War Without End

Guest-c651

Richard Perle about "regime change" in Iraq [Worth reading]

iraqicommunity-Message 1665.,Tue Feb 25, 2003.

Worth reading
----------------------------------------

Interview: 'Even if Saddam worked for us it is time for us to throw
him out'

London |By Amir Taheri | 23-02-2003

His political enemies have labelled him "The Prince of Darkness"
while his friends claim that he is one of the "best strategic
brains" in Washington. All agree that Richard Perle, who chairs the
all-powerful Defence Policy Board, is one of the key hands in
shaping President George W. Bush's global strategy.

One of the architects of the policy of "regime change" in Iraq,
Perle plays a crucial behind-the-scenes role in all diplomatic,
political and military aspects of what looks like a deepening crisis.

In an exclusive interview conducted during a recent visit to London,
Perle responded to our questions.

Excerpts:

Question: Some people in the Arab world believe that Saddam Hussain
works for you.
Answer: Why is that?

"It's a long story. But the main theme is that Saddam, by
threatening and sometimes actually invading Iraq's neighbours,
forced many countries in the region to come under the U.S. umbrella
and even invite American military presence. He also waged war
against the revolution in Iran for eight years, helping you contain
that particular enemy at no cost to yourself. The result of all that
is there is now a quarter of a million American troops where there
was none just three decades ago. The U.S. has some military presence
in all but five of the Arab states. And now, by making an unequal
war inevitable, he is just trying to present Iraq to you on a golden
plate..."

A:Interesting analysis. But I can tell you one thing: even if Saddam
worked for us it is time for us to chuck him out. We are not
interested in maintaining troops outside our own territory just for
the fun of it. The United States was not designed or destined to
become an imperial power. You will not find anywhere in the world
where we intervened militarily and set up a colonial empire.

Our problem with Saddam Hussain is twofold. First, he is clearly
determined to build up his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
which he could use against our allies in the region and, later, even
against Europe and the United States. The simple truth is that we
cannot trust him.

Therefore, we cannot turn our face away and let him to do whatever
he likes in violation of the ceasefire accords of 1991 and 18
Security Council resolutions. The second reason for our position is
that we believe the Iraqi people deserve a better government.

Q:Some Arabs believe you want Iraq's oil

A:The answer to that question will be given by what we shall all see
very soon. Iraqi oil belongs to the people of Iraq and whoever is
prepared to buy it at world prices. Even now the American market
absorbs most of Iraq's oil.

Q:Some Arabs see you as an enemy

A:They are wrong. Saddam Hussain is not the symbol of Arab dreams,
hopes and aspirations. No one has harmed Arab interests as much as
he has in the past few decades. All that I want is for Arabs to be
able to elect their own governments, hold them accountable.

All I want is for the Arabs to have a robust open market economy so
that they can have a share in the fantastic prosperity created by
the new global economy. Why is it that the Arab countries are
absolutely the only ones whose real income per head has fallen in
the past two decades?

A friend is not one who flatters you and congratulates you for your
weaknesses. A friend is he who criticises you. I want the Arabs to
ask themselves why are they weak and confused? The answer is:
because they are not free. Because they have suffered from leaders
like Saddam Hussain.

Q:Are the Arabs ready for the kind of Western-style system you
preach?

A:I think they are. At least they must be given a chance. When they
had a chance, several Arab countries were slowly building democracy 
among them Iraq and Egypt. And today several Arab states are taking
risks with reform and change. The Arabs have a great culture and
civilisation behind them. So, why should they be shut out of
contemporary civilisation?

Q:So, you think that post-Saddam Iraq will be a model for all Arabs?

A:I don't believe in models. You can never generalise in these
things. Each country has its own traditions, its own dynamism for
reform. It is not for us to tell anyone how to do things. All that
we are saying is that people should not be imprisoned or killed
because of their opinions, that governments should be answerable to
people, and that the national economy is not a thieves' bazaar for
the rulers.

Q:One of your former advisors Laurent Murawiec says that Saudi
Arabia should be regarded as "Enemy Number One" of the United States
and even invaded and carved into five mini-states. Do you agree?

A:No, I don't. Saudi Arabia is a valuable ally. There are aspects of
Saudi policy with which we disagree just as there are aspects of our
policy that the Saudis do not like. So we tell them what we think
and they tell us what they think.

I must also tell you that Saudi Arabia is not a monolith. Not all
Saudis think and behave alike. There is a wide-range of opinion on
all key issues in the kingdom where we have solid friends. The
reform plan proposed by Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdelaziz contains
some interesting suggestions. It could provide the Arabs with a
roadmap for collective change.

Q:There are frequent reports about plans to persuade Saddam Hussain
to step down and go into exile, thus preventing a war.

A:I know. But we will not accept fudge. We will not accept a half
solution under which the Iraqis will end up with a light version of
Saddam. What we are talking about is regime change, not just a
change of personnel.

Saddam is both the cause and the effect of an evil system that has
brought so much suffering to the people of Iraq. That system must
go. If Saddam's departure into exile is the first step to the kind
of change I am talking about, very well. If not, no thanks.

Q:From what you say it seems to me that war has become inevitable

A:War was never ruled out as an option. But nothing is inevitable
until it has happened. Obviously, the final word must come from
President George W. Bush.

Q:Could it come soon? And how long do you think the war would take?

A:My hunch is that it will come soon. My understanding is that we
can wrap the whole thing in 30 days.

Q:So there is no chance that in November 2004 when there will be
another U.S. presidential election we shall still have Saddam
Hussain in power in Baghdad pointing to the scalp of a second
President Bush on his wall?

A:No chance. Guaranteed.

Q: Will the U.S. go to war even without a second UN resolution?

