Brochette de sionistes juifs néocons, au bien cuit de Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney’s Jewish fan club
By Ron Kampeas October 9, 2013 4:08pm

Ben Smith at Buzzfeed reports on a Dick Cheney roast that took place in New York, hosted by Commentary magazine. Speakers rounded up by the famed Jewish journal of neoconservatism to roast the former veep included boldface Jewish names such as former Sen. Joseph Lieberman, former attorney general Michael Mukasey and former Cheney chief of staff (and convicted felon) Scooter Libby. Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld also roasted Cheney. The night’s sponsors included plenty of moneyed machers.

Here’s the program:


Le Blogue de Richard Hétu / La Presse

Mercredi 9 octobre 2013 | Mise en ligne à 11h11 | Commenter Commentaires (27)
Au bien-cuit de Dick Cheney…

Illustration du carton d'invitation au bien-cuit de Dick Cheney.

C’était le bien-cuit de Dick Cheney lundi soir au Plaza Hotel à Manhattan, où des blagues sur la simulation de noyade (ha, ha) et autres politiques controversées défendues par l’ex-vice-président ont fait rigoler des convives (mais pas tous), s’il faut en croire ce compte-rendu publié sur le site
Cette blague attribuée à l’ex-sénateur démocrate/indépendant du Connecticut Joe Lieberman retient aujourd’hui l’attention des internautes :

«C’est bien qu’on soit tous ici au Plaza plutôt que dans des cages après un quelconque procès pour crimes de guerre

* * *


Les politiques de l’administration de Dick Cheney après le 11 septembre ont été fortement influencées par les lectures et consultations de Cheney avec l’auteur sioniste juif anti-Islam Bernard Lewis, le véritable père du concept du « choc des civilisations » (dans son article « The Roots of Muslim Rage »):
Published: April 05, 2003
Newsweek also reported that after 9/11 Mr. Cheney spent much of his time in an undisclosed location reading books about weapons of mass destruction and consulting with scholars about the Middle East. Among them was Bernard Lewis, the Princeton historian who wrote the best-selling  »What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response » and was a participant in a pre-Sept. 11 study of ancient empires, sponsored by Mr. Rumsfeld’s office, to understand how they maintained their dominance.
Mr. Lewis reportedly told Mr. Cheney that the Arab world looked down on weakness and respected the exercise of force. After talks with him and other Middle East experts like the Johns Hopkins scholar Fouad Ajami, Time reported, Mr. Cheney  »gradually abandoned his former skepticism about the potential for democracy in the Middle East, » a development that became a tipping point in the tilt toward war.
Early this year Mr. Lewis wrote an article for Newsweek International in which he made a case for American intervention in Iraq and argued that  »worries about Iraqi civilians — fighting in the streets, popular resistance » were overblown. Now Mr. Lewis has written an article for The Wall Street Journal Europe in which he argues that Iraqis may be reluctant to welcome American soldiers because antiwar protests reinforce their worry that  »the United States may flinch from finishing the job. »(…)

Bernard Lewis revises Bernard Lewis (says he opposed invasion of Iraq!)

I take this as a good sign: it’s now a blot on your resume to have supported the Iraq war. Cowardly lion Bernard Lewis, 95, in the Chronicle of Higher Education, says that he privately opposed invading Iraq, but didn’t pipe up, even as he was calling for a military takeover of the country and as Cheney was quoting him on television. Here (and below, excerpt) the Wall Street Journal documented his many calls for invasion. When are Ken Pollack and Tom Friedman going to explain that they also were against the war, but didn’t pipe up? CHE’s Evan R. Goldstein interview:

