowa, des attaques de ses adversaires. Rick Santorum a été épargné par le flot de spots publicitaires hostiles, financés par les supporteurs « indépendants » des candidats, qui déferle actuellement sur les chaînes locales de l’Iowa, et dont son rival Newt Gingrich a fait les frais.

«Les conservateurs sont à la recherche d’un candidat anti-Romney, ils ne veulent pas répéter l’expérience de 2008 quand ils avaient dû se ranger derrière le modéré John McCain. Ils sont persuadés que c’est ce qui les a fait perdre face à Obama, explique le politologue Dennis Goldford. Avec Santorum, ils ont peut-être trouvé leur homme.»

L’une des questions est de savoir si les autres prétendants conservateurs, comme Newt Gingrich (13%), Rick Perry (10%) ou Michelle Bachmann (5%), accepteront de jeter l’éponge pour se rallier rapidement à Santorum.

La quasi-égalité de Santorum avec Romney est-elle un simple feu de paille, comme cela avait été le cas pour l’ancien gouverneur social conservateur de l’Arkansas Mike Huckabee, sorti vainqueur dans l’Iowa en 2008, mais très vite marginalisé par la suite? C’est ce que va plaider le candidat Mitt Romney pour en tirer un maximum de profit pour les primaires à venir, et notamment celle toute proche du New Hampshire, le 9 janvier.

- http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2012/01/02/rick-santorum-nouvelle-surprise-des-primaires-republicaines_1624715_829254.html#ens_id=1550858
- http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/live/2012/01/04/elections-americaines-le-caucus-de-l-iowa_1625332_829254.html
- http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2012/01/04/01003-20120104ARTFIG00253-rick-santorum-cree-la-surprise-au-caucus-de-l-iowa.php
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

The Real Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum for president buttons

While senator, he had plan to end free speech on college campuses

By Michael Collins Piper

In 2003, then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) cut a back-room deal with high-powered lobbyists to introduce legislation to limit freedom of speech on American college campuses.

Proposing to rewrite the federal funding formula under Title IX of the Higher Education Act to include what was called “ideological diversity” as a prerequisite, Santorum’s intent was to cut federal funding for American universities that allowed professors, students and student organizations to criticize Israel in class or in other open campus forums.

A major recipient of campaign money from pro-Israel sources, Santorum said criticizing Israel was “anti-Semitism.”

Initial details surrounding the senator’s Orwellian proposal came in an article of April 15, 2003 in a fanatically pro-Israel conservative daily, The New York Sun.

The website of the pro-Israel student group, Hillel, also favorably reported the origins of Santorum’s plan.

Hillel said Santorum invited Jewish organizations to a private meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss concerns about criticism of Israel on college campuses. Joining Hillel were the Anti-Defamation League, the Zionist Organization of America and the American Jewish Committee.

The Sun summarized Santorum’s conclave with the influential lobby groups: “By the end of the meeting yesterday, Mr. Santorum was talking about introducing legislation that could cut federal funding to colleges where anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiments are prevalent—or . . . where ‘ideological diversity’ is lacking.”

Hillel’s Wayne Firestone said: “Everywhere I go, this is the lead topic. This is drawing a lot of interest.” However, the truth is that—outside the Jewish community—few knew of Santorum’s initiative, until AMERICAN FREE PRESS reported the story, which concerned academics circulated widely on the Internet.

Forced into a defensive mode, the Jewish lobby claimed AFP’s story was a lie—a “rumor . . . sweeping Arab and left-wing media,” as New York’s Jewish Week reported on May 9, 2003.

In a story titled “Diversity Disinformation,” Jewish Week asserted that “to pro-Israel leaders and leading members of the Senate, it’s a dangerous urban legend at best, deliberate disinformation at worst,” adding falsely that “the story originated with . . . conspiracy theorists and Holocaust revisionists.” This was a lie to save Santorum from public opprobrium for his scheme to gut the First Amendment.

Today Santorum seems to be getting his reward. Pro-Israel billionaire Rupert Murdoch, head of the influential Fox News empire, has endorsed Santorum’s presidential ambitions.

Santorum Linked to Unsavory Warmongers

By Michael Collins Piper

The behind-the-scenes connections of the new conservative icon in the 2012 Republican presidential primary campaign—former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.)—explain why Santorum is such a fanatical warmonger and promoter of the interests of Israel. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson summarized it well, writing on Jan. 7: With the exception of Ron Paul, the Republican candidates have competed to see who can be most hawkish on Iran’s nuclear program. Santorum wins, hands down. He has said flatly that, unless Iran agrees to open its nuclear facilities to inspection and begins to dismantle them, as president he would order military strikes. In fact, Iran is already under nuclear inspection, but Santorum seems not to care. He has said he believes an attack by Israel or the United States is probably inevitable.
Santorum—who gave a speech inWashington in 2007, in which he openly spoke of the need to “eradicate”Muslims in a “long war”—has also claimed there is no such people as “Palestinians,” echoing an outrageous lie more prominently told by his GOP challenger Newt Gingrich.
Not surprisingly, over the past several years, Santorum’s principal political activity has been acting as the official in-house “Muslim basher” and advocate for Israel at the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, further pandering to those elements that provided hima great deal of funding through pro-Israeli political action committees during the 12 years he served in the Senate.
Although both Mitt Romney and Gingrich have surrounded themselves with—and have been funded by—hard-line supporters of Israel, Santorum has some very unsavory connections in that same realm.
One of Santorum’s longtime political intimates is Barbara Ledeen, who is associated with a propaganda organization known as the Israel Project. And it is no coincidence that Mrs. Ledeen’s husband, Michael Ledeen, is one of themost notorious longtime operatives engaged in high-level intrigues in Washington and around the globe on behalf of that foreign nation.
Remembered for his role in the infamous Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan years—an arms-smuggling venture inwhich Israel played a central role—Ledeen popped up once again during the George W. Bush administration where he was, according to former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, one of the key figures promoting the propaganda myth that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had obtained nuclear material (known as “yellowcake”) from Niger.
Ledeen has also been linked to the shadowy Rome-based Propaganda Due organization, a high-powered Masonic lodge long active in subversive activities throughout Italy and Europe during the 1970s and 1980s.
Most indicative of Ledeen’s tendencies is his role as one of the founders of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, aWashington-based operation whose associates have been repeatedly linked—in the course of multiple FBI investigations—to corruption and espionage on behalf of Israel. Such figures include neo-con lobbyist for Israeli arms dealers, Richard Perle, and his protégé, the late Stephen J. Bryen, and former Defense Department officials Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.
During that period when there was a fierce debate within the Israeli lobby as to whether the United States should first target Iraq or Iran, Ledeen was a leader of the “Iran first” faction. And while today Ledeen ostensibly warns of the dangers of engaging Iran militarily, he does say that it ultimately may become necessary.
Like Santorum’s urging that the United States “eradicate” the Muslims, Ledeen has called for “creative destruction” of the Arab world. Such violence, he claims, is “entirely in keeping with . . . American tradition.”
AFP first pointed out in 2003—and reiterated in its Jan. 16 issue—that Santorumis such a hard-core devotee of the Israeli lobby agenda that he actually conspiredwith the lobby to introduce legislation to curtail criticism of Israel on American college campuses by cutting federal funds to universities found to be permitting professors and students to openly criticize Israel. AFP’s expose of Santorum was pivotal in killing that plan—for now.
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397.

The Plot Against
Free Speech

By Michael Collins Piper

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) is an appealing candidate to many conservatives, but he has does have a dark side. Although he fervently declared in 2006 that “the American people have always rallied to the cause of freedom,” just a few years earlier Santorum planned a war against a traditional American liberty — freedom of speech.
In 2003, Santorum planned to introduce “ideological diversity” legislation that would cut federal funding for American universities found to be permitting professors, students and student organizations to openly criticize Israel. Santorum considered criticism of Israel to be “anti-Semitism.”
Santorum wanted to rewrite the federal funding formula under Title IX of the Higher Education Act to include “ideological diversity” as a prerequisite for federal funding. Joining Santorum was another pro-Israel ideologue, then-Sen. Sam Brownback (RKan.), who had his own scheme to institute a federal commission — critics called it a “tribunal” — to be established under Title IX to “investigate” anti-Semitism on American campuses.
Although the average student or academic had not heard of the scheme, Wayne Firestone, director of the Center for Israel Affairs for the Hillel Foundation, said that “Everywhere I go, this is the lead topic. This is drawing a lot of interest.”
It was Hillel — a national network of pro-Israel student- manned “campus police” — that first leaked word of Santorum’s scheme. Further details appeared onApril 15, 2003 in The New York Sun, a pro-Israel daily published by a clique of billionaire financiers.
Hillel told supporters that Santorum and several GOP senators — including Brownback (now governor of Kansas) — had invited representatives of a number of Jewish organizations to attend a private meeting on Capitol Hill to discuss concerns about growing criticism of Israel on campuses.
At the meeting were the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, the Zionist Organization of America, the American Jewish Committee and Hillel.
In the meantime, word of the Santorum initiative was spreading as a result of an exposé by AMERICAN FREE PRESS (AFP). Widely circulated on the Internet, the AFP report arrived in the emails of educators across the United States and around the globe. As a consequence of growing concern about the scheme, the pro-Israel lobby began denying Santorum had proposed such legislation, claiming the AFP story was a lie.
Ultimately, the New York-based Jewish Week reported on May 9, 2003 that the State Department had contacted senators to advise them that Palestinian newspapers were carrying the story about Santorum and asking if the story was true.
Jewish Week’s story — titled “Diversity Disinformation”— declared a “rumor of pending legislation barring campus criticism of Israel [was] sweeping Arab and left-wing media.” The article asserted that “the story originated with . . . conspiracy theorists and Holocaust revisionists.” Obviously, this was a lie, since AFP’s report was based on a story in a pro-Israel newspaper.
Despite this, Jewish Week said the story “has become an article of faith throughout the Arab world and in some U.S. left-wing circles,” and asserted that “to pro-Israel leaders and leading members of the Senate, it’s a dangerous urban legend at best, deliberate disinformation at worst.”
The article in the pro-Israel Sun stated flatly, in discussing the Capitol Hill meeting where the scheme originated:

By the end of the meeting yesterday, Mr. Santorum was talking about introducing legislation that could cut federal funding to colleges where anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiments are prevalent — or more generally, where “ideological diversity” is lacking.

Yet, now that the story had been unveiled, Jewish Week contradicted the Sun and claimed that “No such legislation has been introduced or even contemplated.”
According to an un-named source, cited by Jewish Week, the Capitol Hill meeting featured “many presentations from different groups,” failing to mention that the “different” groups were all pro-Israel organizations.
The “new” version of events, as outlined by Jewish Week, never mentioned that Santorum’s colleague, Brownback, had urged formation of a federal commission to “investigate” so-called anti-Semitism on campus.
So, if the story was an “urban legend,” why did a pro- Israel newspaper publish the story in the first place?
As a candidate for president, Santorum should be forced to address the controversy surrounding this matter.

Congress Acts to Censor Academics Who Criticize Government Policy

Assault on free speech, thought ignored by mainstream

By Michael Collins Piper

The current House legislation is a disguised reincarnation of an even earlier pernicious proposal by two White-House-hungry Republican senators, Rick Santorum (Pa.) and Sam Brownback (Kan.), who were clearly pandering to the Israeli lobby (and pro-Israel campaign contributors) by promoting such measures.

After AFP learned of the scheme by Santorum and Brownback and focused on their intention of introducing so-called “ideological diversity” legislation designed to curtail criticism of Israel on American college campuses, the resulting negative publicity forced the duo to back off.

Angry that the scheme had been derailed, the New York-based Jewish Week published a story about the controversy generated by AFP’s reportage saying AFP’s revelation of the Santorum-Brownback scheme was “a dangerous urban legend, deliberate disinformation at worst” concocted by “several leading conspiracy theorists and Holocaust revisionists,” which had become “an article of faith throughout the Arab world and in some U.S. left-wing circles.”

In fact, the first and little-noticed report about the Santorum-Brownback scheme, (which later spawned the House measures) was first mentioned in the April 15, 2003, in the small-circulation New York Sun, a stridently pro-Israel “neo-conservative” daily. The Sun revealed that the two senators and several of their colleagues had discussed such legislation in the company of representatives of a number of powerful pro-Israel organization at a private meeting on Capitol Hill.

In any event, the Santorum-Brownback proposal has — like the proverbial “bad penny” — popped up again, in new guise, and is now before Congress.

Thought Police Back in School

Dangerous College Censorship Bill Returns Under New Guise

By Michael Collins Piper


Note, too, that one of the cosponsors is Hoekstra, who was the sponsor of the similarly intended H.R 3077, a bill initially inspired by an even earlier proposal by two Republican senators, Rick Santorum (Pa.) and Sam Brownback (Kan).

After American Free Press learned of the scheme by Santorum and Brownback and focused on their intention of introducing so-called « ideological diversity » legislation designed to curtail criticism of Israel on American college campuses, the resulting negative publicity forced the duo to back off.

Angry that the scheme had been derailed, the New York-based Jewish Week published a story about the controversy generated by AFP’s reportage, saying AFP’s revelation of the Santorum-Brownback scheme was « a dangerous urban legend; deliberate disinformation at worst, » concocted by « several leading conspiracy theorists and Holocaust Revisionists, » which had become « an article of faith throughout the Arab world and in some U.S. left-wing circles. »

In fact, the first and little-noticed report about the Santorum-Brownback scheme, which later spawned H.R. 3077 and now H.R. 509, was first mentioned on April 15, 2003, in the small-circulation New York Sun, a stridently pro-Israel « neo-conservative » daily published in Manhattan. That report revealed that the two senators and several of their colleagues had discussed such legislation in the company of representatives of a number of powerful pro-Israel organizations at a private meeting on Capitol Hill.

Those who are concerned about freedom of speech on the campus would be wise to contact their representatives in Congress and urge that Tiberi’s H.R. 509 be put to rest once and for all.

The U.S. Congress switchboard can be reached at: (202) 224-3121. Operators will be able to connect callers to their own representatives.

Hagee Worships Israel in D.C.

ON JULY 21, REPORTERS AND EDITORS from AMERICAN FREE PRESS, while covering the annual Christians United for Israel’s 2010 summit put on by the multimillionaire preacher for profit Pastor John Hagee, couldn’t help but do some demonstrating in front of Washington’s convention center. The conference drew some of the most powerful pro-Israeli figures in the United States. This included rabidly pro-Israel legislators like Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), as well as neo-conservative mouthpieces Frank Gaffney and Michael Medved. Billionaire publisher Mortimer Zuckerman, one of the wealthiest Jews in America, was also in attendance.