A:Anyone with a smallest doe of fairness would know that, legally
speaking, we do not need a second resolution. We didn't even need
1441. The Security Council gave Iraq 60 days to disarm back in 1991.
One thing is certain: we will not allow manoeuvrings over a second
resolution to be used as a tactic to buy Saddam more time.

Q:What if France vetoes a second resolution that authorises the use
of force?

A:That won't happen. The last time France vetoed an American
resolution was in 1956. At that time the U.S. wanted French, British
and Israeli forces to immediately evacuate the Sinai that they had
captured from Egypt in the Suez War. The French veto had no real
effect. The U.S. succeeded in making sure that Egyptian territory
was evacuated.

Q:Does this mean the U.S. will ignore a French veto?

A:Certainly. If a veto can dictate our policy then France would be
regarded as the master of the world. In any case, there will be no
French veto. The French know that if they veto we shall ignore them.
They would also know that Saddam Hussain couldn't win. So, what
would be the sense of antagonising a victorious U.S. to please a
losing Saddam?

Q:I don't know. But I can tell you that President Jacques Chirac
seems determined to make life as hard as he can for you. He cannot
accept that the U.S. should have the power to go around changing
regimes it does not like

A:I don't agree with your analysis. Just before the war starts
France will jump on our side. It has happened all the time, most
recently in Afghanistan. The French behaved in exactly the same way
last time when Saddam had invaded Kuwait.

Let me tell you something more important: the French attitude makes
war more likely. It gives Saddam false hope that things can be
dragged on and on until the next American presidential election.
Thus Saddam sees no reason why he should really show his weapons to
the inspectors.

That gives us the clear reason we need for attacking him. Thus,
Chirac's policy will, in the final analysis, lead to Saddam's
destruction.

Q:Isn't there a subtext to the French position, one linked to French
oil interests in Iraq?

A:The French company Total has signed a $40 billion oil deal with
the Iraqis. Paris is, therefore, anxious to preserve that. But many
Iraqis say the contract is unfair and one-sided. They want it to be
renegotiated in favour of Iraq. But that is not an issue for us. It
is the future Iraqi government that would decide what do with the
country's oil and other resources.

There is no reason why France, which has a long presence in Iraq,
should be excluded from normal and mutually beneficial deals. Let me
repeat that we are not in this for oil. We are in this for something
much more important than oil: our future security and the security
of our allies in the region.

Q:Is there enough Arab support for the American position?

A:More than enough. Not a single Arab state is making the slightest
move against our policy on this issue. And at least a dozen are
actively cooperating with us in whatever field we require.

Q:Could you tell us which ones?

A:No. I am not their spokesman. What interests me is that almost all
Arab states are showing a sense of realism and an understanding of
their own interests on this issue.

Secretary of State Colin Powell told us recently in Davos that the
U.S. had 12 allies in the coming war
As soon as it becomes clear that we are going to war we shall have
plenty of allies. But even if we didn't have a single ally, we would
still do what needs to be done. One way or another, and sooner
rather than later, Saddam Hussain must go, that's the message.

Q:Who will be your next target? Iran, Syria, Libya?

Change is needed in all those three countries, and a few others
besides. But the Iraqi case is unique. I think Iran can be changed
by the action of the Iranian people. We shall provide whatever
support they need to ensure the success of the reform movement.

I believe that Syria, too, can organise change from within. As for
Libya, it is a weird case. For the time being it is out of world
reality. But the colonel knows that we have our eyes on him.

Q:In Davos, Colin Powell told us that there would be a Palestinian
state by 2005...

A:2005 is a long way off. Once the Iraqi situation is settled we can
move faster. The president's "two-states" vision is already clear.
We also have a road map. We are convinced that, without the
settlement of the Palestinian issue, new political architecture of
the Middle East would not be possible.

Q:Can the U.S. handle the Iraqi conflict and the North Koran crisis
at the same time?

A:Certainly. For the past 20 years we have worked on a strategy that
enables us to fight at least two major wars simultaneously. We are
not going to let North Korea off the hook simply because we are
working to get rid of Saddam.

Q:Do you plan to impose a military occupation of Iraq?

A:No. Our first task is to topple the dictatorship and destroy its
weapons. We shall then have the task of ensuring security and law
and order for a brief period during which the new Iraqi government
establishes itself and rebuilds its police and armed forces.

The Iraqis will have the opportunity to have a new constitution,
hold elections and produce a government of their own choosing. Once
that government asks us to leave, we shall leave.

Q:So, all this talk about an American ruler for Iraq is out of
place? I have heard many names including Colin Powell and even
former Senator George Mitchell...

A:Mitchell? You must be kidding. No, Iraq does not need an American
ruler. We had to assume direct rule in Germany and Japan after the
Second World War because there were no alternative forces in those
countries at the time.

The majority of the Germans had supported Hitler and the majority of
the Japanese had endorsed the policies of their military rulers. In
Iraq, however, the majority is against Saddam Hussain. There are
Iraqis from all shades of opinion to come together and create a
pluralist system.

You can have two-dozen political parties covering the whole spectrum
in Iraq. There are also many competent, experienced, well-educated
and dedicated Iraqis to assume control of their country and rebuild
it. They won't need an American ruler. Iraq is to be a model of
democracy, not a model of American military rule.

Q:A word about Turkey and Iran. Do you have their support?

A:As much as needed. Turkey is an ally, and Iran knows what it must
do.

Q:Nevertheless, the Turks are making noises about the Treaty of
Lausanne that gives them the so-called "right of observance" in
northern Iraq, especially in the oil regions of Mosul and Kirkuk.
Iran, for its part, talks about the Erzerum Treaty that gives Tehran
some say in the affairs of the Shiite holy shrines in southern Iraq.

A:I don't know about all that. All I can say is that we shall not
allow anyone to threaten Iraq's independence, territorial integrity
and full sovereignty. Turkey has received assurances about the
Turkmen minority in northern Iraq.