After 9/11, Lewis became an occasional visitor to the vice president’s home and office, and on the eve of the war Cheney went on Meet the Press and name-checked the professor. “I firmly believe, along with men like Bernard Lewis, who is one of the great students of that part of the world, that strong, firm U.S. response to terror and to threats to the United States would go a long way, frankly, toward calming things in that part of the world.”
Lewis’s reported influence in Washington reached an apotheosis in February 2004, when The Wall Street Journal ran a front-page story about how Lewis’s “diagnosis of the Muslim world’s malaise, and his call for a U.S. military invasion to seed democracy in the Mideast, have helped define the boldest shift in U.S. foreign policy in 50 years.”
In his living room, Lewis seems uninterested in rehashing recent history. He listens patiently, stone-faced. His disagreement with the Bush administration, he explains with a sigh, was not over the goal (regime change), but the tactic (full-scale invasion). Lewis says he argued for recognizing the leadership in northern Iraq as the country’s legitimate government and arming those forces if necessary. In the decade since the first Persian Gulf war, he says, Kurds and Arabs had managed to build a nascent democracy under the protection of the no-fly zone.
“That was the way to do it,” he says. “Simply to invade was the wrong way to do it, and I thought so and said so at the time.” Why didn’t he speak out before the invasion? “I didn’t feel at that crucial moment that it was right to take a public stance against the war.”

Here is that Wall Street Journal piece from 2004, documenting Lewis’s call for invasion:

Eight days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with the Pentagon still smoldering, Mr. Lewis addressed the U.S. Defense Policy Board. Mr. Lewis and a friend, Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi — now a member of the interim Iraqi Governing Council — argued for a military takeover of Iraq to avert still-worse terrorism in the future, says Mr. Perle, who then headed the policy board.
A few months later, in a private dinner with Dick Cheney at the vice president’s residence, Mr. Lewis explained why he was cautiously optimistic the U.S. could gradually build democracy in Iraq, say others who attended. Mr. Lewis also held forth on the dangers of appearing weak in the Muslim world, a lesson Mr. Cheney apparently took to heart. Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press” just before the invasion of Iraq, Mr. Cheney said: “I firmly believe, along with men like Bernard Lewis, who is one of the great students of that part of the world, that strong, firm U.S. response to terror and to threats to the United States would go a long way, frankly, toward calming things in that part of the world.”
The Lewis Doctrine, in effect, had become U.S. policy.
Bernard Lewis has been the single most important intellectual influence countering the conventional wisdom on managing the conflict between radical Islam and the West,” says Mr. Perle, who remains a close adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “The idea that a big part of the problem is failed societies on the Arab side is very important. That is not the point of view of the diplomatic establishment.”..
After Sept. 11, a book by Mr. Lewis called “What Went Wrong?” was a best-seller that launched the historian, at age 85, as an unlikely celebrity. Witty and a colorful storyteller, he hit the talk-show and lecture circuits, arguing in favor of U.S. intervention in Iraq as a first step toward democratic transformation in the Mideast. Historically, tyranny was foreign to Islam, Mr. Lewis told audiences, while consensual government, if not elections, has deep roots in the Mideast. He said Iraq, with its oil wealth, prior British tutelage and long repression under Saddam Hussein, was the right place to start moving the Mideast toward an open political system.

Bernard Lewis: In the service of empire

16 December 2002

Above: Bernard Lewis. (Princeton University)

“Bernard Lewis has brilliantly placed the relationships and the issues of the Middle East into their larger context, with truly objective, original — and always independent — thought. Bernard has taught [us] how to understand the complex and important history of the Middle East and use it to guide us where we will go next to build a better world for generations” — Paul Wolfowitz, speaking via video phone at a special ceremony held in Tel Aviv to honour the leading Orientalist in March.

American Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of the US war hawks are no doubt indebted to the Princeton historian: At the age of 86, Bernard Lewis has not only provided historical justification for Washington’s “war on terror”, but has also emerged as chief ideologue for the recolonisation of the Arab world through an American invasion of Iraq.