Confronting the Cult of
‘the Corpulent Con Man’

Veteran Christian nationalist Willis Carto scares
arch-Zionist preacher John Hagee half to death

By Michael Collins Piper

Others who lent their prestige to Hagee’s cult were: Jonathan P. Falwell, son of the late evangelist Jerry Falwell; and neo-conservative pro-Israel Muslim-bashing propagandists Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Clifford May, Robert Satloff and Dennis Prager. Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)—defeated for reelection and angling for a comeback—and country singer Randy Travis also popped up.
Last, but far from least, joining the festivities were the Bilderberg group’s William Kristol, editor of Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard, and Kristol’s close friend and collaborator Gary Bauer, touted as a defender of “family values” in Republican circles.


We didn’t invite Ron Paul because, well, it’ll be obvious pretty soon.
Anyway, here’s how the interview, led by yours truly, went down:
(Note to Shas Party members, this is satire. Red highlights are not only mine, but they are the only actual quotes.)
MT: Mr. Santorum, let’s begin with you. Lots of older voters voted for you in Iowa yet you favor cuts in social security by raising the retirement age to something like 105 and for turning part of the system over to a bunch of crooks in the private sector. Once people in their late 50′s and early 60′s figure this out, do you think you have a Herman Cain’s chance in a NOW convention of getting elected?
Santorum – Right now the single most important thing this country can do is put aside more money for Israel. My program will allow us to give Israel three or four times as much each year for the development of its military and to consolidate the emerging Israeli cities in Judea and Samaria. As you know All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land.”
MT: Mr. Gingrich, perhaps you could answer the question about social security. What is the future of this fund that so many Americans have paid so much into?
Gingrich: Rick Santorum is a traitor to the state of Israel. My program will allow us to directly transfer social security taxes to holocaust survivors in Israel while allowing us to give Israel 5 to 6 times the current aid Israel officially gets from the United States. “The Palestinian claim to a right of return is based on a historically false story,” “These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in their schools.” I say fuck’em.
MT: Ah, Mr. Cain, we weren’t expecting you to show up for this. Since you are here, perhaps you could address the question of the future of social security.
Cain: Social security, that’s uh, that’s uh, well it has social in it so that must mean its socialistic or something. I’ll get back to you once my biographers tell me what to say. “I think that the so-called Palestinian people have this urge for unilateral recognition because they see this president as weak.” I say let’s just clean out the whole area and if a bunch of these so-called Palestinians die, well that’s just tough shit. Oh, and my program to wipe out social security completely now and forever will allow us to give Israel each year 10 times what it is getting now. By the way, I really like Jewish pussy.
MT: Ms. Bachmann, perhaps you could bring some sanity to this discussion, but I digress. Anyway, please let our aging population know how a Bachmann administration would swallow, handle, the social security issue.
Bachmann: My plan is to simultaneously move the US embassy to Jerusalem and transfer the entire social security trust fund to the Jewish Agency my first day in office. If a bunch of old-fart anti-semites don’t like it, well we’ll just have the military arrest them as terrorists and toss their asses into Gitmo for ever. Hahahahahaha. God, I’m funny. I am the only candidate here who really is an Israeli. I’ve worked on a kibbutz. When I was there We worked on the kibbutz from 4 am to noon. We were always accompanied by soldiers with machine guns. While we were working, the soldiers were walking around looking for land mines. I really learned a lot in Israel.” “I am a Christian, but I consider my heritage Jewish, because it is the foundation, the roots of my faith as a Christian.” See, my heritage is Jewish, which means I am Jewish pussy. Keep your hands off of me Herman, you schvartse. Jesus fucking Christ, the last thing we need is another dumb schvartse in the White House. See, I really am Jewish. Anyway, under my plan, the US could give Israel 20 to 30 times what it is giving now. Oh, did I mention that I am the only candidate who made an entire video dedicated to Israel, you can go here to see it on youtube.
MT: Mr. Gingrich, uh, what is it you are listening to right now on your Ipod? I need you to talk about social security and other issues of critical importance to the average American.
Gingrich: I’m listening to this incredible broadcast about me damn near getting arrested by the FBI back in the 90′s for a huge bribe scheme involving a bunch of Israelis and pro-Israeli Jews. It’s by Mike Piper, never heard of the guy, but man he has basically proven my devotion to the state of Israel – unlike all these anti-semitic candidates you’ve gathered here. Look, social security has the half-life of one of my marriages. Forget it you bunch of pathetic losers. No one gives a rat’s ass about your stupid little social security checks. What you all need to do is support my program to wipe out the Palestinians – not that they even exist – but I digress. Let me finish listening to this thing. You know, you should make his website your featured website on your next post.
MT: Mr. Romney, you are immensely wealthy to a degree that is obscene really. How do you feel about helping out little old ladies living on social security?
Romney: First of all Israel is our only ally in the Middle East and I need to correct the anti-semitic statements of my colleagues here. ” I will travel to Israel on my first foreign trip. I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I want the world to know that the bonds between Israel and the United States are unshakable.” And as soon as I get to Israel I will get on my knees on the tarmac and give Netanyahu a blow job. Furthermore, I will pay not just to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, but I’ll also move the goddamn US Congress there too, this will cut down on the need for all those congressional trips to Israel. And I’ve decided to give all of my wealth to the Jewish National Fund and I will probably have Camp David moved into Kiryat Arba. In my first Defense Authorization Act, I will see to it that Israel gets 40 times as much money from the US as it does now and I’ll have anyone who objects to this treated as a terrorist, arrested by the military and sent to Gitmo forever. Now what was your question?
MT: Mr. Perry, any comments on the future of social security? Can any of you mother fuckers even spell social security?
Perry: First of all, I have already given Netanyahu a blow job. Second I consider the Israeli settlements to be legal, from my perspective, and I support them.” In fact, I think they should build even more settlement’s, after all “it’s their land.” When I become president Strategic defensive aid, strategic aid in all forms, will increase to Israel,” because Israel will be “the cornerstone of my larger global strategy.” I mean, who gives a fuck about the United States being a cornerstone of US policy? You’d have to be fucking nuts. Israel yesterday, today and forever. Jesus loves you and he wants you to kill the Palestinians, the Iranians, in fact, pretty much everybody. Praise Jesus. Oh, and I’ll see to it that Israel gets 666 times the money it presently gets from the American taxpayers.
MT: Mr. Santorum, back in the 1960′s manufacturing accounted for 25% of the GDP in these United States. Today, manufacturing is about 10% of US GDP. What can you do to re-invigorate this once vital sector of the US economy which provided good jobs for average Americans?
Santorum: Well, look at it like this. Iran is Israel’s enemy, therefore Iran is our number one enemy and we need to put an end to Iranian hegemony in, well, in Iran to start with. You know those Shi’ites have nukes up to their assholes, so I say we start a great big fucking war with Iran. This will put Americans back to work and will probably also kill quite a few of these useless eaters off. I have a long history of advocating wars for Israel – you can see this 2006 interview where I basically just made up everything I said out of thin air and you can see me foaming at the mouth during this very recent interview where I note that Israel is setting the standard for what the US should be doing in Iran in terms of perpetrating acts of international terrorism. And, speaking of Mike Piper, Gingrich is full of shit when he says that Piper shows that Gingrich is the ideal bitch for Israel. Right here in this latest podcast of Piper’s he shows that I am da bitch when it comes to bending over forward and backward for Israel. And yeah, you need to feature his website.
MT: Okay, one last question and since all you people care about is Israel, I’ll ask about that. How many more people must die for the state of Israel? Let’s start with you Herman.
Cain: It’s not about dying, just like General Eisenhower said. Hmmmm, I think it was Eisenhower, you know, the guy who they made that movie about. Anyway, maybe it was General Marshal, or Custer, can’t remember. Oh Lee, that’s who it was. Anyway, it’s not about dying for our country Israel, it’s about killing for Israel. Let’s bring on that shit!
MT: Mr. Perry, you’ve been pretty silent. How many more people must die for Israel?
Perry: Not sure, but why even ask? Anyone who dies fighting for Israel goes straight to heaven so I say let’s send all of our poor people over to Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and England to achieve martyrdom. Then we won’t have to pay them shit. No social security, no nothing. And if we give a few pieces of tin as medals to some of them, they’ll be willing to die some more. Fuck, and you people think I’m a stupid son of bitch! I am, of course, but you fuckers vote for me and people like me, you get what you deserve.

Racisme, guerre secrète, assassinat et torture au programme de la politique étrangère des candidats républicains

Réseau Voltaire

À l’approche de l’ouverture des primaires, les sept candidats en lice pour l’investiture républicaine se livrent à une surenchère néoconservatrice en matière de politique internationale. État des lieux.

Mitt Romney, numéro deux selon les sondages et considéré comme l’un des plus modérés des candidats, a appelé à « passer aux actions secrètes à l’intérieur de la Syrie pour obtenir un changement de régime ».

Rick Santorum, ancien sénateur de Pensylvanie, a estimé que la récente explosion d’un dépôt de missiles iranien était l’œuvre de Washington et averti qu’il poursuivrait dans cette voie s’il s’installe à la Maison-Blanche, avant de plaider pour des assassinats ciblés : « Tout savant étranger travaillant en Iran pour le programme nucléaire sera considéré comme un combattant ennemi et sera promis, (…) tout comme Oussama ben Laden, à l’ élimination. Des savants ont été retrouvés morts en Russie et en Iran. Il y a eu des virus informatiques. Il y a des problèmes dans ces installations. J’espère que les États-Unis sont impliqués », a-t-il dit.

L’égérie du Tea Party, Michele Bachman, a quant à elle jugé que la pratique de la simulation de noyade devait être reprise. Le président Obama avait mis fin à cette forme de torture à son arrivée au pouvoir début 2009.

Le gouverneur du Texas Rick Perry a déclaré devant la Republican Jewish Coalition que « toutes nos lois émanaient de la Torah » et a estimé que les États-Unis devraient aider Israël à attaquer l’Iran.

La palme de la rhétorique néoconservatrice revient sans conteste à l’actuel favori des sondages, Newt Gingrich. Ce dernier a confirmé ses positions après ses commentaires controversés sur les Palestiniens, qualifiant ce peuple « inventé » de « terroriste » lors d’un débat à Des Moines.

Il a promis de financer « tous les groupes dissidents en Iran » et de saboter la plus grande raffinerie du pays.

Il a aussi reproché au département d’État actuel de « procéder au désarmement moral de la tradition judéo-chrétienne » tout en promettant la nomination du néo-conservateur John Bolton à sa tête, à la place de Hilary Clinton.

L’ancien président de la Chambre des représentants déclare que s’il devenait président des États-Unis, il envisagerait d’être très proche, « de plusieurs façons », de Benyamin Nétanyahou, l’actuel Premier ministre israélien. « Bibi est un dur à cuire. Il place la sécurité d’Israël en premier », dit-il.

Enfin, M. Gingrich veut demander au Congrès de redonner leur « liberté » aux services de renseignement étasuniens, suggérant ainsi de revenir sur l’interdiction actuelle d’assassiner les dirigeants en exercice des États qui s’opposent à la politique impériale.

Au-delà de l’habituelle rhétorique sioniste et anti-iranienne qui vise à s’attirer les faveurs du puissant lobby pro-israélien, ce qui ressort de ces déclarations c’est que désormais les candidats à la Maison-Blanche assument ouvertement la dimension criminelle de la politique étrangère des États-unis d’Amérique.

À lire:

Un « troisième » parti soutenu par Rothschild en voie d’émergence aux États-Unis

Michele Bachmann est comme Sarah Palin: plus sioniste que les sionistes

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

Un esclave des Bronfman-Rothschild, John McCain, menace Poutine: « Cher Vlad, le #printemps arabe s’en vient dans un quartier près de chez vous »


« Dear Vlad, The #ArabSpring is coming to a neighborhood near you, » McCain tweeted.

(5 Dec 2011)



« Révolution blanche », drapeaux rouges et forces de l’ombre

« Les » Russes contre Poutine ? Une « révolution blanche » (ou orange) ? Un « printemps russe », à l’image du « printemps arabe », contre un « système verrouillé », voire « la dictature » poutinienne ? L’imminence redoutable du « retour de l’URSS » ?

AFP Was Right: U.S. Funding Arab Uprisings

VIDEO – Putin dubs McCain ‘nuts’, says US drones killed Gaddafi

TUT Podcast Dec 29, 2011

The “Arab Spring” coming to a resource-rich/nuclear-armed Russia–the US and Israel are playing with a type of fire that could eventually consume the entire world.
We are joined by the ever-brilliant Keith Johnson of http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpress.com to discuss this and other items of equal importance.

Download Here

Regime Change Inc.’s ‘two-pronged strategy’ against Putin

Israel insiders ‘deeply embarrassed’ by Foreign Minister’s praise of Russian election Israeli officials squirmed in embarrassment on Friday over Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s ringing endorsement of Russia’s contested parliamentary elections as “free and democratic.”

McCain promoter of the Egypt « Arab Spring » and western subversive NGOs

Entre chaos afghan et « révolutions » : Une hirondelle arabe ne fera pas le printemps russe

Le Grand Sanhédrin du Show Biz emet une Fatwa contre Vladimir Poutine

How the Arab Spring pushed Russia into Israel’s lap


Voir aussi:

La soif de sang frénétique de John McCain: après la mort de Kadhafi, les « dictateurs » comme Assad, Poutine, les Chinois doivent avoir peur…

« De la dictature à la démocratie »

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment

Larry SILVERSTEIN et David YERUSHALMI (gourou de l’anti-Islam aux USA), anciens patrons de l’épouse du candidat présidentiel Newt Gingrich

Le couple Newt et Marianne Gingrich, prostitués pour Israël… et sous investigation par le FBI dans les années 90!

… lu dans le Washington Post!

Tout comme Rothschild et Bronfman sont les parrains du sénateur et candidat présidentiel John McCain (2008), Sheldon Adelson, « le juif le plus riche du monde » qui vient de donner 25 millions$ au Mémorial de l’Holocauste de Yad Vashem, est le parrain du candidat présidentiel et président de la Chambre des représentants Newt Gingrich. Adelson et Bronfman contribuent à financer Birthright Israel, une organisation sioniste internationale qui fait la promotion de l’immigration juive en Israël. Adelson et Bronfman ont accumulé leur fortune grâce à leurs activités dans le crime organisé. Les sionistes Gingrich et Adelson sont deux puissants alliés du PM israélien Netanyahou. Gingrich a déclaré récemment que l’Iran cachait des armes de destruction massives sous des mosquées! Il manque à ce point de subtilité que cela inquiète certains propagandistes juifs.

Marianne Gingrich a travaillé pour IEDC, qui est sous le contrôle de Larry Silverstein — un milliardaire juif sioniste, ancien président du United Jewish Appeal, proche ami de Netanyahou et Barak, qui a pris le contrôle du bail du WTC peu de temps avant les attaques du 9/11. (Voir Lienaussi Madoff = Silverstein = Mossad)

Mais son patron à elle au sein de la compagnie était nul autre que David Yerushalmi — le gourou américain juif hassidique de l’anti-Islam! (Dont les opérations sont financées en partie par le politicien sioniste Frank Gaffney.)