It is also aware of the fact that it cannot create an empire in
northern Iraq. As for Iran, whatever the Shiites do about their
shrines is their private matter. The new Iraqi government will not
allow any foreign intervention.

Q:What is the timetable? Would there be a new Iraqi regime in time
for the Arab summit, perhaps in spring?

A:Why not?

badrs · Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2003 9:23 pm Post subject: Zionists (Enemies of Humanities)

The Talmud is Judaism's Holiest Book
The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition): "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old Testament)."

The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in the Israeli state may also be seen in the case of the Black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopians have more knowledge of the Old Testament than the Israelis. However, their religion is so ancient it pre-dates the Scribes' Talmud, of which the Ethiopians have no knowledge. According to the N.Y. Times of Sept. 29, 1992, p.4:

"The problem is that Ethiopian Jewish tradition goes no further than the Bible or Torah; the later Talmud and other commentaries that form the basis of modern traditions never came their way."

Because they don't traffic in Talmudic traditions, the Black Ethiopian Jews are discriminated against and have been forbidden by the Zionists to perform marriages, funerals and other services in the Israeli state.

Rabbi Joseph D. Soloveitchik is regarded as one of the most influential rabbis of the 20th century, the "unchallenged leader" of Orthodox Judaism and the top international authority on halakha (Jewish religious law). Soloveitchik was responsible for instructing and ordaining more than 2,000 rabbis, "an entire generation" of Jewish leadership.

N.Y. Times religion reporter Ari Goldman described the basis of the rabbi's authority:

"Soloveitchik came from a long line of distinguished Talmudic scholars ... Until his early 20s, he devoted himself almost exclusively to the study of the Talmud ... He came to Yeshiva University's Elchanan Theological Seminary where he remained the pre-eminent teacher in the Talmud ... He held the title of Leib Merkin professor of Talmud ... sitting with his feet crossed in front of a table bearing an open volume of the Talmud." (N.Y. Times, April 10, 1993, p. 38).

Nowhere does Goldman refer to Soloveitchik's knowledge of the Bible as the basis for being one of the top world authorities on Jewish law. The rabbi's credentials are all predicated upon his mastery of the Talmud. All other studies are clearly secondary. Britain's Jewish Chronicle of March 26, 1993 states that in religious school (yeshiva), Jews are "devoted to the Talmud to the exclusion of everything else." The Jewish Scribes claim the Talmud is partly a collection of traditions Moses gave them in oral form. These had not yet been written down in Jesus' time. Christ condemned the traditions of the Mishnah (early Talmud) and those who taught it (Scribes and Pharisees), because the Talmud nullifies the teachings of the Holy Bible. Shmuel Safrai in The Literature of the Sages Part One (p.164), points out that in chapters 4 and 5 of the Talmud's Gittin Tractate, the Talmud nullifes the Biblical teaching concerning money-lending: "Hillel decreed the prozbul for the betterment of the world.' The 'prozbul' is a legal fiction which allows debts to be collected after the Sabbatical year and it was Hillel's intention thereby to overcome the fear that money-lenders had of losing their money."

The famous warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), which is used against Catholics by Protestants, is in fact, a direct reference to the Talmud, or more specifically, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ's lifetime, before being committed to writing. Mark. chapter 7, from verse one through thirteen, represents Our Lord's pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.

Unfortunately, due to the abysmal ignorance of our day, the widespread Judeo-Christian notion is that the Old Testament is the supreme book of Judaism. But this is not so. The Pharisees teach for doctrine the commandments of rabbis, not God.

The Talmudic commentary on the Bible is their supreme law, and not the Bible itself. That commentary does indeed, as Jesus said, void the laws of God, not uphold them. As readers of Talmud, we know this to be true.

Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in "Judaism on Trial," quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph:

"Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible ... God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own ... anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."

There is a small Jewish sect which makes considerable effort to eschew Talmud and adhere to the Old Testament alone. These are the Karaites, a most hated and severely persecuted group within Judaism.

To the Mishnah the rabbis later added the Gemara (rabbinical commentaries). Together these comprise the Talmud. There are two versions, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud is regarded as the authoritative version: "The authority of the Babylonian Talmud is also greater than that of the Jerusalem Talmud. In cases of doubt the former is decisive." (R.C. Musaph-Andriesse, From Torah to Kabbalah: A Basic Introduction to the Writings of Judaism, p. 40).

This study is based on the Jewish-authorized Babylonian Talmud. We have published herein the authenticated sayings of the Jewish Talmud. Look them up for yourself.

FORWORD:
We publish the following irrefutable documentation in the hope of liberating all people from the corrosive racism of this Talmudic hate literature, which is the manual of Jewish supremacists the world over. The implementation by Jewish supremacists of Talmudic hate literature has caused untold suffering throughout history and now, in occupied Palestine, it is used as a justification for the mass murder of Palestinian civilians.

Some Teachings of The Jewish Talmud
The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals.

Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.

Moed Kattan 17a. If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.

Jews are Divine:

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.

It's O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews:

Sanhedrin 57a. A Jew need not pay a Gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

Jews Have Superior Legal Status:

Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite ... the payment is to be in full."

Jews May Steal from Non-Jews:

Baba Mezia 24a. If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).

Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean ... "

Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews:

Sanhedrin 57a. When a Jew murders a Gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.

Baba Kamma 37b. Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

Jews May Lie to Non-Jews:

Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.

Non-Jewish Children Sub-Human:

Yebamoth 98a. All Gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b. Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

Insults Against The Blessed Virgin Mary
Sanhedrin 106a. Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters."

Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.

Gloats over Christ Dying Young:

A passage from Sanhedrin 106 gloats over the early age at which Jesus died: "Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was? - He replied: It is not actually stated but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old."