Lewis’s work, especially his book What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, has been a major source in what is practically a manifesto for advocates of US military intervention towards “establishing democracy in the Middle East”. By declaring that the peoples of the Middle East, meaning Arabs and Iranians, have failed to catch up with modernity and have fallen into “a downward spiral of hatred and rage”, Lewis has at once exonerated American imperial policies and provided a moral imperative for President George W Bush’s “preemptive strikes” and “regime change” doctrines.
But the role of the man, who 12 years ago coined the term “clash of civilisations” that was later adopted by Samuel Huntington, has gone beyond that of “an apologist for colonialism”, as Edward Said, his foremost critic, describes him. In fact, Lewis, according to published reports and his own statements, has been involved in lobbying, shaping and promoting the Bush Administration’s most hawkish policies in support of Israel against the Palestinians, and for the aggressive use of American military force in the region.
His influence is not merely a result of his academic stature and prolific writings on Islam, rather it is primarily a function of his membership in an alliance of neo-conservatives and hard-line Zionists who have come to assume key posts in the Bush administration. Led by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the powerful alliance has been trying to put into practice a vision that they have been advocating throughout the nineties to ensure unrivalled American supremacy through the elimination of all potential threats.
On 19 February 2001, representatives of the alliance, including Lewis, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, signed a letter urging President Bill Clinton to launch a military offensive, which would have included blanket bombings, to destroy the Iraqi regime. Since assuming power, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, have called on influential friends like Lewis, and a host of hard-line pundits, to press for an American war against Iraq.
In that capacity, Lewis has assumed a bigger “insider” role than some officials in the administration who were not included in the decision-making on Iraq. According to a report in USA Today, Lewis participated in a special meeting for the Defence Advisory Board, led by the leader of warmongers, Richard Perle, on 19 September 2001. The meeting that was scheduled before the 11 September attacks had occurred, was also attended by Lewis’s friend Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress. By various accounts, Lewis’s meetings with both President Bush, and especially a dinner with Vice-President Dick Cheney (during his days of seclusion in the immediate aftermath of 9/11), were crucial to promoting Wolfowitz’s agenda of refocusing the administration’s attentions on a war against Iraq.
In those meetings, and many that followed, Lewis argued that 9/11 demonstrated the danger the West was facing, especially if “Muslim terrorists” were supplied weapons of mass destruction by Iraq, Syria or Iran. His message to the administration was that the US could not afford to show weakness towards Arabs and Muslims. An American official told The New Yorker magazine in April that Lewis advised them to disregard warnings against inflaming the so-called Arab street since “in that part of the world, nothing matters more than resolute will and force.”
Lewis often cites the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon, which he criticised as “too early”, as an example of such signs of weakness that inspired the Palestinians to emulate Hizbullah’s “perceived victory” by launching the Intifada.
But it is his broad definition of the relationship between Islam and the West that makes Lewis invaluable to the war lobby. Arab and Muslim grievances against the West, in Lewis’s view, are by in large baseless and no more than desperate attempts by failed societies to blame external powers, especially the US and Israel for their self-inflicted misery. Lewis provides “a scholarly” cover for a lobby that has been openly advocating the reshaping of the regional map to eliminate “the Arab threat to Israel”. Furthermore, Lewis considers Israel and Turkey the only real nation states in the region and has been forecasting the demise and the disintegration of Arab states since the Gulf War. “Most of the states of the Middle East… are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, [and] no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates — as happened in Lebanon — into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties,” Lewis wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1992.
Lewis has repeatedly cited the rise of Islamism, following the decline of Pan Arabism and socialism, as evidence that all Arab and Muslim responses to Western hegemony — ranging from the Palestinian resistance to intellectual anti-imperialist discourse — result from irrational religious fanaticism.
Lewis seemed to relish the rise of Osama Bin Laden, who he portrayed in a 1998 article as the eloquent and poetic voice of Muslim rage, taking the Islamist’s ascendancy as a vindication of his own inattention to secular and democratic forces in the region who oppose Western domination. In Lewis’s world view, which has been adopted by countless media pundits, only tyrants, oppressors and fanatics would stand up to US plans for radical change in the region, while “true democrats”, like certain figures in the Iraqi opposition, are awaiting military liberation at Washington’s hands.
At the opening of a conference entitled “The Day After: Planning For A Post Saddam Iraq”, organised by the right- wing American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Lewis put forward his views with respect to the current context.
As Lewis sees things, the military campaign is actually a “vision of democratisation” that elicits two types of responses. “The first could be summed up like this: The Arabs are incapable of democratic government. Arabs are different from us, and we must be more, shall we say, reasonable both in what we expect from them and in what they may expect from us. Whatever we do, these countries will be ruled by corrupt tyrants. The aim of foreign policy, therefore, should be to make sure that they are friendly tyrants rather than hostile,” Lewis told the opening session of the conference on 3 October.
“The other point of view is somewhat different. It begins more or less from the same position — that Arab countries are not democracies and that establishing democracies within Arab societies will be difficult. Yet, Arabs are teachable and democratic governance ought to be possible for them, provided we proctor and gradually launch them on our way, or I should say on their way.
“That point of view is known as imperialism. It was the method adopted in the British and French empires, in their mandated territories and in some of their colonies, creating governments in their own image. In Iraq, in Syria, and elsewhere, the British created constitutional monarchies and the French created unstable republics. None of them worked very well. But hope still remains”, Lewis said as he argued for the virtue of American military intervention as an opportunity for the West to modernise the Arab world.
Lewis, who worked for British intelligence during World War II, not only has considerable nostalgia for bygone days, but has put himself solidly in the service of the new American empire, hoping it will pick up where the British and the French left off.
Lamis Andoni is a veteran journalist and analyst who has covered the Middle East for a number of Arab, European,and American newspapers for two decades. This article is based on “The War on Terrorism: The US, Islam and the Arab World”, a course Andoni taught in 2002 at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, and first appeared in Issue No. 616 of Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 12-18 December 2002.
Michael Collins Piper, The Golem
Chapter Twenty-Three 
« New York Money People »: 
Jewish-Born American General
Points the Finger at the Warmongers