Newt's Big Bribe


by Michael Collins Piper
for American Free Press

In 1997, hardworking FBI agents in Miami were on the verge (they thought) of snaring then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his second wife, Marianne, in a $10 million bribery scandal involving multiple ties to key elements of the Israeli lobby in Washington. However, then-FBI Director Louis Freeh stepped in, and the impending sting was called off.

This revelation appeared on page A-2 of The Washington Post on Dec. 15, but it has not been mentioned in The New York Times or been given any play in the major broadcast media.

While the Post downplayed the Israeli connection, a limited rendition of the story in one brief UPI report—published in only a few newspapers—never mentioned the underlying pivotal, in-depth role of Israeli-linked intermediaries in the matter.

Instead, the reports focused on international arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian’s ties to the affair, leading many readers to think Gingrich was involved in arms trafficking. In reality, it was the arms dealer, a longtime FBI informant, who was acting on behalf of the FBI in the effort to nab Gingrich.

The Post story was based on a far more detailed and revealing exposition of some 6,400 words by veteran intelligence correspondent Joe Trento, published on his website at dcbureau.org. The entire scenario is complex, reflecting events taking place over several years time. But the bottom line is that Gingrich and his wife were allegedly attempting to shake down Soghanalian for a $10 million bribe and that, from the beginning, operatives for Israel were on the scene, acting as middlemen for the Gingrich duo.

Mrs. Gingrich firstmade a connection to Soghanalian through her position as a former paid pitch-woman for the Israel Export Development Corporation (IEDC)—a front for a group of Jewish billionaires eager to promote Israeli exports into the United States. Behind IEDC were such big names as Larry Silverstein, owner of the World Trade Center at the time of the 9-11 attacks; Sy Syms of the SYMS clothing chain; and Lawrence Tisch, who controls the CBS media empire.

Soghanalian said he was first approached by Morty Bennett of Miami, who told the arms dealer he had a business associate who had an “in” with Mrs. Gingrich and that it might be possible to use that connection on Soghanalian’s behalf.

Knowing U.S. sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq were preventing the arms dealer from collecting a legal debt of $54million owed to him by Iraq, Bennett told Soghanalian that Mrs. Gingrich could help arrange—through her husband, then the speaker of the House—the lifting of the U.S. embargo so the arms dealer could secure his debt.

Bennett’s associate, Howard Ash—who had worked with Mrs. Gingrich at IEDC—was a major fundraiser for the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), a Jerusalem-based think tank headed by Robert Loewenberg, who Mrs. Gingrich has described as a “friend.” IASPS also included another close Gingrich friend, former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), among its “trustees”—a relationship Weber now formally denies.

Following the contact from Bennett, Soghanalian—a longtime FBI informant who had worked closely with Richard Gregorie, the assistant U.S. attorney in Miami—reported the overtures from Mrs. Gingrich’s IEDC-IASPS associates to the FBI. The FBI expressed interest, urging Soghanalian to maintain contact with the group.

Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Gingrich visited Paris—under the auspices of IEDC and at the urging of Loewenberg—in the company of Bennett and Ash, where she met Soghanalian.

Mrs. Gingrich now claims she was soliciting a donation to IEDC from Soghanalian. However, Soghanalian told the FBI that Mrs. Gingrich told him in Paris that she could use her husband’s influence to get the Iraqi embargo lifted in return for “an understanding.”

Sometime later, Bennett came back to the arms dealer, saying Mrs. Gingrich wanted $10million to get the job done.

Soghanalian was told $5 million was for Mrs. Gingrich; another $1 million was for Bennett. The recipients of the remaining $4 million were not named, but those who know how Capitol Hill bribery works presume this money would be used to help “grease the wheels” among other members of Congress who would help Gingrich expedite the operation.

Soghanalian told the FBI he was instructed the bribe was to be paid to the Washington office of IASPS, which would, in turn, launder the money to the Gingriches.

The IEDC-IASPS connection recurs throughout the scenario. Not only did another IEDC associate of Mrs. Gingrich, attorney David Yerushalmi, serve as counsel for both IEDC and IASPS, but both organizations also shared a number of employees and mutual funding sources.*
The FBI insisted it was vital that Soghanalian seal the deal directly with Mrs. Gingrich or her husband. This would clinch the criminal case against them.

As directed by the FBI, Soghanalian insisted he would not make the “donation” to the IASPS—the bribe intended for Gingrich—until he could meet Gingrich and his wife in private.
Pressured by Soghanalian, Ash told the arms dealer the House speaker would send “his own man” to Miami to meet with Soghanalian to facilitate arrangements for the meeting.

Gingrich’s “own man” was Ben Waldman. Closely tied to Netanyahu circles in Israel, Waldman—an associate of both televangelist Pat Robertson and the infamously corrupt pro-Israel Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff—had been Ronald Reagan’s liaison to the Jewish community. But at the time of the bribery conspiracy, Waldman was chief fundraiser for the IASPS.

Finally, with everything in place, the FBI set the trap for Gingrich. A lavish reception was scheduled for June 8, 1997 in Miami at a luxury home, which had actually been rented by the FBI for the sting.

Soghanalian was supposed to meet Gingrich there and solidify the deal under FBI electronic surveillance.

However, at the last minute, FBI Director Louis Freeh sent down the order that Soghanalian was not to attend the event—which Gingrich did attend—and the two-year-long investigation was brought to an abrupt end just when the FBI might have caught Gingrich agreeing to accept the payoff.

Journalist Trento quoted one FBI agent, who said: “We got so close, and when the target was in sight, we were stopped by Washington.”

In fact, both assistant U.S. attorney in Miami Richard Gregorie and the FBI’s Miami attorney, Martin King, had wanted to pursue the investigation to the end, only to be frustrated by the FBI director.

Soghanalian has since died. Bennett, Ash and Waldman—and Mrs. Gingrich—all dismiss the reported events as a tissue of lies. Gingrich has yet to comment. FBI officials now assert there was never any evidence Gingrich was aware a bribery conspiracy was under way.

* Considering the revelations fromthe Gingrich bribery allegations, it does not seema coincidence that longtime Gingrich associate Yerushalmi is today the driving force behind the ongoing, well-financed national Muslim-bashing campaign focusing on the danger Islamic law—sharia—supposedly poses to America. In fact, The New York Times reported on Dec. 21 that “long before he announced his presidential run . . . Newt Gingrich had become themost prominent American politician to embrace an alarming premise: that sharia, or Islamic law, poses a threat to the United States as grave [as], or graver than, terrorism.” The Times, however, did not mention the bribery scandal, its links to IEDC and IASPS, or even Yerushalmi, although it did point out that Gingrich and his ex-mistress—now his third wife—have produced a Muslim-bashing film.

Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397.

The Piper Report Dec 20, 2011

Media ‘ignores’ Jewish angle to Newt Gingrich bribery Scandal…

Among other important items dealing with the destruction of our world.

Download Here

The Piper Report Dec 26, 2011

All new revelations on the Gingrich/Israeli corruption scandal. A MUST HEAR PROGRAM.

Please make sure to spread this broadcast far and wide.

Download Here

Note to those who have been inquiring about purchasing the new book by MCP entitled “Confessions of an Anti-Semite”–

There are multiple ways for people to buy the book, which is $28 per copy.

(However, please note that a signed, numbered, dated copy is $50). Foreign purchasers (including Canada) should add a minimum $15 postage.

Firstly, they can send a check, cash or money order (or credit card information, including card number and expiration date) to:

Michael Collins Piper

PO Box 15728

Washington, DC 20003

or, write to

American Free Press Newspaper

645 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE #100

Washington, DC 20003

or they can buy online with paypal

OR they can call 1-888-699-6397 and order by phone

FBI considered a sting aimed at Newt Gingrich in 1997

Washington Post
By James V. Grimaldi, Published: December 15

It is a curious case in the annals of the FBI: The bureau considered a sting operation against then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich after sifting through allegations from a notorious arms dealer that a $10 million bribe might get Congress to lift the Iraqi arms embargo.

The FBI ended up calling off the operation in June 1997. It decided there was no evidence that Gingrich knew anything about the conversations the arms dealer was secretly recording with a man who said he was acting on behalf of Gingrich’s then-wife, Marianne, according to people with knowledge of the investigation.

But details of the case, which became public this week in an article and documents posted online by a nonprofit journalist, show how a series of second- and third-hand conversations alleging that the top man in Congress might be for sale caught the attention of federal investigators.

“There are so many falsehoods,” Marianne Gingrich said Thursday. “The FBI, they should have been protecting me, not going after me. This is scary stuff.”

Her lawyer, Victoria Toensing, said: “There was no basis whatsoever for an investigation. These were people puffing, which means they were making up access to a high-level goverment person.”

Gingrich’s presidential campaign did not provide immediate comment when asked for response Thursday.

The investigation began after the arms dealer, Sarkis Soghanalian, told federal prosecutors and FBI agents in Miami that Marianne Gingrich said during a meeting in Paris in 1995 that she could provide legislative favors through her husband. The case progressed to the point that it was deemed a major investigation requiring approval in Washington.

Soghanalian, a convicted felon who is now dead, said he wanted the speaker’s help in getting the arms embargo lifted so he could collect an $80 million debt from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to an FBI document filed to obtain continuing wiretap authorization for the case. The facts in the document were “developed through a cooperating witness,” whom The Washington Post has confirmed was Soghanalian.

Soghanalian said Marianne Gingrich assured him “she would be able to do anything [Soghanalian] requested of her ‘as long as they had an understanding,’ ” the document states.

Several months after the meeting in Paris, a man who had been on the trip with Gingrich and Soghanalian told the arms dealer that the embargo could be lifted for the right price. In conversations recorded by Soghanalian, the man, a Miami car salesman named Morty Bennett, stated that Marianne “wanted 10 million dollars to get the job done, five million of which would go directly to Marianne Gingrich,” the document states.

Bennett said in an interview Thursday, “I knew somebody and introduced them to somebody and that was it. Thank you for calling, and don’t call me back.”

The document and the existence of the aborted sting was first revealed this week in a 6,400-word story by Joseph Trento, who operates a Web site called DC Bureau (www.dcbureau.org). Trento interviewed Soghanalian several times before his death in October at 82.

The investigation foundered because there was no evidence against Newt Gingrich to establish “predication” — a basis to believe the target was engaging in or about to engage in criminal activity — according to people familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case. FBI policy requires predication before significant undercover operations are initiated.

“There wasn’t any direct evidence that he knew anything,” said a source who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “The rules are you just can’t go in there and do an integrity check on someone.”

Bruce Udolph, the former chief federal corruption prosecutor in Miami, said he could not confirm the existence of the investigation but added, “With respect to Speaker Gingrich, I am not aware of any direct, credible evidence linking him to any conspiracy to receive a bribe from anyone.”

The Justice Department referred calls to the FBI, which declined to comment on the case.

The Armenian-born Soghanalian was a high-volume arms dealer nicknamed “the Merchant of Death” who was indicted by federal authorities in South Florida for conspiring to sell U.S. helicopters to Iraq in violation of a U.S. ban. His 61/2-year sentence was reduced to two years in 1993 because of his cooperation with federal authorities.

He was already a federal informant when he met with Marianne Gingrich in Paris in July 1995. Also in attendance at those meetings were Bennett and Howard Ash, who had earlier worked with Marianne Gingrich at the Israel Export Development Corp., a company that advocated for a free-trade zone in the Gaza Strip.

Marianne Gingrich, who had left her position as vice president of marketing at IEDC, said she went to Paris at the request of her former boss to help get an investment from Soghanalian in IEDC.

The FBI document states that Soghanalian, Marianne Gingrich, Ash and Bennett spent several days together in Paris. Gingrich said “her relationship with her husband was purely a relationship of convenience,” the document states. “She told [Soghanalian] that she needed her husband for economic reasons, and that he needed to keep her close because she knew of all his ‘skeletons.’ ”

“She also told [Soghanalian], ‘It’s time for me to make money using my husband, and after we get started doing this, it will be easy,” the document says.

In January 1996, the document states, Soghanalian said he received a call from Bennett, who said he was acting on behalf of Marianne Gingrich and asked for $10 million to get the embargo lifted. Bennett wanted more than $1 million in advance, $300,000 in cash. The rest of the money was to be wired into Bennett’s bank account so that it could be transferred to the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli-based think tank with offices in Washington where Ash was a fundraiser, according to the document.

“Bennett stated that the way they had the deal structured nobody would ever be able to prove it was anything illegal,” the document states. “Bennett stated that it would be handled like a campaign payment and ensured the source that [Marianne] Gingrich knew what she was doing. Bennett stated that the money was for Gingrich and her husband and that they needed buffers to protect them.”

Marianne Gingrich said Thursday, “All that’s hogwash.”

Soghanalian asked for a telephone call with Marianne. Bennett said that “would spook Gingrich” but that he would try to arrange it “for small talk about their Paris trip,” the document states.

But Bennett never produced Marianne Gingrich. He reestablished contact with Soghanalian in February 1997, and the FBI asked for approval from headquarters to keep recording the conversations “to develop evidence of possible Hobbs Act, Conspiracy, and Bribery violations by Bennett, Ash, Marianne Gingrich, and as yet unidentified federal officials,” the document states. Ash did not return calls seeking comment.

In June 1997, Soghanalian was planning to meet Gingrich and his wife at a fundraiser in Miami arranged by Ben Waldman, a Reagan administration official who later was lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s business partner in the controversial purchase of a casino cruise line in Florida. Waldman did not return calls for comment.

FBI agents began preparing to bug the meeting, but Neil Gallagher, then deputy chief of the FBI’s criminal division, ordered the investigation closed prior to the fundraiser, people familar with the case said. They said local agents were upset by Gallagher’s move.

“I’d have to refer any comment back to the FBI,” Gallagher said Thursday.

The FBI special agent in charge in Miami at the time, Paul Philip, who signed the document, said he could not recall the case. After reviewing the document, he said he could understand why the case did not progress.

“When you’re dealing with elected officials, you have to be real careful,” he said. “Not that they can do anything to us. But their reputations are so fragile, if you don’t really, truly try to do the right thing, you could really shaft somebody.”

Staff researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.