Says Jesus was a Sorcerer:

Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus ("Yeshu" and in footnote #6, Yeshu "the Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery.

Horrible Blasphemy of Jesus Christ:

Gittin 57a. Says Jesus ( see footnote #4) is being boiled in "hot excrement."

Sanhedrin 43a. Jesus deserved execution: "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged...Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a Mesith (enticer)?"

Talmud Attacks Christians
Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians ("minim") and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations (see footnote #11 for the definition of minim).

Christian Book Burning
Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament ("uncanonical books," see footnote #9) will have no portion in the world to come.

Shabbath 116a (p. 569). Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament.

Dr. Israel Shahak reports that the Zionists burned hundreds of New Testament books in Occupied Palestine on March 23, 1980 (cf. "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," Pluto Press, p. 21).

Sick and Insane Teachings of the Jewish Talmud
Gittin 69a. To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix it with honey and eat it.

Shabbath 41a. The law regulating the rule for how to urinate in a holy way is given.

Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.

Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations.

Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).

Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.

Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."

Yebamoth 59b. A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest.

Abodah Zarah 17a. States that there is not a whore in the world that Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with.

Hagigah 27a. States that no rabbi can ever go to hell.

Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate.

Gittin 70a. The Rabbis taught: "On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic."

Toilet and excrement obsessions are laced throughout Talmud and were exhibited in Spielbergs "Schindler's List" where the Hollywood director shows a Jewish child jumping through a toilet seat in an outhouse and falling into a pool of liquefied excrement. There the child meets two other Jewish children partially immersed who inform the interloper that this cesspool is their hiding spot exclusively and that he must find his own. These are the kind of disgusting and morbid, psychotic images which Jewish kids are exposed to constantly in the cinematic liturgy of Holocaustianity and for that matter, in the Talmud as well.

Gittin 69b (p. 329). To heal the disease of pleurisy ("catarrh") a Jew should "take the excrement of a white dog and knead it with balsam, but if he can possibly avoid it he should not eat the dog's excrement as it loosens the limbs."

Pesahim 111a. It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees. Special dangers are involved if the women are menstruating or sitting at a crossroads.

Shabbath 86a-86b. Because Jews are holy they do not have sex during the day unless the house can be made dark. A Jewish scholar can have sex during the day if he uses his garment like a tent to make it dark.

Tales of a Roman Holocaust
Here are two early "Holocaust" tales from the Talmud: Gittin 57b. Claims that four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar. Gittin 58a claims that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans.

(Ancient demography indicates that there were not 16 million Jews in the entire world at that time, much less 16 million Jewish children or four billion Jews).

A Revealing Admission
Abodah Zarah 70a. The question was asked of the rabbi whether some wine stolen in Pumbeditha might be used or if it was defiled, due to the fact that the thieves might have been Gentiles (a Gentile touching wine would make the wine unclean). The rabbi says not to worry, that the wine is permissible for Jewish use because the majority of the thieves in Pumbeditha, the place where the wine was stolen, are Jews

Pharisaic Rituals
Erubin 21b (p. 150). "Rabbi Akiba said to him, "Give me some water to wash my hands."

"It will not suffice for drinking," the other complained, "will it suffice for washing your hands?"

"What can I do?' the former replied, "when for neglecting the words of the Rabbis one deserves death? It is better that I myself should die than that I transgress against the opinion of my colleagues." [This is the ritual hand washing condemned by Jesus in Matthew 15: 1-9].

A Great Rabbi Deceives A Woman
Kallah 51a (Soncino Minor Tractates). Teaches that God approves of rabbis who lie: "The elders were once sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one covered his head and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his head Rabbi Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard. Rabbi Joshua remarked that he is the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a woman's menstrual period). Rabbi Akiba said that he is both a bastard and a son of a niddah.

"They said, 'What induced you to contradict the opinion of your colleagues?' He replied, "I will prove it concerning him." He went to the lad's mother and found her sitting in the market selling beans. "He said to her, 'My daughter, if you will answer the question I will put to you, I will bring you to the world to come.' (eternal life). She said to him, 'Swear it to me.'

Rabbi Akiba, taking the oath with his lips but annulling it in his heart, said to her, 'What is the status of your son?' She replied, 'When I entered the bridal chamber I was niddah (menstruating) and my husband kept away from me; but my best man had intercourse with me and this son was born to me.' Consequently the child was both a bastard and the son of a niddah.

It was declared, '..Blessed be the God of Israel Who Revealed His Secret to Rabbi Akiba..."

In addition to the theme that God rewards clever liars, the preceding discussion is actually about Christ (the lad who 'uncovered his head'). The reference to the lad's mother is of course to the mother of Jesus, Blessed Mary (called Miriam and sometimes, Miriam the hairdresser, in Talmud).

Genocide Advocated by The Talmud
Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog ("Even the best of the Gentiles should all be killed").

This passage is not from the Soncino edition but is from the original Hebrew of the Babylonian Talmud as quoted by the 1907 Jewish Encyclopedia, published by Funk and Wagnalls and compiled by Isidore Singer, under the entry, "Gentile," (p. 617).

This original Talmud passage has been concealed in translation. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that, "...in the various versions the reading has been altered, 'The best among the Egyptians' being generally substituted." In the Soncino version: "the best of the heathens" (Minor Tractates, Soferim 41a-b].

Israelis annually take part in a national pilgrimage to the grave of Simon ben Yohai, to honor this rabbi who advocated the extermination of non-Jews. (Jewish Press of June 9, 1989, p. 56B).

On Purim, Feb. 25, 1994, Israeli army officer Baruch Goldstein, an orthodox Khazar from Brooklyn, massacred 40 Palestinian civilians, including children, while they knelt in prayer in a mosque. Goldstein was a disciple of the late Rabbi Kahane who has stated that his view of Arabs as "dogs" is "from the Talmud." (Cf. CBS 60 Minutes, "Kahane").