New York money is not only playing a big part in 2008 presidential campaign politics, but it’s also a driving force behind the ongoing push by pro-Israel fanatics at the highest levels of U.S. policy-making to force the United States into a senseless war against Iran.
That’s the only conclusion that can be reached based on a survey of multiple and wide-ranging news reports—circulating largely within publications in Israel and in the American Jewish community—that have not been brought to the attention of most Americans through the aegis of the so-called « mainstream media. »
It’s almost as if the major media in America is simply determined to prevent average Americans from knowing that there are some people who believe that Israel and its well-heeled backers in the United States are the primary advocates for U.S. military action against Iran.
Perhaps the most explosive comments in this regard came from Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), who was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 and who—until then, at least—was considered a likely candidate for the Democratic nod in 2008. In an interview with columnist Arianna Huffington, Clark said that he believed that the Bush administration is determined to wage war against Iran. When asked why he believed this, Clark said:
You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.
In short, Clark was saying that powerful New York-based financial interests (those whom he called « the New York money people ») are putting pressure on political candidates and incumbent politicians to support a war against Iran.
In fact, Clark was correct. Jewish community newspapers have indeed noted, time and again over the past several years, that many in the American Jewish community and in Israel are urging U.S. military action against Iran. And in Israel, of course, the bellicose talk of Israel itself attacking Iran is commonly and publicly discussed with free abandon. All of this is little known to the American public.
Despite this, Clark came under fire and was accused of « anti- Semitism » or otherwise charged with lending credence to what are dismissed as « anti-Israel and anti- Jewish conspiracy theories, » which—Clark’s angry critics said—suggest that Israel and its supporters are prime movers behind the drive for war.
Because Clark is the son of a Jewish father (although he didn’t know that until several years ago, having been raised by a Christian mother and a Christian step-father who never told Clark of his Jewish heritage), some Jewish leaders were pulling their punches, recognizing that it sounded somewhat outlandish to call Clark « anti-Jewish. » But the word is definitely out in the Jewish community: « Clark can’t be trusted. »
On Jan. 12,2007, the New York-based Jewish newspaper, Forward, carried a front-page story zinging Clark for his remarks, noting that, »The phrase New York money people’ struck unpleasant chords with many pro- Israel activists. They interpreted it as referring to the Jewish community, which is known for its significant financial donations to political candidates. »
The fact that Jewish leaders and publications were attacking Clark for using the term « New York money people » was ironic, inasmuch as just the week before the furor over Clark’s comments, the same Forward, in its own Jan. 5, 2007 issue, had a front-page story announcing that pro-Israel stalwart U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had lined up significant financial support for his own 2008 presidential campaign from those whom—in its own headline—Forward called « New York money men. »
In that revealing article, describing McCain’s « heavily Jewish finance committee, » Forward announced that, in recent weeks, « McCain has been signaling that an attention to Jewish issues will remain on his agenda as his campaign moves forward. » The Jewish newspaper did not mention whether McCain will direct any attention to Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu issues—or any other issues of concern to other religious groups.
The article in Forward made it clear that support from these « New York money men » is critical in the forthcoming presidential campaign and that it could be pivotal, whether that money stays in McCain’s camp or ultimately goes elsewhere.
This information could prove a surprise to grass-roots Republicans all over America who think (apparently incorrectly) that they are the ones who actually pick their party’s presidential nominee.
In addition, in light of the fact that Jewish groups attacked Clark for suggesting that « New York money people » were pressuring political candidates to push for war against Iran, it is interesting to note that Forward pointed out that one of the key « New York money men » supporting McCain cited the issue of Iran as one of the reasons why he was boosting the Arizona senator.
Dr. Ben Chouake, who is president of the pro-Israel NORPAC, a political action committee, and a member of McCain’s finance committee, was cited as having remarked that Iran is « an immense threat to the United States, and this is an immense threat to Israel, » and that « the person that is the most capable, most experienced, most courageous to defend our country, would be John McCain. »
Clearly, the « New York money people » are playing a major part in the American political arena, throwing their weight behind who gets elected— and who doesn’t—and whether or not America goes to war.