Marianne Gingrich Denies Israel Job Is a « Political Payoff »

By Nathan Jones

Marianne Gingrich, wife of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, has been hired by the Israel Export Development Co., Ltd (IEDC) as its vice president for business development. Mrs. Gingrich’s interest in Israel’s proposed free-trade zone, designed to attract foreign investment to Israel, was said to have begun during an eight-day trip to Israel she and her husband made in August 1994 at the expense of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Israel’s Washington, DC lobby. « If I were going to get a political payoff, it would not be for the amount of money I am making, » said Mrs. Gingrich, who has no experience in the field. Her salary, which she has drawn since August, is $2,500 per month, « plus commissions. » Neither she nor her employers would disclose the size of the commissions. Speaker Gingrich told the Baltimore Sun, which broke the story in February, that his wife previously had her « own business. » IEDC President Larry Silverstein told The Wall Street Journal that Gingrich was one of a number of congressmembers who were lobbied to support his company’s proposal.


Gingrich’s Wife Hired to Recruit Business for Trade Zone in Israel

February 04, 1995
Susan Baer

The Baltimore Sun

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s wife, who has no previous experience in trade promotion, has been hired at an undisclosed salary to help recruit businesses for a free-trade zone in Israel. For the past few months, Marianne Gingrich has been quietly working as vice president for business development of the Israel Export Development Co. Ltd., whose investors include a number of American businessmen, such as CBS president Laurence A. Tisch, clothing magnate Sy Syms and real estate developer Robert V. Tishman.

Mrs. Gingrich, 43, is to make her first company trip to Israel on Wednesday. She declined to make any public comment about her job. The IEDC is trying to win Israeli government approval to run the new free-trade zone, a private, high-tech business park where companies will be able to operate free of most taxes and government bureaucracy. Her appointment seems likely to raise questions about whether the Speaker’s wife is being used to help the company gain the favor of the Israeli government, which is heavily dependent on U.S. foreign aid. Since September, 1994, Mrs. Gingrich has been paid a full-time salary by IEDC–neither she nor the company will disclose the amount–and she is also to earn commissions on any business she recruits for the company. Mrs. Gingrich, who is employed by the company’s U.S.-based marketing unit, is IEDC’s only employee in Washington; the company maintains U.S. offices in New York and Miami. « We were looking for someone with her kind of experience and her excitement, » said David Yerushalmi, chairman and CEO of the 2-year-old development company, which is based in Jerusalem and incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.


Few Israelis have ever heard of Likit, the site of what may soon become the country’s first « free processing zone »–a tax-free enclave for foreign trade. Likit lies 10 kilometers northeast of Beer Sheeba, in what is now desert. The government decided the zone should be located in the Negev, the most underdeveloped part of the country. But supporters believe that within two years, the 283-hectare tract will see a boom.

The idea is to eliminate red tape for foreign investors. Israeli Finance Minister Avraham Shohat overruled experts from his own ministry who opposed the proposal on grounds that the zone would not contribute much to the economy. But since Likit is backed by some of the Jewish state’s biggest American supporters, Shohat could hardly refuse.

On June 20, 1994, the Knesset passed the Free Processing Zone Law. It states that within the zone there will be no corporate tax, no value-added tax, and no import or export duties. Businesses operating there will pay only a 15% tax on distributed profits. In addition to tax incentives, companies will have the benefit of deregulated utilities, including phones, and will be exempt from foreign currency rules and import and export restrictions.

The zone was first proposed in 1992. Lobbying was spearheaded by Israel Export Development Co. (IEDC), owned by such prominent Americans as Laurence A. Tisch, CBS chairman and CEO; Michael Steinhardt of Steinhardt Partners; Morton L. Mandel, chairman and CEO of Premier Industrial Corp.; and Robert Tishman, chairman of Tishman Speyer Properties.

Backers claim the zone will create thousands of jobs for immigrants from the former Soviet Union and for recently discharged soldiers. They also predict that dozens of multinational companies, which have stayed out of Israel for political reasons, will set up shop.

In late March, the Israeli government plans to issue a tender for building and operating the zone and expects to announce the winner within 90 days. « We’re looking for someone who will bring the best companies possible into the zone, » says Boaz Raday, senior adviser to Shohat.

The leading contender for constructing the project is IEDC itself, which has already spent nearly $7 million planning the proposed zone and marketing it to potential clients. The Finance Ministry’s Raday concedes that IEDC is the only firm entrant but says he has talked with other groups that have expressed interest in joining the bidding.

THREE TIMES. In the meantime, IEDC continues to market the zone aggressively. « We’ve got over 50 letters of intent from medium-to-large American, British, and German multinationals, » says David Yerushalmi, IEDC chairman. All are in high tech, with a predominance of information processing outfits.

IEDC has already signed an agreement with Sprint International for phone service. Under this deal, calls from the zone to the U.S. will cost only 30 cents a minute. Israel’s state-owned Bezeq Telecommunications Co. charges three times as much.

Without doubt, IEDC’s highest-profile employee is Marianne Gingrich, wife of Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Her weeklong visit to Israel in mid-February sparked a good deal of publicity.

Gingrich was hired by Yerushalmi in September as vice-president for business development. Her compensation: $2,500 a month, plus commissions. After the appointment, questions were raised about her qualifications for the job. In addition to tart comments in the U.S. media, it was suggested that her real function might be to help IEDC gain favor with the Israeli government.

Speaker Gingrich has come out in strong defense of his wife, insisting that there is no ethical problem with her new job. « She works for a private company, » he said. « She does no lobbying of the U.S. government of any kind. And it seems to me that since no taxpayer funds are involved and it’s an entirely private business, that she ought to be let alone. »

« At the end of the day, companies are going to look at the benefits of the zone, and political pull is not going to sway them, » says Yerushalmi. But with the Gingrich appointment, IEDC seems to be covering all bases.

Extrait de l’EXCELLENT article LARRY SILVERSTEIN AND 9/11, du blog Crimes of Zion:

Silverstein has investments in Israel. In fact, in 1992 he co-founded the Israel Export Development Company (IEDC) which sought to facilitate safer investment in Israel. This article by Michael Collins Piper states that Newt Gingrich’s wife was on IEDC’s payroll in 1995:
In early 1995 the then-newly elected Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, long a vocal advocate for Israel, gave a little-noticed speech in Washington before a gathering of military and intelligence officers calling for a Middle East policy that was, in his words, “designed to force the replacement of the current regime in Iran . . . the only long-range solution that makes any sense.”

That the then-de facto leader of the “opposition” Republican Party endorsed this policy was no real surprise since, at that time, Gingrich’s wife was being paid $2,500 a month by the Israel Export Development Company, an outfit which lured American companies out of the United States into a high-tech business park in Israel.

Marianne Gingrich was hired in ’95 as Vice President for Business Development by Silverstein’s IEDC, the same year her husband became speaker of the house. It was around that time that Newt Gingrich’s foreign policy views became staunchly pro-Israel and opposed to Israel’s perceived enemies, even to the point where he publicly called for the CIA to overthrow the Iranian government, as referred to by Piper in his article. That was well before 9/11, and his views haven’t changed. His wife had no experience in international trade, and before that appointment she was an image consultant for BeautiControl Cosmetics (source), but of course, she denied it was a political payoff. From this Dec 1995 article:

According to an article by Connie Bruck in the New Yorker of Oct. 9, « IEDC is trying to win approval from the Israeli government to manage a free-trade zone, and the Israeli government is highly dependent on United States aid—something that Gingrich is in a position to affect. » It is no coincidence that despite drastic budget-cutting this year, Congress has left aid to Israel intact.

Bruck Describes the IEDC as an offshoot of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), a hawkish arm of the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S.

The IEDC is indeed an offshoot organisation of the IASPS. This connects Silverstein to the think tank which produced the Clean Break policy document, authored for the Israeli government by neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser.

Marianne Gingrich works closely with its president, Robert J. Loewenberg, who is also chairman of the board of the Koret Israel Economic Development Fund, which assigns interns to key congressional offices. According to Bruck, Loewenberg writes lengthy diatribes in the IASPS newsletter attacking the peace process, return of the Golan Heights to Syria, and « left-wing politicos and bureaucrats. » He supports the immediate move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, which Gingrich is asking Congress to endorse.

So Gingrich was staunchly supporting Silverstein’s IEDC and its agenda, and the state of Israel in general, but his beauty consultant wife’s employment as Vice President for Business Development was not a payoff, even though Silverstein told the Wall Street Journal that Newt Gingrich was one of several members of congress who were lobbied to support his company’s proposal. We’ll call it a favor then.

Extrait de l’Article de Michael Collins Piper « Elite Says: America Needs Third Party »

A hint that there were high-level forces pulling the rug out from under Obama and laying the groundwork for even more substantial political convulsions on the national level came when David S. Broder opined in The Washington Post on Jan. 21 that the election of Republican Scott Brown to succeed the late Edward M. Kennedy in the Massachusetts Senate race was “a vote of no confidence” for the president and “Democratic controlled Washington.” Broder concluded by saying that “Obama may recover . . . but it will take a significant change of direction to turn things around.”
While most Americans have never heard of Broder (a longtime member of the CFR), it is no exaggeration to say that, “When David Broder speaks, people listen.” Broder’s Post column is considered “must” reading among establishment insiders in Washington. He is regularly hailed as the “dean” of America’s political pundits.
While publicly identified as being the fiefdom of the Meyer-Graham publishing enterprise, the Washington Post Company, which is perceived to be a tightly held family concern, is actually an American extension — like the CFR — of the global empire of the Rothschild banking dynasty. Rothschild-connected holding companies and, in particular, longtime Rothschild family associate, Nebraska-based billionaire Warren Buffett, have a considerably greater stake in the Post Company than even the Meyer-Graham family.
All of this having been said, it is critical to understand that the Post, as one of the foremost media powers on American soil, has been in the forefront of propagating the theme that some sort of “centrist” challenge to the two-party system as now constituted is in order.
For example, on Feb. 25, the Rothschild-dominated Post featured a prominently placed item entitled “Washington rancor angers bipartisan town.” The article proclaimed that even in Newtown, Pa.—one of the famed well-to-do “Mainline” suburbs of Philadelphia where so-called middle-of-the-road or centrist Democrats and Republicans alike have always competed on an even level in local, state and federal elections—disgust with partisan gridlock in Washington is growing steadily.
The Post asserted that the situation in Newtown is reflected all across the country in like-minded communities said by the Post to reflect “what political strategists consider the disaffected middle.”
What this means, effectively, in the carefully crafted code words utilized by the Post, is that many people consider both the Democrats and the Republicans to be “too extreme”—the Democrats perceived to be “too left wing” and the Republicans to be “too right wing.”
Putting aside the argument as to what constitutes either “left” or “right” politically, the point is that the Post is suggesting, as it has repeatedly in recent months, joined by The NewYork Times, that Americans are looking for a “middle ground” or “centrist” alternative.
On May 2, the Post — which heretofore never had anything good to say about relatively larger-scale “independent” or “third party” efforts, ranging from those of George Wallace, Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan to Ralph Nader — featured a lead item in its much-read Sunday opinion section raising the question: “Should the two party system be challenged?”
That the Post would even open up the question for discussion is very telling. While opinions, both pro- and con-, were presented, the words of one commentator in particular, Dan Schnur, director of the University of Southern California’s Unruh Institute of Politics, reflected precisely the tone of recent and notably repetitive Washington Post commentary and reportage regarding the issue.
While Schnur says that the emergence of a third party is unlikely “anytime soon,” he suggests that “angry centrists” have “the best opportunity they’ve had in many, many years” over the next six months to begin laying the foundation for “the need for a new, centrist political entity that will free the country from the grip of liberal and conservative extremists.” He points out that a bevy of “besieged middle-of-the-road political figures could conceivably remake the American political landscape.”
As examples, Schnur cites such figures as longtime liberal Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who is now actually being seriously challenged for renomination by a candidate perceived to be even more liberal than even Lincoln herself; Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who gave up running for renomination in the GOP primary facing a serious conservative challenge only to find his reelection endangered by a fight for renomination in the Democratic Party; and Florida Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, who, failing badly in his bid for the GOP Senate nomination against a conservative challenger, has now, to great fanfare in the “mainstream” media, announced his campaign as an independent.
And it’s probably no coincidence that Schnur should be one echoing the Post’s propaganda line in so many respects. In 2008, Schnur was the communications director for vaunted “maverick” Sen. John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee that year, who, just four years before, was being touted as a possible partyjumping running mate for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry.
Perhaps not surprisingly,considering his own conflicts over the years with more “conservative” elements in his own party, McCain himself faces a renomination challenge—from the “right”—from former Rep. J. C. Hayward.
What is particularly interesting in that another featured commentator in the Post’s give-and-take on the issue was former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said that a third party challenge was “not a path America should follow.”
What Gingrich did not say, however, was something that Washington insiders do know: the fact that Gingrich has been privately “mentioning” to figures in the capital city’s power elite that he is considering picking retiring Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana (who — like Gingrich — is another member of the CFR) as his running mate if he (Gingrich) manages to procure the Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nomination. This is apparently the “Gingrich Solution” to partisan gridlock, some sort of “bipartisan, middle-of-the-road” approach.

Gingrich: Front Man for Shady, Shadowy Interests

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is still considerably influential in high-level political circles in no small part because of the fact that his substantial political and public relations enterprises have been bankrolled by Sheldon Adelson, an international gambling tycoon.

Known for his devotion to the interests of Israel, Adelson, said to be the third-richest American, has been described by the web site of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise as “the world’s richest Jew.”

It should also be noted that Gingrich benefited from the lucrative Israeli-connected intrigues of his second wife, Marianne, whom he divorced some years ago, and who was on the payroll of the Israel Export Development Company (IEDCO), which was promoting the importation into the United States of Israeli products — even as Gingrich was using his influence as a member of Congress to advance U.S.-Israeli trade.

The aforementioned IEDCO was an operation run by mob-connected Larry Silverstein, the billionaire owner of theWorld Trade Center towers at the time of the 9-11 tragedy, best known for his now infamous urging — “pull it” — in reference to the trade center’s Building 7 which was deliberately imploded, a point that 9-11 researchers have documented relentlessly.

PICTURED: Sheldon Adelson and Larry Silverstein are two powerful Zionist figures who have bankrolled the intrigues of GOP kingpin Newt Gingrich

Iran Policy Part of Long-Term Plan
Michael Collins Piper

. . .In early 1995 the then-newly elected Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, long a vocal advocate for Israel, gave a little-noticed speech in Washington before a gathering of military and intelligence officers calling for a Middle East policy that was, in his words, “designed to force the replacement of the current regime in Iran . . . the only long-range solution that makes any sense.”
. . .That the then-de facto leader of the “opposition” Republican Party endorsed this policy was no real surprise since, at that time, Gingrich’s wife was being paid $2,500 a month by the Israel Export Development Company, an outfit which lured American companies out of the United States into a high-tech business park in Israel. (…)

Newt Gingrich, Marianne and the Arms Dealer:
A Buried FBI Investigation

By , on December 13th, 2011

National Security News Service

Newt Gingrich and second wife Marianne Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich and second wife Marianne Gingrich.