Univ. of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldstein's philosophy: "They believe it's God's will that they commit violence against 'goyim,' a Hebrew term for non-Jews." (NY Daily News, Feb. 26, 1994, p. 5).

Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, "We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing." (NY Times, June 6, 1989, p.5).

Rabbi Yaacov Perrin says, "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6).

Jewish Talmudic Doctrine: Non-Jews are Not Humans
The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals, and specifically dehumanizes Gentiles as not being descendants of Adam. We will now list some of the Talmud passages which relate to this topic.

Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman or a slave.

Kehuboth 6b. [Now] does it not mean that if he had yet no intercourse [with his wife] he may have intercourse [with her] even on Sabbath? Said Raba: No, except Sabbath. Said Abaye to him: But it says, `until the night following the Sabbath [one gives her] four nights'? Only, said Raba, when he already had intercourse [with her]. If [it were, as you say,] after he already had intercourse, what does he let us hear? He lets us hear that it is allowed to have intercourse on Sabbath, as that [statement] of Samuel [teaches], for Samuel said: One may enter into a narrow opening on Sabbath, although he causes pebbles to break loose.

Uses of Oil of Annointing. Our Rabbis have taught: He who pours the oil of anointing over cattle or vessels is not guilty; if over gentiles [Hebrew: goyim] or the dead, he is not guilty. The law relating to cattle and vessels is right, for it is written: "Upon the flesh of man [Hebrew: adam] shall it not be poured [Exodus 30:32]"; and cattle and vessels are not man [adam]. Also with regard to the dead, [it is plausible] that he is exempt, since after death one is called corpse and not a man [adam]. But why is one exempt in the case of gentiles [goyim]; are they not in the category of man [adam]?--No, it is written: "And ye my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are man [adam] [Ezekiel 34:31]": Ye are called man [adam] but gentiles [goyim] are not called man [adam]. (Ed. but by implication, Cain),

In the above passage, the Rabbis are discussing the Mosaic law which forbids applying holy oil to men. In the discussion, the Rabbis state that it is not a sin to apply the holy oil to gentiles, since gentiles are not human beings (literally, Adam, and are by implication, Cain).

Yebamoth 61a: It was taught: And so did R. Simeon ben Yohai state [61a] that the graves of gentiles [goyim] do not impart levitical uncleanness by an ohel [standing or bending over a grave], for it is said, "And ye my sheep the sheep of my pasture, are men [adam]" [Ezekiel 34:31]; you are called men [adam] but the idolaters are not called men [adam].

The Mosaic law states that touching a human corpse or grave imparts uncleanness to those who touch it. But the Talmud here teaches that if a Jew touches the grave of a gentile, it does not make him unclean, since gentiles are not human (literally, Adam).

Baba Mezia 114b: Said he [Rabbah] to him: Art thou not a priest: why then dost thou stand in a cemetery? - He replied: Has the Master not studied the laws of purity? For it has been taught: R. Simeon ben Yohai said: The graves of gentiles [goyim] do not defile, for it is written, "And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men [adam]" [Ezekiel 34:31]; only ye are designated men [Adam].

A Jewish priest was standing in a graveyard. When asked why he was standing there in apparent violation of the Mosaic law, he replied that it was permissible, since the law only prohibits Jews from coming into contact with the graves of humans [adam], and he was standing in a gentile graveyard.

Since the so-called Scriptural proof text (Ezekiel 34:31) repeatedly cited in the above three Talmud passages in reality does not prove that only Jews are human, it is self-evident that the Talmudic sages who asserted the preceding absurdities about Gentiles were already anti-Gentile racists or ideologues who, in desperate search of some proof of their position, distorted an Old Testament passage in order to justify their bigotry. Their ideology came first, their "proof" second.

Berakoth 58a R. Shila administered lashes to a man who had intercourse with an Egyptian woman. The man went and informed against him to the Government, saying: There is a man among the Jews who passes judgment without the permission of the Government. An official was sent to [summon] him. When he came he was asked: Why did you flog that man? He replied: Because he had intercourse with a she-ass.

They said to him: Have you witnesses? He replied: I have. Elijah thereupon came in the form of a man and gave evidence. They said to him: If that is the case he ought to be put to death! He replied: Since we have been exiled from our land, we have no authority to put to death; do with him what you please.

While they were considering his case, R. Shila exclaimed, "Thine, Oh Lord, is the greatness and the power" [1 Chronicles 29:11] What are you saying? they asked him. He replied: What I am saying is this: Blessed is the All-Merciful who has made the earthly royalty on the model of the heavenly, and has invested you with dominion, and made you lovers of justice.

They said to him: Are you so solicitous for the honor of the Government? They handed him a staff and said to him: You may act as judge. When he went out that man said to him: Does the All-Merciful perform miracles for liars?

He replied: Wretch! Are they not called asses? For it is written: "Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses" [Ezekiel 23:20]. He noticed that the man was about to inform them that he had called them asses. He said: This man is a persecutor, and the Torah has said: If a man comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first. So he struck him with the staff and killed him. He then said: Since a miracle has been wrought for me through this verse, I will expound it."

Our apologies for subjecting our readers to the preceding lengthy Talmudic drivel, but it is best to include all of it to demonstrate its depravity.

In addition to having Elijah float down from heaven to deceive the Gentile court, the Talmud teaches that Gentiles are in reality animals, hence Rabbi Shila (and Elijah) did not really lie at all. It also teaches that anyone (even a Jewish man) who reveals this Talmud truth about non-Jews deserves execution, since revealing it makes Gentiles angry and causes persecution of the Jews.

We can only rejoice that the majority of Jews today do not follow such heinous teachings; only a few openly espouse the Talmud as divinely inspired, although unfortunately these few are sometimes to be found in influential leadership positions.