That’s something that Americans need to know about, but they had better not count on the mass media to tell them about it.

Cheney: Military action in Iran unavoidable

Neocons Who Brought You The Iraq War Endorse AIPAC’s Iran Bill

Ron Paul: « Iraq war based on lies pushed by the rabidly pro-Israel neocons »

J-Tweet of the Week: Happy #WarMitzvah from ‘The Daily Show’

Le lobby israélien aux États-Unis Par Stephen Walt et John Mearsheimer (mars 2006) – Première partie
Le lobby israélien aux États-Unis Par Stephen Walt et John Mearsheimer (mars 2006) – Deuxième partie
Le lobby israélien aux États-Unis Par Stephen Walt et John Mearsheimer (mars 2006) – Troisième partie

The Neocons Have Been Wrong About Everything by Pat Buchanan

Cracks in the Alliance: Is There Finally Daylight Between Israel and the US?

Former Bush advisor and Iraq war achitect Elliot Abrams says Pollard should go free

NeoCon ‘reality-creating’: Paper published in 1982 by Israeli journalist describes exactly what’s going on in Iraq, Syria and across the Middle East

Quelques voix juives dénonçant la soumission des États-Unis envers Israel:

Bended Knees: Zionist Power in American Politics

“Obama wants to see a stop to settlements: Not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions”. – Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, May 2009
“What the prime minister has offered in specifics of a restraint on the policy of settlements… unprecedented, there has never been a precondition, it’s always been an issue within negotiations.” – Hillary Clinton, BBC, November 1, 2009 (my emphasis)
“The US administration understands what we have always said … that the real obstacle to negotiations is the Palestinians (calling for a freeze on settlements)”. – Israeli Minister of Science and Technology Daniel Hershkowitz, November 1, 2009 (my addition).
“America, stop sucking up to Israel!” – Gideon Levy, Israeli journalist, Haaretz, November 1, 2009.
“US Zionists are sticking it to America, 24/7”, Anonymous Staff Official, Washington D. C., – October 31, 2009.