On October 5, Sarkis Soghanalian, once the world’s largest private arms dealer, died at 82. He had sold weapons to scores of dictators including Saddam Hussein, and he took many secrets with him to his grave. But one secret he did not take involves Newt Gingrich when he was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. DCBureau has learned that Gingrich was at the center of a U.S. Justice Department criminal investigation in the late 1990s for a scheme to shake down the arms dealer for a $10 million bribe in exchange for Gingrich using his influence as Speaker to get the Iraq arms embargo lifted so Soghanalian could collect $54 million from Saddam Hussein’s regime for weapons he had delivered during the Iran-Iraq War.
Soghanalian was an FBI informant and was responsible for launching one of the most sensitive and secret investigations in FBI history involving the former Speaker and his second wife. According to Marianne Gingrich, it took the direct intervention of then FBI Director Louis J. Freeh to “get the investigation called off.” Freeh did not return emails and telephone calls for comment.
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh

A convicted felon with a long history of working with United States intelligence, Soghanalian cooperated with the FBI in the two-year investigation which included secretly taping emissaries with connections to Newt and Marianne Gingrich. The cast of characters include personalities no Hollywood screenwriter could invent. One participant was involved in the Florida SunCruz scandal that resulted in the gangland-style killing of one of the cruise lines owners. Another was a used Rolls Royce salesman who pretended to be part of the international arms trade. A third was a penny stock promoter.

For several years, FBI agents instructed Soghanalian to get beyond the men who claimed to have ties to Gingrich and insist upon meeting with Gingrich and his former wife directly to prove that they could deliver the Speaker. But just before Soghanalian was to meet Gingrich and his former wife at a private Miami Beach fundraiser on June 8, 1997, arranged by one of these men, FBI headquarters called off the investigation. Washington ordered the FBI in Miami not to secretly tape record the fundraiser and to stop Soghanalian from attending. Marianne Gingrich, in a series of telephone interviews from her homes in Georgia and Florida, acknowledges meeting the arms dealer in Paris but insists her participation was to solicit an investment from Soghanalian for her former employer, the Israel Export Development Corporation (IEDC). She says the company was running short on cash and her meetings with the arms dealer had nothing to do with Iraq and arms dealing. Newt Gingrich did not return repeated telephone calls for comment.

Soghanalian said in a series of interviews before his death that men associated with Marianne Gingrich convinced him that Speaker Gingrich would use his influence to lift the embargo and allow Soghanalian to collect the millions of dollars owed to him by Iraq “in exchange for a $10 million payment to Gingrich through his associates.” Soghanalian was to pay the money – not to the Gingriches directly – but through a think tank, The Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (IASPS), which has offices in the United States and Israel.

Saddam Hussein’s government owed Soghanalian for arms he had delivered – all with the permission and knowledge of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, but he could not be paid because Iraq was under a U.S. and United Nations embargoes. After his release from prison in the mid-1990s, Soghanalian settled in Paris and started rebuilding his arms business. In the United States he faced a $54 million IRS tax lien for profits he had never received from the Iraq arms sales. He told associates that he was trying to figure out a way to collect the monies owed to him. One of those friends was a London-based Kurdish Iraqi who had close contacts with Israeli intelligence and a car salesman from Miami named Morty Bennett.

Bennett saw Soghanalian’s money problems as an opportunity. He says he passed the information from his Kurdish friend to Howard Ash, a friend from the Rolls Royce dealership in Miami where Bennett worked. Ash was a fundraiser for the IASPS, the think tank, and had worked at the IEDC with Marianne Gingrich.

In May 1995, while visiting his wife, Shirley, and his grandchildren in Palm Springs, California, Soghanalian got a phone call from Bennett. Soghanalian had never heard of him before, but Bennett says he used the name of their mutual acquaintance in London who had experience in the Kurdish arms trade to get Soghanalian to talk to him. Soghanalian said before his death, “My ears perked up when he said he had an arms deal for me in Ecuador. There are a lot of pretenders in the business, but he seemed interesting, and I always need new information for my FBI friends, so I met with him.”

That May 1995 phone call from Bennett to Soghanalian resulted in a two-year FBI investigation so sensitive that details have never before been made public. The goal of the investigation, according to a Justice Department official, “…was to see if Gingrich, through his then wife, was involved in an attempt by political associates to solicit bribes.” One of the team of FBI agents involved in the case says, “The investigation was called off before we were permitted to finish making a case.” Another agent says it was just “too politically sensitive. We got so close and when the target was in sight, we were stopped by Washington.”

According to Bennett, the entire scheme to solicit $10 million dollars from the arms dealer was Howard Ash’s idea. Ash did not return repeated calls for comment left on his answering machine or with a woman who identified herself as his employee.

Soghanalian said of when he and Bennett met, “Bennett claimed that he and a partner named Howard Ash had an ‘in’ with Speaker Newt Gingrich on behalf of the Israelis…They asked me if I would invest with them in the deal.” The “in” that Bennett and Ash had was Gingrich’s then wife Marianne. In addition to being a fundraiser for the IASPS, Ash was also Marianne Gingrich’s boss at the Israel Export Development Corporation (IEDC). Soghanalian said, “Bennett told me they just hired her before Newt was made the Speaker.” In early 1995, Marianne Gingrich says, she was promoted above Ash to Vice President of Marketing. “He resented my promotion,” she says.

Robert Loewenberg, Head of the IASPS.
Robert Loewenberg, Head of the IASPS.
Marianne Gingrich says her boss at the IEDC, David Yerushalmi, called and asked her to make the trip to Paris. Yerushalmi served as counsel to both the IEDC and the IASPS. She says that by this time the IEDC was running out of money and she was no longer on the payroll. “David told me that Howard Ash and his wife had been at the Parc Monceau Hotel in Paris for days and still did not have an answer from this arms dealer and that Ash said he needed me to come to get an answer. He paid for my expenses and even though it was at an inconvenient time, I made the trip.” She says she thought the meeting was to win Soghanalian over as an investor in the IEDC. When asked why she would be willing to meet Soghanalian, a convicted felon, when she was no longer being paid by the IEDC, she says because her friend, Robert J. Loewenberg, the head of the IASPS, and her former boss at the IEDC, David Yerushalmi, “wanted me to meet with the arms dealer in Paris as a potential investor. …I believed that Robert Loewenberg had good ideas about free trade in Israel and this would help keep it going.”

David Yerushalmi
David Yerushalmi
Marianne Gingrich says she did not have a good relationship with Ash after she was promoted over him. She says, “He (Ash) really wanted me in Paris, and I thought that was a little strange. He just never had been very nice to me…but he was nice in Paris.” David Yerushalmi, who says he hired both Mrs. Gingrich and Ash, disputes Mrs. Gingrich’s allegation that there was tension between them.

As Marianne Gingrich tells it, she did not expect her job back at the IEDC if Soghanalian made the $10 million investment because she was already too busy “working with Newt on his book projects. I let him attend a meeting by himself on one of the book deals, and he left more money in that meeting than I would have made in a year working at the export zone. I decided then and there Newt needed me to handle these things.”

Mrs. Gingrich made clear that throughout their marriage money was an issue. “We were so pressed he could not even set aside money for congressional retirement until 1991. Living on his paycheck was very, very hard… Newt was like a child when it came to handling money,” she says.

Morty Bennett says he was also in Paris for the meetings with Soghanalian, Mrs. Gingrich, Howard Ash and his wife. As Bennett tells it, he began to “feel uncomfortable with what Ash was trying to do with Sarkis. My antennae should have been sharper.”

Hotel Mermoz, Paris
Hotel Mermoz, Paris
Bennett stayed at the Hotel Mermoz, which is around the corner from the Israeli Embassy in Paris and was a few blocks from Soghanalian’s luxury apartment on one of the most fashionable residential areas in Paris, not far from the Elysees Palace, home of the French president.

Bennett says that while he was at the hotel between meetings with Soghanalian, the Mermoz manager called him saying a man was asking whether Mrs. Gingrich was staying in his room. “I got on the phone and the man was Newt Gingrich. I explained to him she was not staying at my hotel.”

According to Mrs. Gingrich, her interest in Israel began on an eight day trip to Israel she and her then husband took in August 1994, paid for by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Israel’s largest Washington, D.C. lobbying organization. Mrs. Gingrich says Robert Loewenberg, the president of IASPS, was impressed with “my knowledge of planning and asked me to attend some meetings in Israel regarding the free trade zone.” She says that led to her being offered the position with IEDC. “Robert Loewenberg was telling me about some of the problems with the Knesset. The head of the Israeli central bank was opposing the free trade zone. I looked on the itinerary, and I went with him to a meeting and asked some good questions and the banker changed his mind. It had nothing to do with Newt. I went to the meeting. The guy kept calling me. He didn’t care about Newt. At one point he asked me to make a trip to Israel with some business people.” After the meetings in Israel with Loewenberg, the IEDC hired Mrs. Gingrich. She says that one of the reasons she took the job was “we did not have enough money. Money was always an issue with Newt…”

According to David Yerushalmi, there was no connection between IASPS, the think tank, and IEDC, the organization working for a free trade zone in Israel. But Mrs. Gingrich tells a different story. She says, “The same American Jewish funders supported both organizations and Howard Ash raised money for IASPS while he worked for the IEDC.”

A group of very wealthy Americans provided the funding for IASPS and IEDC. Both organizations shared some employees. David Yerushalmi, who represented both organizations as general counsel, wrote in an article:

“In June of 1992, a group of leading U.S. Jewish businessmen formed a company that was to become the Israel Export Development Company (IEDC). The founders of IEDC, men like Robert Tishman, Larry Tisch, Sy Syms and Larry Silverstein, were ardent supporters of the State of Israel. But like many Americans, they were leery of investing directly in Israel. However, it was their fears that made them ready to support the rather grandiose proposal embodied in IEDC’s mandate… To contemplate a real direct investment in Israel was not in the cards. The reason was simple: Israel didn’t play by any fixed rules…It was a land without any real legal protections or level playing fields. The horror stories by these men and their friends about ‘doing business’ in Israel were legion. Until IEDC came along, this was a nasty truth better kept under wraps and avoided. Philanthropy – yes; entrepreneurship – no.”

Sarkis Soghanalian and assistant Veronique Paquier the Paris air show.
Sarkis Soghanalian and assistant Veronique Paquier the Paris air show.

In Paris, Soghanalian openly and frequently talked about finding a way to get the Iraq embargo lifted. He said he had been approached by “people connected to Newt Gingrich who were setting up a meeting with his wife to talk about what could be done for me.” Tony Khater, who was Soghanalian’s majordomo, confirmed the plans for the meeting with the Speaker’s wife.

Soghanalian said Howard Ash had brought up Mrs. Gingrich’s name “to convince me they were serious.” Soghanalian said he called a number of people to try to find out if the IEDC was a legitimate operation.

New York developer Larry Silverstein, who is best known as the main lease holder on the World Trade Center complex in New York, backed both the IASPS and IEDC. When word got out in 1995 that the IEDC had hired Mrs. Gingrich, Silverstein told The Wall Street Journal that her husband was one of several members of Congress heavily lobbied to support the Israeli free trade zone proposal. Mrs. Gingrich, who had no experience in international trade, said at the time, “If I were going to get a political payoff, it would not be for the amount of money I am making.” She said her salary in August 1994 was $2,500 per month, “plus commissions.” Then Speaker Gingrich told The Baltimore Sun, which broke the story of Marianne’s employment, that his wife had previously owned her “own business.”

In a recent interview, Marianne Gingrich says she got the job at the IEDC because she had impressed her bosses. “I was able to contact a lot of business people, and I started calling them, especially Jewish people. I went to the head of Home Depot, for example. I tried to identify them and say, ‘Here are opportunities.’ The Jewish community is an incredible community…I thought it was a good idea…I thought it would help Israel.”

Calls to Larry Silverstein’s office for comment on this story were not returned.

No one involved with the IASPS or IEDC knew that after that first telephone call from Morty Bennett to Soghanalian, the arms dealer stopped by the Miami FBI office to see his old friend, Richard Gregorie, an assistant U.S. attorney. Gregorie, a veteran public corruption prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s office, had used Soghanalian as a source for years.

Sarkis Soghanalian and Tony Khater in a helicopter over Iraq, 1984.
Sarkis Soghanalian and Tony Khater in a helicopter over Iraq, 1984.
At the time, Soghanalian had been helping the FBI with several investigations that were unrelated to this one. Soghanalian told Gregorie and several FBI agents that he had a “bad feeling” about why he had been approached. The agents advised him “to make arrangements for another meeting and to keep track of all the details.” Tony Khater, Soghanalian’s top aide, says, “The FBI was aware of every contact Sarkis had with these people. The FBI told Sarkis to push for meetings with Gingrich and his wife. The FBI instructed Sarkis to attend the meetings, if they could be arranged.”

Morty Bennett and Soghanalian met with Howard Ash and Marianne Gingrich in Paris in July 1995. Soghanalian was extremely busy with business generated by the recent Paris Air Show, but he tape recorded the conversations with Bennett and Ash and provided copies of those tapes to the FBI.

Mrs. Gingrich says Loewenberg and Yerushalmi sent her on the trip to meet Soghanalian because “Howard Ash has been over there for weeks. His wife is over there. Can we wait it out, can we work it? The company needed money to last. They called me up and asked me to go over there. I didn’t get paid to go to Paris. They paid for my expenses, but the trip came at a bad time for me. I had to rush over for the weekend and come back because my nephew was coming to visit.”

Soghanalian said, “Marianne came one weekend with Ash and met me and Bennett. I took her to clubs and we had several dinners and luncheons.” In interviews in Paris in 1995, Soghanalian said that he was “making arrangements to get the arms embargo lifted” and that is why he was meeting with Mrs. Gingrich.

A frustrated Marianne Gingrich says it became clear to her from her initial conversations with Soghanalian in Paris that he was not interested in investing in the IEDC. “…Howard Ash and his wife had been there a long time, and my bosses wanted an answer from him. My job was to get him to say, ‘Yes,’ or, ‘No,’ and that was not easy.”

Soghanalian, a popular figure in Paris, took Mrs. Gingrich and her associates to legendary places like Regine’s and several famous restaurants where they posed for photographs with the arms dealer. Finally, Mrs. Gingrich got an answer. “The last night all of us went somewhere till two or three in the morning…It was final. He said, ‘No.’ I caught the first flight out in the morning.”

Soghanalian had a different version of events. He said that he told Ash and Mrs. Gingrich that he would talk to the Iraqis about making an investment in the free trade operation but that he would not personally invest. “I told them this may be a way of getting my money out of Iraq and doing something good for Israel…I also told Marianne I wanted to meet her husband so we could discuss a high speed train opportunity in Florida.”