(Parenthetically, the above Scripture proof-text cited by the rabbis, does not prove that Gentiles are not human, being animals. The passage from Ezekiel in the Bible only says that some Egyptians had large sex organs and copious emissions. This does not in any way prove or even connote that the Egyptians being referred to in the Bible were considered animals).

Having sufficiently proven our point from the Talmud, namely that the Talmud teaches that Gentiles are not human [Hebrew: Adam], and are really animals, we will list a few other passages which expound on the Ezekiel 23:20 "proof text", allowing our readers to research them on their own: Arakin 19b, Berakoth 25b, Niddah 45a, Shabbath 150a, Yebamoth 98a.

The original text of Sanhedrin 37a applies God's approval only to the saving of Jewish lives. This is demonstrable by referring to Jewish books such as the Hesronot Ha-shas.

The Teachings of Maimonides
We will now examine the post-Talmudic commentator Rambam:

"Moses Maimonides is considered the greatest codifier and philosopher in Jewish history. He is often affectionately referred to as the Rambam, after the initials of his name and title, Rabenu Moshe Ben Maimon (Our Rabbi, Moses son of Maimon)." (Maimonides' Principles, edited by Aryeh Kaplan, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, New York, 1975, pg. 3)

Here is what Maimonides (Rambam) actually taught about saving people's lives, especially about saving the lives of Gentiles and Christians, or even Jews who dared to deny the divine inspiration of the Talmud: Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, 1990, Chapter 10, English Translation, pg. 184:

"Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him.

It is, however, forbidden to cause one of them to sink or push him into a pit or the like, since he is not waging war against us. To whom does the above apply? To Gentiles" [Hebrew: goyim, found on pg. 185]. (The Hebrew text of the Feldheim 1981 edition of Mishnah Torah has this also).

Immediately after Maimonides' admonition that it is a duty for Jews not to save a drowning or perishing Gentile, he informs us of the Talmudic duty for Jews towards Christians, and also towards Jews who deny the Talmud: Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Chapter 10 English Translation, pg.184:

"It is a mitzvah [religious duty;], however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot." The commentary accompanying the preceding statement of Maimonides mentions that Jesus was an example of a min (plural: minnim). The commentary also states that the followers of Tzadok were defined as those Jews who deny the truth of the Talmud and who uphold only the written law (i.e. the Old Testament).

According to Maimonides' "Principles," pg. 5, Maimonides "spent twelve years extracting every decision and law from the Talmud, and arranging them all into 14 systematic volumes. The work was finally completed in 1180, and was called Mishnah Torah, or 'Code of the Torah'."

Maimonides asserted that it is the duty of Jews to save only Jews. Ordinary Gentiles are to be allowed to perish, but not actively killed, except during war; while Christians and Jewish so-called heretics are to be executed.

And there is more: "As for Gentiles, the basic talmudic principle is that their lives must not be saved, although it is also forbidden to murder them outright. The Talmud itself [Abodah Zarah 26b] expresses this in the maxim 'Gentiles are neither to be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into it]'.

Maimonides explains [in Mishnah Torah 4:11]: 'As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war ... their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow [Leviticus 19:16]' - but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow." (Jewish History, Jewish Religion, by Israel Shahak, Pluto Press, London, Boulder, Colorado, pg. 80).

It is not too surprising that Maimonides would have taught this concerning saving the lives of Gentiles.

Maimonides taught in another section of the Mishnah Torah that Gentiles are not human: "Man alone, and not vessels, can contract uncleanness by carriage. ... The corpse of a Gentile, however, does not convey uncleanness by overshadowing. ... a Gentile does not contract corpse uncleanness; and if a Gentile touches, carries, or overshadows a corpse he is as one who did not touch it. To what is this like? It is like a beast which touches a corpse or overshadows it. And this applies not to corpse uncleanness only but to any other kind of uncleanness: neither Gentiles nor cattle are susceptible to any uncleanness." (The Code of Maimonides, Book Ten, translated by Herbert Danby, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1954, pgs. 8-9).

The Talmud (i.e., the Babylonian Talmud) text of Sanhedrin 37a restricts the duty to save life to saving only Jewish lives. The censorship book, written by Jews (Hesronot Ha-shas), notes that the Talmud texts which use the universalist phrase, "Whoever destroys the life of a single human being ... it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human being ... it is as if he had preserved an entire world," have been censored (tampered with).

In other words, this universalist rendering is not the authentic text of the Talmud and thus, for example, this universalist version which Steven Spielberg in his movie, "Schindler's List" attributed to the Talmud (and which became the motto of the movie on posters and in advertisements), is not from the authentic Talmud, but rather constitutes propaganda intended to give a humanistic gloss to a Talmud which is, in its essence, racist and chauvinist hate literature.

In the authentic, original Talmud text it states that "whoever preserves a single soul of Israel, it is as if he had preserved an entire world" (emphasis supplied). The Talmud sanctions only the saving of Jewish lives. This is upheld by the modern editions of the Talmud.

The most recent translation of even the Jerusalem Talmud restricts the blessing for saving life to saving only a Jewish life. Though the Talmud passage at issue (Sanhedrin Mishnah 4.5/Sanhedrin 37a) mentions Adam, this does not prove that the passage's original intent was universal, since the Talmud elsewhere teaches that Gentiles are not Adam, but are in fact animals.

The greatest of all Talmud codifiers, Moses Maimonides, taught that Gentiles on the point of death should not be saved, and Christians should be killed.

Deception and Dissimulation
The respopnse of the orthodox rabbis to documentation regarding the racism and hatred in the Talmud is simply to brazenly lie, in keeping with the Talmud's Baba Kamma 113a which states that Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a powerful, multi-million dollar rabbinical propaganda center dispatched Rabbi Daniel Landes in 1995 to deny that the Talmud dehumanizes non-Jews. "This is utter rot," he said. His proof? Why, his word, of course.