À la défense des néoconservateurs sionistes: Dore Gold

Wartime Witch Hunt: Blaming Israel for the Iraq War, by Dore Gold

Former UK Foreign Minister Jack Straw Admits: Jewish Lobby Controls American Foreign Policy

Former UK cabinet minister and one of the main backers of the illegal invasion of Iraq, Jack Straw, has openly admitted that “unlimited funds” available to the Jewish lobby AIPAC are used to control American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Straw, who is of distant Jewish descent himself, made the remarks during a debate in the British last week during the Round Table Global Diplomatic Forum in the British House of Commons.
According to the Jewish Daily Forward newspaper, former Israeli Knesset Member Einat Wilf was in attendance at the debate and posted Straw’s comments on her Facebook page.
Straw said, according to Wilf, that the greatest obstacles to peace between Israel and the Palestinians and her Arab neighbors are the “unlimited” funds available to Jewish organizations and AIPAC in the U.S., as well as Germany’s “obsession” with defending Israel.
Straw served as both Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary under Prime Minister Tony Blair, and as Secretary of State of Justice under Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Straw also said Germany’s “obsession” with defending Israel was another impediment to peace.
Straw’s about turn and open admission on the role of the Jewish Supremacist lobby has come as a surprise to many observers, as he was one of the major players behind the illegal invasion of Iraq which was carried out in response to demands from the Zionist lobby to attack that nation—even though it had no connection whatsoever to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.
During an official inquiry into the conduct of the British government in dragging the UK into that war, Straw admitted that he deliberately withheld key legal advice from the public and parliament which warned that the invasion was illegal under international law.
Straw admitted he advised the Cabinet that invasion would be legal without a fresh United Nations mandate days after Lord Goldsmith, the then attorney general, had said privately that the opposite was true.

Sur ce blog:

Cheney furieux que Bush n’ait pas pardonné « Scooter » Libby

2009: Le jugement des espions de l’AIPAC soulève l’inquiétude

Libby inculpé suite à une plainte auprès de MSNBC

La sécurité nucléaire au coeur du scandale d’espionnage à l’AIPAC

2010: le scandale d’espionnage par des compagnies de sécurité israéliennes en Pennsylvanie n’est que la pointe de l’iceberg…


Le prochain 11 septembre sera-t-il concoté en Israël?

Madoff est aujourd’hui l’ami de cellule de l’espion israélien Pollard et du mafieux Persico

2009: Autre espion pour Israël arrêté aux États-Unis

Test de loyauté sioniste imposé aux membres du gouvernement américain

Déclassification de l’enquête sénatoriale sur le lobby sioniste aux USA (1963)

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

L’espionnage comme seconde nature

Secrets nucléaires vendus à Israël par les criminels habituels

Une démocrate juive, Jane Harman, aurait manigancé l’acquittement des espions de l’AIPAC, en conversation téléphonique avec un agent du Mossad

11 septembre et tout le reste: c’était pas les musulmans!

Un des journalistes juifs du Watergate, Carl Bernstein, accuse les « néocons juifs » d’être derrière la guerre en Irak

Le mouvement juif Néo-conservateur : du trotskisme au bellicisme sioniste

Rabbin: La guerre en Irak n’était pas seulement pour Israël. … mais aussi pour la paix dans le monde!