Around this same time in 1995, Bennett and Ash were involved in a bizarre penny stock scheme. According to an article in the Sun Sentinel, their connection to the IEDC was used to drive up investor interest in a penny stock being promoted by a couple who called themselves Eisenhowers and held themselves out to be relatives of former President Dwight Eisenhower. Bennett, the car salesman, was described to the business press and potential investors as an Israeli consultant while Ash verified claims that the penny-stock company, Triangle Technology, had a deal to build in the IEDC’s free trade zone in Israel a $40 million dollar factory to revolutionize military aircraft x-ray inspections. Marianne Gingrich’s – as well as the very rich businessmen like Larry Silverstein’s – involvement in the IEDC was also used to reassure potential investors in the penny stock scheme. These claims and associations caused the penny stock to soar before the entire venture collapsed and many investors were left with worthless stock.

Because of changes in Israeli tax law, the free trade zone effort lost its investment appeal and the IEDC shut down. But, Morty Bennett says, “Ash still wanted me to push Sarkis. He told me to call him again.”

As Bennett tells it, on January 23, 1996, Ash instructed him to call Soghanalian at his Miami horse farm with a surprising bit of news. Bennett said to the arms dealer that Marianne Gingrich had told him the Iraq embargo could now be lifted. According to the FBI memo, “Bennett stated that it would cost the source [Soghanalian] ten million dollars to get the job done.” Bennett confirms that the FBI memo is an accurate description of what he told Soghanalian. Bennett says that Howard Ash promised him $400,000 if Sarkis made the $10 million payment.

According to Tony Khater, that is when the FBI sting operation went into high gear. That week Miami agents began officially taping conversations between Soghanalian and Bennett. The Miami office received approval for the wiretaps from the Justice Department in Washington. In its memo on the case, the FBI says: “…This matter may relate to a member of Congress and is, therefore, a sensitive investigation… [that] requires Department of Justice (DOJ) notification.”

The first official FBI tape captured Bennett telling Soghanalian that “Gingrich wanted ten million dollars to get the job done.” The split would be “$5 million for her, $4 million for unexplained purposes and $1 million for Mr. Bennett,” according to the FBI memo. Bennett asked Soghanalian for $550,000 in advance.

Bennett says, “I was operating under explicit instructions from Howard Ash. He told me exactly what to tell Sarkis in my conversations with him.”

Soghanalian became even more suspicious when Bennett asked him to deposit $250,000 into his bank account as a tax-deductible donation to the IASPS. “I began to think they were getting me involved in some Israeli intelligence operation,” Soghanalian said. He told the FBI that Bennett asked for an additional $300,000 fee, “preferably… in cash.”

Vin Weber
Vin Weber

The IASPS was founded in 1984, according to its website, and has strong ties to conservative politicians in Israel and the United States. It is connected to the Likud Party in Israel in much the same way the Heritage Foundation associates with the GOP in the United States. According to Mrs. Gingrich, Robert Loewenberg, who runs IASPS, recommended her for her job at the IEDC. Howard Ash worked with Mrs. Gingrich at the IEDC and as a fundraiser for the IASPS. Washington lobbyist and former Minnesota Congressman Vin Weber was one of Newt Gingrich’s closest associates in Congress and personal friends at the time of some of these events. Weber was a trustee of IASPS, according to IRS 990s, and was mentioned in IASPS newsletters. Weber says his relationship with IASPS ended “many years ago. I never knew I was a trustee.”

Soghanalian, a consummate actor, developed a clever and ironic response to their overtures, with the approval of his FBI contacts. He told Bennett that he would talk to the Iraqi government about financing the entire deal. At the suggestion of the FBI, Soghanalian asked to speak to Mrs. Gingrich in person. Soghanalian said, “Bennett told me not until a week after the deposit was made…It was funny because Bennett said Mrs. Gingrich was very concerned about being caught on tape.”

Bennett says, “Everything I told Sarkis was done under the instructions of Howard Ash. He gave me the words.”

In early February 1996, Bennett told Soghanalian he could not arrange a meeting with Mrs. Gingrich for at least three or four weeks. A few days later Bennett called Soghanalian and asked for another $500,000 to be wired directly into Ash’s account at the IASPS.

Under FBI agents’ instructions, on February 12, 1996, Soghanalian demanded to talk to Mrs. Gingrich. “Bennett was nervous. He said it would scare her, and I should only make small talk and, if I brought up the payments, she would hang up,” Soghanalian said. “Bennett kept putting me off. He told me she had not called him back but he had a better idea. He would get me with both of them once I gave him the deposit. Bennett said that this Institute would hold a fundraiser where we could meet confidentially with Gingrich and his wife.” According to the FBI memo, Soghanalian told Bennett he would not pay $10 million without first talking to Mrs. Gingrich directly “to receive assurances regarding the specifics of this deal.” Another year passed before Bennett called him back.

Marianne Gingrich, 2012
Marianne Gingrich, 2012

According to Tony Khater, in January 1997, Bennett started calling Soghanalian again at the Miami horse farm. Soghanalian told the FBI, and the Miami field office asked Washington headquarters for an extension of the wiretap, since authorization to continue recording had run out. Section Chief Paul Philip signed the memo along with several other FBI agents. Richard Gregorie, the assistant U.S. Attorney, was a key supporter of the probe. The memo said that Gregorie and the FBI’s Miami lawyer, Martin King, both favored moving ahead with the Gingrich-Bennett investigation. Gregorie, the memo said, “sees no entrapment issues.”

The request was approved and the investigation continued. The FBI recorded the February 2, 1997, conversation between Soghanalian and Bennett. Officials involved in the case, Soghanalian and Khater all confirm that Soghanalian also contacted Ash at the request of the Bureau. “Ash said I should work through him and not Bennett to get to both Gingriches. They were competing for the money,” the arms dealer said. Ash reassured Soghanalian “that Gingrich would send his own man down to Miami to meet with me.”

That man was Ben Waldman, a longtime Republican operative with strong ties to the Christian conservative movement. He was not unknown to the FBI. “His name coming up in the investigation got our attention,” says an official close to the investigation who asked not to be identified. Waldman’s name had surfaced in an earlier federal investigation of bribery and kickbacks during the Reagan administration at the Department of Housing and Urban Development that resulted in the indictment and subsequent plea bargain of former Reagan Interior Secretary James Watt and other top officials – but not Waldman.

What worried Soghanalian about Waldman were not his connections to the Christian Right, but his connections to the Likud Party in Israel. “My friends in Israel told me there was an effort by the Christian Right to join with right-wing political parties around the world,” Soghanalian said. “Reagan’s people had started this in the 1980s. They even tried to use me to make contact with the Baath Party in Iraq in 1983.”

At the time of the FBI probe, Waldman was listed as the chief fundraiser for IASPS, where Ash, through Bennett, had instructed Soghanalian to send the $10 million. David Yerushalmi, who was the IASPS lawyer, confirms that both Waldman and Ash had fundraising roles at the Institute at the time. When Waldman met with Soghanalian, he said he was a Vice President of the Institute.

For the meeting between Waldman and Soghanalian, the FBI rented a luxury, waterfront home on a canal not far from the posh commercial section of downtown Ft. Lauderdale. Tony Khater says, “The meeting would be a luncheon. I had to order in an Orthodox catered lunch for Waldman.”

On cue from the FBI, Soghanalian opened the front door of the luxurious one-story house. Waldman admired the home and asked Soghanalian about the yacht docked at the backyard pier. “As we ate the lunch, Waldman asked me to donate $20,000 to this institute of his. It was the same place that Bennett wanted me to use to pay him off. I kept trying to talk about other things, like the Iraqi arms embargo,” Soghanalian said. “I asked him could Gingrich get the sanctions lifted if I paid that man the money.”

Ben Waldman
Ben Waldman

The man Howard Ash picked to replace Morty Bennett as the man to separate Sarkis Soghanalian from his millions was a former Reagan White House aide with a long history in conservative Republican and Israeli politics. Though Waldman looks like an aging boy scout, by the time he met Soghanalian for a kosher lunch, all arranged by the FBI, he had accumulated an impressive dossier of business and political associates. Waldman was among the young Republicans who grew close during the Reagan administration – men like Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Jack Abramoff and Adam Kidan. He was President Ronald Reagan’s liaison to the Jewish community. He also raised funds for the Institute. In an interview in the 1990s, Waldman identified himself to National Public Radio as a Vice President for IASPS.

Waldman played a key role in bringing Jewish conservative voters into the Republican Party as an aide in the Pat Roberson 1988 presidential campaign and as executive director of the National Jewish Coalition, now the Republican Jewish Coalition. He had close business and personal ties to disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. By 2000, Waldman was president and part owner of SunCruz Casinos, a controversial offshore gaming company with organized crime connections. Another owner, Gus Boulis, was battling Abramoff for control of the company. Boulis was shot dead in his car a year later.

Reached for comment, Waldman refused to go on the record, but, prior to that, he did acknowledge he had worked with Howard Ash at the IASPS. When asked specific questions about his meeting with Soghanalian, he says, “First of all, I am not going to go on the record and, second, this happened so long ago, anything I am going to tell you is going to be clouded by my poor memory and lack of specificity. I am not in that business anymore. It is not the right thing to talk about.”

Khater, Soghanalian, and the FBI tapes reveal that at the luncheon Soghanalian insisted to Waldman that he would donate to IASPS only on the condition he could meet with Speaker and Mrs. Gingrich in private. After the luncheon, prosecutors and FBI agents in Miami were convinced that the case should be aggressively pursued.

Working with Ash, Waldman planned a fundraiser for the Institute in Miami for June 8, 1997. Waldman later confirmed to the FBI that it was Ash who gave him Soghanalian’s name as a potential donor. The reception was to feature Marianne Gingrich and “a surprise guest.” FBI agents made plans to bug the fundraiser. In mid-May, the FBI’s Miami field office once again requested permission to tape record the meeting.

According to sources inside the FBI, Neil Gallagher, then the deputy chief of the FBI’s criminal division, after seeking the advice of a half dozen other FBI and Justice Department officials – but not Attorney General Janet Reno – ordered the investigation closed. The Miami field office and prosecutors were dumbfounded. They said Gallagher shut down the investigation just when Soghanalian was to meet Gingrich and his wife at Ben Waldman’s fundraiser.

After his retirement from the FBI, Gallagher said: “We can’t go around encouraging people to offer bribes to elected officials – we don’t do that…” When called recently for comment about the case at his home in Davidson, North Carolina, Gallagher says, “I can’t talk about this. You have to call the Justice Department.”

Another senior FBI official does not believe Gallagher’s explanation: “Do you remember the Abscam case? That is where FBI agents posing as rich Arabs bribed members of Congress. Gallagher did not object then. The truth is the Bureau thought Clinton was through because of the impeachment [proceedings] and they saw Gingrich as the most powerful man in America.”

In one recent interview Mrs. Gingrich says that she was unaware that Soghanalian had been invited to the fundraiser that was held in a private condominium in Miami Beach. She says that Joe Gaylord, her former husband’s political aide, would have handled such events. Gaylord did not return repeated phone calls for comment. A Miami Herald article puts Gingrich in Miami on this date. The fundraiser took place as planned on Sunday, June 8, 1997. Soghanalian, under orders from the FBI, did not attend. Twenty-five guests enjoyed a reception with Marianne Gingrich at an upscale oceanfront condominium in Miami. Her “surprise guest” that morning, her husband, Speaker Newt Gingrich, spoke about and urged support for free-market reform in Israel.

In a later conversation about the event Mrs. Gingrich confirms she and her husband attended the IASPS fundraiser with “about fifty other guests…We stayed about an hour and Newt was a surprise guest.”

After their meetings in Paris in 1995, Marianne Gingrich says she did not hear Soghanalian’s name again for several years. “It was in October of the last election year, 1998, and I get a call from Victoria (Toensing), and I was in Ohio and just found out I had MS, and I had to go into treatment. I was on heavy steroids; I am in the middle of a medical mess, high as a kite on steroids. I had to go to the Cleveland Clinic.” Marianne Gingrich was traveling with her assistant to speak to a conservative group in Ohio. She had scheduled a side trip to see a MS specialist at the Cleveland Clinic. “I get told I have to immediately get treatment. His nurse had MS, and she had the treatments available. Then you have to take pills to come off of it…. I am in the middle of that. I get a call from Victoria, and I said, ‘Just handle it.’ I am drugged up and high as a kite and I was bloating…I wasn’t supposed to be under stress,” she says.

According to Mrs. Gingrich, the entire controversy caught her by surprise. “No hint of this until Victoria called me….to tell me I was being investigated for arms dealing,” she says.

Victoria Toensing, Mrs. Gingrich's private attorney and former Reagan administrative official.
Victoria Toensing, Mrs. Gingrich’s private attorney and former Reagan administrative official.

Victoria Toensing, a former Reagan administration official, was Mrs. Gingrich’s private attorney. She and her husband, former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova, were one of the most prominent political couples in Washington in the 1990s. Mrs. Gingrich says, “She told me the Justice Department suspected I was involved in arms dealing.” Ms. Toensing confirmed to the media in 2002 that her client did meet with Soghanalian in Paris, but she said that Mrs. Gingrich went only to help “Mr. Ash secure funding from Mr. Soghanalian…The only information she was given … was that he was a Mid-Eastern investor.” Toensing said Mrs. Gingrich knew nothing about the arms dealer’s background despite the fact that Soghanalian had been well known in Republican circles for years in Washington and Florida and had attended several Republican fundraisers that the Gingriches had also attended. In addition, Soghanalian had appeared on 60 Minutes and Nightline prior to the meeting in Paris.

According to Mrs. Gingrich, Toensing told the FBI that her client’s conversations with Soghanalian were “limited to obtaining funding for IEDC and trivial social conversation. Nothing more.” In a prepared statement for the media in 2002 Toensing wrote: “Mr. Soghanalian decided not to invest, and Ms. Gingrich never saw or talked with him again.” Mrs. Gingrich says that Toensing’s efforts to kill the investigation went all the way up to FBI Director Louis Freeh, who made the final decision. Toensing did not return several telephone calls for comment.

Soghanalian’s recollection was far different. He said that after Paris “they (Ash and Bennett) were calling me every day to see how I got along with Marianne.”

Soghanalian told the FBI that he said to Mrs. Gingrich “that Iraq owed me $54 million, and I asked her whether she, with the help of her husband, could get the United Nations embargo against Iraq lifted so I could be paid.” Soghanalian said he also asked her if her husband could help him win congressional backing for a scheme to build a high-speed train through Florida. “Ash had told me this is one of the deals I could invest in – she could help us through Newt,” Soghanalian said. The FBI 302s confirm Soghanalian’s account of this part of the conversation. Soghanalian said Mrs. Gingrich told him “that she could get congressional support for the train, but her organization needed money for investment.”