We however, in this writing, have furnished the reader with documentation direct from the original Talmudic texts, as well as from the writings of the Jews' own "greatest" Talmud authority, Moses Maimonides.

In 1994, Rabbi Tzvi Marx, director of Applied Education at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, made a remarkable admission concerning how Jews in the past have issued two sets of texts: the authentic Talmudic texts and commentaries with which they instruct their own youth in the Talmud schools (kollels) and "censured and amended" versions which they disseminate to the gullible goyim (non-Jews) for public consumption.

Rabbi Marx states that in the version of Maimonides' teachings published for public consumption, Maimonides is made to say that whoever kills a human being transgresses the law.

But, Rabbi Marx points out "... that this only reflects the censured and amended printed text, whereas the original manuscripts have it only as "whoever kills an Israelite." ("Tikkun: A Bi-Monthly Jewish Critique," May-June, 1994).

The Jewish book, "Hesronot Ha-shas" (i.e. "that which is removed from the Talmud," cf. William Popper, "The Censorship of Hebrew Books," p. 59), is important in this regard.

"Hesronot Ha-shas" was reprinted in 1989 by Sinai Publishing of Tel-Aviv. Hesronot Ha-shas is valuable because it lists some of the original Talmud texts that were later changed or omitted, with the resulting falsified texts nowadays being cited for Gentile consumption as authentic.

Popper (pp. 58-59), states: "It was not always that long passages ... were censored ... but often single words alone were omitted; ... Often, in these cases, another method of correction was used in place of omission - substitution."

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, the translator of the most recent English version of the Babylonian Talmud, says, "Indeed, almost every passage dealing with non-Jews must be suspected of having undergone some change." (Talmud Reference Guide, by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, Random House, New York, 1989, p. 50).

For example, the translators of the English Soncino version of the Talmud sometimes translate the Hebrew word goyim (Gentiles) under any number of terms such as "heathen, Cuthean, Egyptian, idolater" etc. But these are actually references to Gentiles (all non-Jews). In footnote 5 of the Soncino edition Talmud it is stated: "Cuthean (Samaritan) was here substituted for the original goy ..." Christians are sometimes referred to by the code word Min or Minim.

It is the standard disinformation practice of the Pharisees to deny the existence of the racist Talmudic passages we have cited, in order to claim that such passages are the "fabrications of 'anti-Semites'."

In 1994, the 80 year old Dowager Lady Jane Birdwood was arrested and prosecuted in a criminal court in London, England for the "crime" of publishing in her pamphlet, "The Longest Hatred," the truthful statement that the Talmud contains anti-Gentile and anti-Christian passages.

In the course of her trial, which was ignored by the U.S. media, a rabbi was called as a prosecution witness. The rabbi proceeded to flatly deny that the Talmud contained anti-Gentile and anti-Christ passages and on the basis of the rabbi's "prestige," the old woman was convicted and sentenced to three months in jail and fined the equivalent of $1,000.

We have here provided the reader with authentic documentary passages from the Talmud proving that the Talmud constitutes Jewish supremacist hate literature. Hebrew University Professor Israel Shahak, in his monumental 1994 work, Jewish History, Jewish Religion (Pluto Press), has also confirmed the hate and racism contained in the Talmud. Those Jews who deny the actual contents of the Talmud are liars (John 8:44; Titus 1:14).

Christian Response to The Talmud
Neither the modern popes or the modern heads of Protestantism, have ever insisted that the rabbis of Judaism repudiate or condemn the racism in the Talmud or the murderous hate for Christians and Gentiles expressed within it. On the contrary, the heads of Christianity have urged the followers of Christ to obey, honor and support the followers of the Talmud. Therefore, it should be obvious that these modernist Catholic and Protestant leaders are the worst betrayers of Jesus Christ on earth today.

Lekh teda · Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:21 am Post subject:

Same old phony Talmud quotes....let me guess, next you will be quoting from "The Protocols"...right? You people are so darn easy to read.

Lekh teda · Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:54 am Post subject:

De-bunking the phony Talmud quotes that some bigots just love to bring up:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/qts.html

Alpha

Jane's: Israeli Moles Penetrate Pentagon

A mole called Mega

The scandal over a suspected Israeli mole in the Pentagon who allegedly passed highly sensitive policy documents on Iran to Israeli agents in Washington has rekindled suspicions long held by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and others in Washington, that Israel systematically spies on its strategic ally and benefactor.

The FBI probe currently under way goes far beyond the allegations that a lone analyst was providing the Israelis with US secrets.

Shortly before George Tenet retired as director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in June, he alleged that an Israeli agent was operating in Washington. Tenet was challenged to identify the agent but for reasons that were never explained apparently did not do so. For years, the FBI has been convinced that there is at least one high-level Israeli mole in Washington.

The Tenet episode underlined growing unease in some quarters in Washington about the influence that Israel's right wing has in US President George W Bush's administration through the pro-Likud neo-conservatives, largely in the Pentagon, and the politically powerful America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and loosely associated organisations, such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service, is known to seek out Jews around the world to serve as informal agents, known in Hebrew as sayanim or 'helpers'.

The Israeli government and AIPAC have strenuously denied that they were involved in the current scandal. But Israel's intelligence organisations have been spying on the US and running clandestine operations since Israel was established. These operations range from spiriting an estimated 200 lbs of weapons-grade uranium for its secret nuclear arms programme in the 1960s to widescale industrial espionage.

Much of this is conducted by the secret Scientific Liaison Bureau, known by its Hebrew acronym Lakam, run by the Ministry of Defence and its equally little-known successor, Malmab (the Security Authority for the Ministry of Defence).
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr040929_1_n.shtml

Alpha

Neocon Pink Slips And The Fall Of America

By Kurt Nimmo
Online Journal
10-4-4

Here's the unspeakable truth: I lost my job to make Israel safe.