La guerre en Irak était une célébration de Pourim

Le grand rabbin ashkénaze d’Israël, qui remerciait Bush pour la guerre en Irak, arrêté pour fraude et blanchiment d’argent

Pourim 2011 et l’attaque atlanto-sioniste en Libye

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

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

Contrecoups (Blowback)

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

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

Le Mossad a liquidé trois cents cinquante scientifiques et trois cents universitaires irakiens

Le printemps arabe: « une incroyable opportunité pour Israël », selon l’ancien directeur du Mossad Meir Dagan et le Maj. Gen. et criminel de guerre Yoav Galant

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

Rand Paul se distancie des idées de son père, se rapproche des juifs et reçoit l’appui de l’establishment républicain et des médias

La Judée déclare la guerre à Ron Paul … Judea declares war on Ron Paul

FDR a tout fait pour empêcher une résolution pacifique du conflit

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

Israël peut bien disparaître, on s’en moque, dit l’ancien directeur de l’unité de traque de Ben Laden à la CIA

La CIA voit le Mossad comme sa pire menace en matière de contre-espionnage

L’ancien directeur de l’unité de traque de Ben Laden à la CIA, Michael Scheuer accuse Israël de détenir le Congrès et d’entraîner les USA vers le désastre d’une guerre contre l’Iran

« Je suis un sénateur états-unien, pas un sénateur israélien ». Le nouveau secrétaire à la Défense d’Obama, couvert de crachats et de malédictions par le lobby juif

Le président Obama sur la même ligne que l’ex-directeur de l’Unité de traque de Ben Laden à la CIA, Michael Scheuer: « peu importe qu’Israël survive ou pas »

Le message de paix de David Duke contre les guerres sionistes

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

Ron Paul explique le non-interventionnisme dans les affaires étrangères

Michael Scheuer explique le non-interventionnisme

John McCain et les guerres pour Israël

Les preuves que la fable du 11 septembre est un tissu de mensonge

L’utilisation d’armes chimiques en Syrie pourrait être un false flag israélien, selon l’ancien chef de cabinet de Colin Powell sous l’administration Bush, le colonel à la retraite Lawrence Wilkerson

Al Qaida, Israël, même combat contre la Syrie

NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL – PLUS JAMAIS DE GUERRES POUR ISRAËL! Prévisible false flag israélien et pressions sionistes pour envoyer l’Occident se battre pour les intétêts d’Israël

Devoir de mémoire, devoir de faire tomber L’axe Iran-Syrie-Liban

Détenteur d’un important arsenal nucléaire et chimique, Israël est responsable de la course à l’armement nucléaire et chimique au Proche-Orient… Qu’attendent nos chères démocraties pour condamner cet état terroriste partisan d’al-Qaïda et le compter parmi leurs ennemis?

Les médiats juifs tels que le New York Times dissimulent les efforts des groupes juifs pour pousser l’Occident en guerre en Syrie pour lsraël

Un lobbyiste pro-israélien appelle à provoquer un nouveau Pearl Harbor pour déclencher une guerre contre l’Iran

L’Occident « chrétien » complice de l’éradication des Chrétiens du Moyen-orient par des représentants de l’Islam le plus décadent

Al-Qaïda et Israël (Joe Lieberman): même combat contre la Syrie

John McCain et les leçons de la Libye: « Bombardez la Syrie! »

McCain et Lieberman: « bombardez la Libye »

Le sioniste orthodoxe Joe Lieberman et le projet de loi visant la suppression des droits constitutionnels des personnes soupçonnées de terrorisme

Le gourou néocon Norman Podhoretz: « En tant qu’Américain et Juif, je prie pour que Bush bombarde l’Iran »

Des faux nationalistes: sionistes autant anti-nazis qu’anti-Islam

Les fauteurs de guerres

Le procès d’Alan Gross, espion « américain » dans la communauté juive cubaine, pourrait envenimer les relations Cuba-US

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

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


Pourim 2011 (19 et 20 mars) et l’attaque atlanto-sioniste en Libye

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

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

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

Maudite boisson! Le sérum de vérité alcoolisé pousse Tenet à désigner les coupables juifs néocons


This entry was posted in Non classé. Bookmark the permalink.