Marianne Gingrich says, “I was just trying to keep the conversation going about his potential investment. I may have been polite, but I don’t remember ever discussing the arms embargo…I would have never suggested he invest in high speed rail. It was something I knew about, and it was impractical and a poor investment.”

This statement contradicts an earlier account by Victoria Toensing, who said in the 2002 statement, “Neither Iraqi sanctions nor a Florida bullet train … were ever brought up.” The lawyer went on: “It is not unusual for con artists to make false claims about well-known people.”

In a recent interview Mrs. Gingrich did recall the discussion about the possible bullet train deal. “I was humoring him, making small talk,” she says. Despite what is on the FBI tapes, Waldman denied in interviews at the time that there was ever a direct discussion of Speaker Gingrich assisting Soghanalian in getting the UN Iraq embargo lifted in return for money. Waldman claimed he was simply trying to humor Soghanalian, since he was a potential donor to the Institute. Newt Gingrich told the FBI that he “only vaguely” recalled Waldman’s name. He said, “To the best of my knowledge, I never sent anyone anywhere on behalf of the Institute.” The investigation took place while Gingrich was under other unrelated congressional ethics investigations and in the middle of the Clinton impeachment proceedings.
Newt Gingrigh and third wife Callista.
Newt Gingrigh and third wife Callista.

A short time later, Newt and Marianne Gingrich separated and went through a contentious divorce. Gingrich resigned as House Speaker and from Congress in January 1999 and married a congressional aide with whom he was having an affair.

On the night of February 6, 2001, Gus Boulis – who had sold most of his interest in the SunCruz gambling ship venture to Adam Kidan, Jack Abramoff and Ben Waldman – was driving home from work when he was gunned down. It was a classic mob hit. Adam Kidan, whom Jack Abramoff had brought into the company with Waldman, had ties to two organized crime families and became an instant suspect. (He denies knowing anything about the death.) While Kidan and Abramoff served prison sentences connected to the SunCruz case, the Miami U.S. Attorney’s office did not bring charges against Waldman, who owned 10 percent of the company. Today he lives in suburban Washington and sells dental equipment. As Abramoff tells it in interviews about his new book, congressional corruption is commonplace. In the book’s acknowledgements, he thanks his “lifelong friend and partner Ben Waldman.”

Howard Ash is still active in penny stock investments and charitable organizations from Miami to South Africa to Croatia. He is involved with a long list of ever-changing companies from a Miami Beach house at 4233 Sheridan Avenue, including Claridge Management, Ashtine Holding Group, Associated Medical Billing, Biocard Corporation, Biorecord Corporation, CMM Consulting Medical Industries, Judaica International, Shesha Holdings Inc. and many others.

On the website Dealmakers, he is described as “a seasoned international businessman with experience in North America, Europe, Asia and Africa. In 1990, Howard co-founded Abrams, Ash & Associates, a Merchant Bank, and sold his shares in 1992. Since 1992 Howard has served as CEO, COO and CFO to a variety of high-profile, international companies, including Israel Export Development Corporation, CITA Americas, BioCard, Inc., and several publicly traded companies. Howard’s leadership provided development of business documents and corporate identity packages, business planning, strategy formation, web presence, operations and implementation, investment banking liaisons, and investor relations. Howard, a silent partner in Tudog Creative Business Consulting, leverages his extensive network of international contacts and international consulting firms to provide clients with the broadest and most effective services available.”

Morty Bennett says he is retired and loves living in West Virginia.

FBI Gingrich Investigation

Just Two Degrees of Separation

Posted by Guest at 4:52 pm

By Jane Kaddouri

Newt Gingrich

A new story is making the media rounds, reporting on a proposed 1997 FBI sting targeting GOP candidate Newt Gingrich. According to author Joseph Trento, Newt’s then-wife Marianne was soliciting bribes from an infamous arms dealer in exchange for Gingrich’s lifting of the U.S. embargo of Iraq.

The report details Marianne’s 1995 Paris meetings with arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian—meetings also attended by Howard Ash, who had worked with Marianne at the Israel Export Development Company (IEDC).

While Marianne says she was meeting with Soghanalian not to negotiate a bribe for House Speaker Gingrich, but at the behest of her former boss at IEDC, who was seeking a donation from Soghanalian. The arms dealer, on the other hand, says he met Marianne through Miami car dealer Morty Bennett (also in attendance at the Paris meeting), who told him that Newt Gingrich could lift the Iraqi embargo “in exchange for a $10 million payment to Gingrich through his associates…[at] The Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (IASPS)”—where the same Howard Ash also served as a fundraiser.

And this is where it gets really interesting for us. Because you have to ask what kind of person would solicit a donation from a known arms dealer (he was profiled on “60 Minutes” the night before the Paris meeting). And we’re here to tell you. The CEO of IEDC at the time—and the Board Chair of IASPS—was none other than David Yerushalmi, the man behind the Islamophobia movement; the man who wanted turn adherence to Sharia into a felony crime.

The 2011 publication Fear, Inc., profiles Yerushalmi’s hatemongering in terrifying detail— from referring to African Americans as “the most murderous of people,” to his authorship of anti-Sharia legislation that’s being used as a model around the country.

Back in 2006, Yerushalmi wasn’t happy with Newt Gingrich—for the simple reason that Newt just wasn’t tough enough on Islam. Newt said that there were 5 challenges America had to meet in order to win the future, the first of which was “confronting a world in which America’s enemies, including the irreconcilable wing of Islam and rogue dictatorships, could acquire and use nuclear or biological weapons.” Yerushalmi’s response was to ask if Newt was “articulating a future for America or for the ‘middle wing’ of the Republican Party and for control of Congress and the White House?” Either way, he concluded, Newt was just not his guy. “As much as I admired Newt Gingrich in 1994, and I had a special relationship with him through his former wife Marianne, I fear he is not the leader we await.”

Now that Newt is vying for control of the White House, he seems to be taking a page from Yerushalmi’s book of horrors. Far from the days of being a friend to the Muslim community, he’s now espousing legislation to combat the “spread of Sharia law.” He’s insisting that all Palestinians are terrorists. He mirrored Yerushalmi’s stance on Park 51. The new Newt seems a lot like the same old Yerushalmi—a similarity that’s becoming frighteningly clear.

New World Order Lobby Promoting Gingrich

Newt and Callista Gingrich

By Michael Collins Piper -

Even though there was no evidence of it, the elite media announced that the presidential campaign of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was picking up steam and gave his ambitions a critical boost. This was no surprise to those who know Gingrich has longstanding ties to powerful circles outside the realm of the grassroots voters.

In 1968, when conservatives were backing Richard Nixon or then-California Gov. Ronald Reagan for the GOP presidential nomination, Gingrich was a Southern campaign coordinator for liberal internationalist Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York.

Although Gingrich now touts himself as a conservative, he remains a fervent New World Order globalist and a longtime advocate of U.S.military adventurism abroad and destructive so-called free trade policies. In fact, it was Gingrich who helped railroad the discredited North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress.

A member of the Rockefeller-financed Council on Foreign Relations, the New York affiliate of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the policy apparatus of the Rothschild banking empire, Gingrich is particularly close to hard-line pro-Israeli forces on American soil.

One of his chief foreign policy advisors is Ilan Berman, editor of the journal of the Jewish Institute for National SecurityAffairs (JINSA), the U.S.-based operation said by Prof. Edward Hermann of the University of Pennsylvania to be a “virtual agency of the Israeli government.”

Best known for its front-line role through its assets in the George W. Bush administration in misdirecting the United States into the debacle in Iraq and now continuing to clamor for war against Iran, JINSA has had several of its key figures—including JINSA’s founder, Stephen Bryen, and his close associates Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz—investigated by the FBI on suspicion of conducting espionage for Israel.

Gingrich—who has overseen a network of political enterprises that have brought an estimated $100 million into his coffers since he left Congress—has been favored by one donor in particular: Las Vegas gambling tycoon Sheldon Adelson, a devoted supporter of Israel, who once described himself as “the richest Jew in the world.” This modern incarnation of crime boss Meyer Lansky bankrolled Gingrich to the tune of at least $6 million.

While in Congress, Gingrich benefited from the activities of his (second) wife, Marianne, then on the payroll of the Israel Export Development Company (IEDCO), promoting the importation of Israeli products into the United States—even as Gingrich used his influence in Congress to advance U.S.-Israeli trade.

IEDCO was the brainchild of Larry Silverstein, the billionaire owner of the World Trade Center towers at the time of the 9-11 tragedy, best known for urging, “pull it”—in reference to the trade center’s Building 7, which was deliberately imploded—as 9-11 researchers have documented relentlessly.

Silverstein even admitted to The Wall Street Journal that Gingrich was one of a number in Congress who lobbied to support Silverstein’s ventures. This happened at a time when Gingrich’s wife was on Silverstein’s payroll.

Mrs. Gingrich’s IDECO deal was cut in 1994 after she and Newt traveled to Israel at the expense of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobby for Israel.

Although she took home a monthly salary of $2,500, plus “commissions,” Mrs. Gingrich refused to disclose the size of those commissions. The sums she received are of the level seen in many bribery scandals.

On Jan. 25, 1985, a front-page story in The Spotlight unmasked Gingrich—then a little-known junior House member and the leader of a clique of Republicans, the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS)—as the driving force behind a scheme to scrap the GOP’s historic nationalist stance on foreign policy.

The Spotlight revealed that Gingrich and several other COS members—including then-Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.)— had attended a secret meeting with Donald Graham, publisher of The Washington Post, at which Gingrich and the COS agreed to use their influence to push the GOP into the internationalist camp. In return, the Post’s power-wielders promised to give Gingrich and his collaborators wide and favorable publicity. Until then, the media had relegated Gingrich and company to backbench status, painted as extremists.

Gingrich told the Post the COS would—and they did—call for sanctions against white-ruled South Africa, a reversal of the traditional conservative stand, a move that helped bring down that government and which resulted in South Africa turning its nuclear arsenal over to Israel—a little-known secret then and now.

Soon—as promised—the Post published a laudatory profile of Gingrich, one of many future puff pieces.

Then, Gingrich’s colleague, Weber, authored a Post column openly calling for the GOP to become “America’s new internationalist party.”

The Spotlight was shouted down by conservatives hoodwinked by the big media into following Gingrich’s brand of “leadership.” Ultimately, however, the secret Post-Gingrich meeting was confirmed by the Post—but only after Gingrich had reached a position of influence. The Spotlight’s “conspiracy theory”—as some called it— proved to be a conspiracy fact.

On Sept. 3, 1995 the Post pointed out that “for the ultra-right, Gingrich is just a tool of the world government plot.” The Post said “anyone who glances at The Spotlight . . . knows . . . Gingrich is hardly the leader of their movement; in their eyes, he is [subverting] it.”

According to the Post: “Those with a paranoid bent are convinced that the Georgian is in cahoots with President Clinton, the Rockefellers, the Freemasons, the Council on Foreign Relations and the entire eastern establishment to abrogate the Constitution and forge a New World Order under the thumb of Jewish central bankers and the UN.”

More than a decade later, that sarcastic assessment of Gingrich stands perhaps more true than ever.

Michael Collins Piper is a world-renowned author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and, of course, the United States. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Target: Traficant, The Golem: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb and The Confessions of an Anti-Semite. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397 or calling FAB direct at 202- 547-5585 to inquire about pricing and S&H; fees.

.American Free Press
.Vol XI .#13 March 21, 2011 americanfreepress.net

Page 10, AMERICAN FREE PRESS * March 28, 2011 *

9-11 Links,
Big Money Swirl
Around Newt

By Michael Collins Piper


.Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — who left office under a cloud in 1999 — has pivotal political backing in elite global financial and corporate circles and can count on friendly support from the controlled media in pursuing his aspirations for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
Despite his efforts to portray himself as a “conservative” alternative to politics-as-usual, Gingrich is an unabashed New World Order internationalist and a long-standing advocate of destructive “free trade” policies and American military adventurism abroad.
As such, it is no coincidence Gingrich is a longtime member of the Rockefeller family-financed Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the New York-based affiliate of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the policy- making apparatus of the global empire of the Rothschild banking dynasty that is intricately intertwined with those predatory plutocrats on American soil who dominate the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, the privately owned money monopoly Ron Paul has worked to bring into line. These facts about Gingrich point to where his real loyalties lie.

On Feb. 26 The Washington Post reported Gingrich has assembled a multi-level, wide-ranging political conglomerate of his own, described as “a financial empire that could prove crucial” in advancing Gingrich’s presidential ambitions. He has already raised more money than possible GOP primary opponents including Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney.
In addition, Gingrich controls an operation known as American Solutions for Winning the Future — a virtual private money machine that Gingrich uses to promote himself. The Post says this Gingrich venture has raised “more money than any other organization of its kind nationwide,” to the tune of more than $50 million, “much of it as large donations from casino, energy and banking interests.”
By far the most generous backer of Gingrich is Las Vegas-based casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson — a hardline supporter of Israel who once described himself as “the richest Jew in the world.” Adelson has given Gingrich some $6 million over the last four years.
Gingrich also has an unusual connection to Larry Silverstein, a controversial figure whose name has been in the forefront of the circumstances surrounding the cover-up of the 9-11 terrorist tragedy.
While in Congress, Gingrich benefited from the lucrative Israeli-connected activities of his then-second wife, Marianne, who was on the payroll of the Israel Export Development Company (IEDCO), which promoted the importation into the United States of Israeli products — even as Gingrich was using his influence as a member of Congress to advance U.S.-Israeli trade.
The aforementioned IEDCO was an operation run by mob-connected Silverstein, the billionaire owner of the World Trade Center towers at the time of the 9-11 tragedy, best known for his now infamous urging — “pull it” — in reference to the Trade Center’s Building 7. That skyscraper was deliberately imploded, a point 9-11 researchers have documented relentlessly.
Mrs. Gingrich’s lucrative deal with IEDCO was cut in August 1994 after she and her husband traveled to Israel at the expense of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobby for Israel. Although Mrs. Gingrich took home a monthly salary of $2,500, plus “commissions,” she refused to disclose the size of those “commissions.” And while Mrs. Gingrich responded to criticisms of her sweet deal that “If I were going to get a political payoff, it would not be for the amount of money I am making,” the fact is that the sums she received are precisely of the level often seen linked to political payoffs.
IEDCO’s Silverstein once even admitted to The Wall Street Journal that Gingrich was one of a number of members of Congress who was lobbied to support Silverstein’s company’s proposals — when his wife was on Silverstein’s payroll.

Going back as far as 25 years, evidence was emerging that suggested that Gingrich was not the kind of Republican that could be considered “traditional.” A front-page exclusive published in the Jan. 28, 1985 issue of The Spotlight revealed that, while he was then a little known junior member of the House of Representatives, Gingrich was the brains behind a clique of internationalist Republicans who were working to scrap the GOP’s historic nationalist stance in foreign policy making. Unfortunately, this honest effort to expose Gingrich’s internationalist bent was greeted with a mixture of outrage and scorn by many conservatives, who were hoodwinked by the mainstream media into following the Georgia congressman’s peculiar brand of “leadership.” Gingrich and his fellow GOP lawmakers dubbed themselves the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS).
The Spotlight revealed that Gingrich, along with several other House Republicans, including Reps. Vin Weber (Minn.), Connie Mack (Fla.), and Robert Walker (Pa.), had attended a secret meeting with Donald Graham, publisher of The Washington Post, and Meg Greenfield, the Post’s editorial page editor. At that meeting Gingrich and his colleagues effectively agreed to work to revamp the so-called “conservative wing” of the Republican Party and use their influence to push the GOP into the internationalist camp.
In return, the liberal Post’s power-wielders agreed to give Gingrich and his colleagues widespread favorable publicity in the pages of their influential daily. Until that time Gingrich and company had been relegated to “backbench” status by the media, sometimes painted as “extremists” and “troublemakers.”
Gingrich and his colleagues told the Post that they would come out swinging in favor of economic sanctions against the anti-communist, pro-American regime in South Africa. This was a 180-degree reversal of the traditional “conservative” stand in support of South Africa and in opposition to sanctions. In no short time they did, in fact, call for sanctions, causing syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan to comment that Gingrich and company were “turncoat[s]” who were guilty of “stabbing South Africa in the back.” By adopting the new position, Gingrich and his COS clique had signed on with the liberal internationalists in Congress who had been waging war against South Africa for decades.
Soon — as promised — The Washington Post published a laudatory profile of Gingrich. This set the stage for many future such puff-pieces promoting Gingrich and placing him in line for his ultimate election as House minority whip and then as House speaker. Then, to the outrage of nationalist-minded Republicans, Gingrich’s COS colleague, Weber, authored a prominently placed op-ed column in the Post (never permitted as a forum for GOP conservatives) which called upon the GOP to become “America’s new internationalist party.” Ultimately, The Spotlight’s world exclusive on the secret meeting between Gingrich and the Post was confirmed by the Post itself — but only after Gingrich had reached a position of influence. In short, The Spotlight’s “conspiracy theory” — as some called it — proved to be a fact.
None of this surprised long-time Gingrich watchers. In 1968 when then-California Gov. Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon were vying for “conservative” support in their respective bids for the GOP presidential nomination, Gingrich opted instead to sign on as the southeast regional coordinator for their opponent, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. Later, Gingrich taught at the Rockefeller-funded Emory University in Atlanta.
What he represents is reflected in the critical role played by Gingrich in railroading the sovereignty-robbing, job-exporting North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through Congress. He rallied enough GOP votes to enable enactment, a major victory for fellow CFR-member, then-President Bill Clinton. Gingrich, in fact, was almost single-handedly responsible for ensuring NAFTA’s passage.
On Sept. 3, 1995 The Washington Post assured its readers that Gingrich was “okay” despite criticism of Gingrich by some liberal critics. The Post rushed to this defense and pointed out in a headline that “For the ultraright, Gingrich is just a tool of the world government plot.” The Post said that “anyone who glances at The Spotlight, the weekly newspaper of the far-right Liberty Lobby . . . knows that . . . Gingrich is hardly the leader of their movement; in their eyes, he is actively working to subvert it.” However, the Post was careful not to mention that it was The Spotlight that first blew the whistle on the secret deal between Gingrich and the Post.
According to the sarcastic and less than factual commentary by the Post, “Those with a paranoid bent are convinced that the Georgian is in cahoots with President Clinton, the Rockefellers, the Freemasons, the Council on Foreign Relations and the entire Eastern Establishment to abrogate the Constitution and forge a New World Order under the thumb of Jewish central bankers and the United Nations.”
The Post smeared patriots, saying: “It is important for national opinion-makers to understand the chasm between most House Republicans and the loony right. Gingrich and his GOP revolution may be controversial and provocative, but they are not the source of violent extremism.”

Another point to keep in mind: As AFP has reported exclusively, there is evidence Gingrich may be cooperating with a high-level scheme to launch an ostensibly “independent” political movement in the 2012 election, a so-called “centrist” third party that will be used to corral grassroots opposition to the New World Order establishment.
So even if Gingrich does not ultimately wind up as the GOP presidential nominee, he may have other options in the 2012 election arena.

* * * * * * *

. . ..Michael Collins Piper can now be heard on the Internet at michaelcollinspiper.podbean.com. He is the author of Final Judgment, the controversial “underground bestseller” documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem: Zionist Power in America , The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Dirty Secrets: Crime, Conspiracy & Cover-Up in the 20th Century, The GOLEM: Israel’s Hell Bomb, and Target: Traficant. These works can be found at America First Books and FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS: 1-888-699-NEWS. He has lectured on suppressed topics in places as diverse as Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Russia and Abu Dhabi.

(Issue #13, March 28, 2011, AMERICAN FREE PRESS)

.American Free Press
Volume VI. #6. February 6, 2006..americanfreepress.net


P. 10, AMERICAN FREE PRESS * February 6, 2006 Behind the Headlines
with Michael Collins Piper

Media Promotes ‘Reformers’
In Wake of Abramoff Scandal

By Michael Collins Piper

In the wake of the growing scandal surrounding the sleazy activities of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a longtime Republican Party activist and promoter of Israel’s interests, the major media has been touting two unlikely Republican advocates for “reform”: former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

However, a careful review of the records of both Gingrich and McCain indicates that they can hardly be counted upon to bring genuine reform to curtail the domination of Congress by special interest lobbies.

Take the case of the former House speaker. While serving in Congress and talking about cost-cutting, he once declared that U.S. foreign aid to Israel was one of the areas that no cost-cutting was possible and that, quite the contrary, required additional funding from tax-burdened Americans.

IT GOES BOTH WAYS: Democrats from the House and Senate listen to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) during a press conference unveiling the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in the Great Hall of the Library of Congress January 18, 2006, in Washington. Democrats proposed the legislation in reaction to the corruption and scandals involving some GOP lawmakers and lobbyists. Democrat or Republican, the truth is congressmen (and women) routinely do “favors” for lavish gifts.

In addition, while Gingrich was busy on Capitol Hill carrying water for Israeli interests, his then-wife Marianne was on the payroll of the Israel Export Development Company (IDECO), which was promoting the financial interests of Israel vis-à-vis lucrative trade agreements with the U.S.

Mrs. Gingrich’s lucrative deal with IDECO was cut in August 1994 after she and her husband traveled to Israel at the expense of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC is the foreign lobby for Israel that, even as this is written, has been embarrassed by the criminal indictment of two of its top lobbyists on charges of suspected espionage on behalf of Israel.

At the time it was first revealed that Mrs. Gingrich was taking home a monthly stipend of $2,500 plus “commissions” from the Israeli corporate operation. However, Mrs. Gingrich has refused to disclose the size of those “commissions.”

Mrs. Gingrich has responded to criticisms of her sweet deal by saying “If I were going to get a political payoff, it would not be for the amount of money I am making. » However, the fact is, the yearly figure of $30,000 is precisely the kind of figures often seen linked to political payoffs. And what is interesting is that IEDCO president Larry Silverstein admitted to The Wall Street Journal that Gingrich was one of a number of members of Congress who were lobbied to support his company’s proposal.

Mrs. Gingrich’s Israeli connection was obviously an egregious conflict of interest for Gingrich, but the congressman’s friends in high places saw no problem — since “our ally Israel” was involved. Imagine the ruckus if Mrs. Gingrich had been working for Arab interests.

As for so-called “reformer” John McCain, his track record is not so much more attractive. Following the 2002 elections, when campaign finance reform legislation — shepherded into law by McCain and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) — went into effect, the New York-based weekly newspaper Forward, the most influential voice of the pro-Israel lobby in America, bragged in its first post-election edition that “Jewish interest groups may be the big winners” under the vaunted McCain- Feingold campaign finance measures. Forward asserted flatly:

Political hands say groups such as the Republican Jewish Coalition and its counterpart, the National Jewish Democratic Council, not-for-profits unaffected by the ban on “soft money” for political campaigns, are poised to be big beneficiaries of the new [campaign finance legislation] regime.

In fact, under the McCain-Feingold “reform” measure, the new strength in organized Jewish political power would come at the expense of corporations, labor unions and other interest groups — and wealthy individuals, too — who were previously exempt from regular limits on campaign contributions if their funds were donated directly to national party organizations for “party building,” voter drives and issues advertisements.

Under the new law only so-called “issues” groups such as the aforementioned Jewish organizations would not be subject to limits. Forward pointed out:

As long as the groups are independent of the parties and candidates do not “coordinate” their activities with them, their contributions remain unrestricted.

What this means is that a wide-ranging number of political action committees focused on Israel interests can now spend unlimited amounts of money working to elect or defeat candidates.

Although top Jewish organizations such as the Anti- Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith and AIPAC target offending politicians for destruction, these organizations do not formally involve themselves in election campaigns or donate money to political figures.

However, it is an “open secret” that dozens of other Jewish political organizations rely on “a wink and a nod” from the ADL and AIPAC to determine whom they should support or oppose financially.

Anyone familiar with the history and record of McCain would not be surprised that McCain should be the one responsible for enacting such unfair and biased legislation
designed to benefit the political power of the pro-Israel lobby. In fact, McCain owes his entire career to the indirect sponsorship of the powerful organized-crime-enriched family of billionaire Edgar Bronfman, head of the World Jewish Congress. McCain’s chief backer in Arizona politics, Kemper Marley, was a front man for the Bronfman family, and McCain’s own family beer distribution fortune came through this connection.

In addition, much of McCain’s own campaign money has come from a clique of groups and individuals all of whom have close ties to the Israeli lobby, including: organized crime-linked gambling interests in Las Vegas, international bankers such as Goldman Sachs and Hollywood figures such as the late mob-linked Lew Wasserman.

It will also be remembered that McCain’s father, the late Adm. John McCain, was a key player in the official U.S. government cover-up of Israel’s murder of 34 American sailors aboard the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967.

. . ..A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of Final Judgment, the controversial “underground bestseller” documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, The Judas Goats, and Dirty Secrets, all available from America First Books and FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS. He has lectured on suppressed topics in places as diverse as Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Russia and Abu Dhabi.

(Issue #7, February 6, 2006, American Free Press)

Newt Gingrich ou la voix de son maître sioniste – Sheldon Adelson: Les poches profondes qui sont derrière Newt Gingrich

par Eli Clifton, Think Progress (USA) le 21 décembre 2011 traduit de l’anglais par Djazaïri

Le financement qui est derrière Newt Gingrich etAmerican Solutions for Winning the Future, son comité politique indépendant, est l’occasion d’une plongée fascinante dans les profondeurs des poches qui soutiennent la candidature de Gingrich. Cette semaine, McClatchy a révélé qu’American Solutions avait réglé la note de 8 millions de dollars de location de jets privés à l’époque où Gingrich réfléchissait à son entrée dans les compétitions présidentielles de 2008 et 2012.

Le milliardaire des jeux de casino Sheldon Adelson était le plus important financier d’American Solutions avec une contribution de 7,65 millions de dollars, la rumeur étant qu’il avait engagé 20 millions de dollars en faveur d’un super PAC (comité d’action politique) pro-Gingrich, rumeur démentie par un porte parole d’Adelson. Quoi qu’il en soit, les faits montrent de manière de plus en plus nette que le patron de casion milliardaire est une pièce centrale de la carrière politique de Newt Gingrich.

L’entreprise Sands Corporation dirigée par Sheldon Adelson est basée à Las Vegas mais a des intérêts politiques et commerciaux à Macao, en Chine et en Israël. En Israël, l’importance d’Adelson tient à sa relation d’amitié proche avec le premier ministre Israélien Benjamin Netanyahou et au journal gratuit Israel Hayom dont il est le propriétaire et qui soutient le parti du Likoud. Pour en revenir aux Etats Unis, Adelson siège au conseil d’administration de la Republican Jewish Coalition et ne cache pas ses vues sur le conflit israélo-palestinien. Pendant la présidence de George W. Bush, Adelson s’était opposé aux efforts de relance des discussions de paix entre Israéliens et Palestiniens et était même allé à l’encontre de l’influent American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) quand cette organisation avait soutenu les discussions de paix. « Je ne continue pas à soutenir des organisations qui aident des amis à se suicider simplement parce qu’ils disent qu’ils veulent faire le grand saut, » avait déclaré Adelson à la Jewish Telegraph Agency.

Gingrich, qui a qualifié le 10 décembre les Palestiniens de “terroristes” pendant un débat du parti Républicain et a déclaré à Jewish Channel que les palestiniens sont un peuple « inventé », semble faire écho à la ligne dure adoptée avant lui par son bienfaiteur plein aux as.

“Sheldon a toujours aimé Newt. Il est resté avec lui tout le temps, » a déclaré Fred Zeidman, un ami d’Adelson et un membre important de la communauté juive américaine qui soutient Mitt Romney, à Aram Roston du Daily Beast. « Il est resté avec lui quand il était dans l’ornière. Newt, je pense, reflète bien l’état d’esprit de Sheldon. Particulièrement au sujet d’Israël.”

Si Adelson et Gingrich semblent partager le même agenda de droite pour le Moyen Orient, les affaires du magnat des casinos en Chine se sont avérées politiquement gênantes au pays. Adelson aurait aidé à faire échouer au Congrès une mesure d’opposition à la candidature de Pékin aux jeux olympiques proposée par des Républicains de la chambre des Représentants. «La proposition d eloi ne verra jamais le jour, M. le maire. Ne vous inquiétez pas pour ça, » aurait-il dit au maire de Pékin et 2001 après avoir téléphoné à Tom Delay, le chef de la majorité à la Chambre des Représentants. Par la suite, Sands Corporation obtint une lucrative licence de casino par le gouvernement chinois, ce qui lui permit de commencer un développement massif dans la Macau Special Administrative Region (SAR).

Réagissant à l’étroitesse des relations d’affaires d’Adelson avec le gouvernement chinois, le président de la Christian Coalition of Alabama, le Dr Randy Brinson, avait dénoncé Adelson qui « ne partage pas nos valeurs. » « Les endroits où Sheldon Adelson a placé son argent dit clairement où son cœur balance : vers le jeu d’argent et le soutien au régime chinois qui persécute les Chrétiens, » avait-il dit.

Gingrich va se retrouver devant ses propres difficultés à persuader les Chrétiens évangéliques troublés par ses multiples mariages et liaisons extraconjugales, de soutenir sa candidatLienure. Mais la présence affichée de Sheldon Adelson dans le camp de Gingrich pourrait s’avérer être un obstacle de plus dans la conquête de le très importante droite chrétienne.

Posted in Non classé | Leave a comment