Or more specifically: an obscene amount of tax dollars are flushed down the Pentagon rat hole every year while billions are slashed from state and social programs, including education. I worked for a state-funded education program. I was pink-slipped because there's no money for the program this year.

In short, George Bush fired me.

The Bushcon invasion of Iraq costs $177 million per day, $7.4 million per hour, and $122,820 per minute. So far, the invasion has cost an astounding $134.5 billion. "When you integrate Iraqi spending, which is necessary, with the effort to control spending, it puts more pressure on you to make harder choices," said Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in June. "If you can name one part of government immune from this, I'd like to know."

Hard choices - like throwing Americans out of work.

But according to Republicans such as Patrick Toomey (R-Pa), even more Americans need face the "hard choice" of poverty. Education and social services are non-starters when compared to blowing things up and butchering thousands of mostly innocent people. "I'd say let's have a smaller deficit," said Toomey in June. "But most of all, don't spend it on something else. The non-defense, non-security part of the budget is out of control."

For instance, literacy programs for poor kids.

In other words, billions will be squandered on "security" to protect Israel from its enemies before a dime is spent here in America on education, nutrition programs, repairing our crumbling infrastructure, and other things insignificant to Republicans and their multinational corporate masters.

As we now know, or should know if we pay attention, Iraq was invaded at the behest of Israel and a small clan of extreme right-wing Likudites. Philip Zelikow, executive director of Bush's 9/11 whitewash commission, admitted as much during a speech delivered at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002. "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990óit's the threat against Israel," said Zelikow.

Never mind Saddam had no nukes, or even a few mustard gas shells.

Paul W. Schroeder, a veteran diplomatic historian, wrote for the American Conservative magazine on October, 21, 2002, "the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the policy [is] security for Israel. . . . It would represent something to my knowledge unique in history. It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state."

"The suggestion that the war with Iraq is being planned at Israel's behest, or at the instigation of policymakers whose main motivation is trying to create a secure environment for Israel, is strong," write Kathleen and Bill Christison, former CIA political analysts. "Many Israeli analysts believe this."

But not the forever gullible American people. For them, Osama is Saddam and Bush's "war on terror" is about payback for September 11, 2001, even if those on the blunt end of the murderous payback truncheon are innocent civilians.

Israel Firsters have essentially taken over the United States government, from the White House and the Pentagon to Congress. Fighting (largely manufactured) terrorism sells the Israel First policy well, if only because it is wrapped in an American flag.

"These people, who can fairly be called Israeli loyalists, are now at all levels of government, from desk officers at the Defense Department to the deputy secretary level at both State and Defense, as well as on the National Security Council staff and in the vice president's office," note the Christisons.

In Congress, the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) rules supreme, and if you don't vote for the pro-Likud agenda there's a good chance you will not be re-elected. Ask Cynthia McKinney. "Jewish donors have already begun to back McKinney challenger Denise Majette, a former state court judge from Atlanta who proudly touts a strong pro-Israel position," wrote Eli Kintisch of the Forward prior to the last mid-term elections. Majette eventually unseated McKinney.

"The American Israel Political Action Committee is a lobbying group that used to support whatever government was in power in Israel, and used to give money even-handedly inside the US," writes Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor, on his blog. "My perception is that during the past decade AIPAC has increasingly tilted to the Likud in Israel, and to the political Right in the United States."

AIPAC is so powerful it operates a long-running spy operation that passes classified information on to the Likudites in Israel. As an example of Bushcon influence over not only foreign but domestic policy, an FBI investigation of the AIPAC spy operation was seriously compromised by a preemptory media leak and the investigation is now all but dead in the water.

How is it possible a major spy scandal has fallen so effortlessly by the wayside?

Anti-Semitism, the perpetual and unfailing canard. "In an indication of their growing estrangement with the Bush administration, neoconservatives are slamming the White House for failing to stop what they describe as an anti-Semitic campaign to marginalize them being conducted by the CIA and the State Department," writes Marc Perleman of Forward.

Of course, Perleman has it wrong: the neocons, or Israel Firsters, are not estranged from the Bush administration - they *are* the Bush administration and their calculated attack is aimed at the CIA and the State Department, who have not demonstrated the required degree of enthusiasm for the Israel First cause at the expense of American lives and treasure. As the Israel Firsters know, anti-Semitism is so emotionally charged that there is virtually no defense against it. Once painted as an anti-Semite, the only two possible options are atonement or banishment.

If you believe the November election will change things, think again. Even if Kerry is elected, the Israel Firsters will rule supreme in Washington. Kerry has gone out of his way to align himself with Sharon and the Likudites. If need be he will perform summersaults to accommodate AIPAC and the Likudites and their long-standing dream of a Greater Israel at the expense of not only Arabs and Iranians but the beleaguered American taxpayer.

Sharon and the Israel Firsters are not really keen on the "liberal" Kerry, so we can probably expect four more years (or four more decades) of the Christian Zionist Bush and the Straussian neocons. No way are they going to allow a mere election to sidetrack plans launched during the Bush I administration by Wolfowitz, Feith, and their fellow neocon travelers - alumni going back to Reagan and the Iran-Contra days - and subsequently taken up by the Project for a New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a camarilla - or more appropriately, a crime syndicate - that has labored long and hard to make the Likudite vision of Greater Israel America's primary foreign policy objective.

Of course, if Kerry does "win" in November, we can expect the neocons to quickly refashion themselves into "war hawk" Democrats. Remember: Richard Perle, neocon par excellence, the Prince of Darkness (as his colleagues fondly call him), started his political career as a "Scoop" Jackson Democrat.

But even if the Bush neocons don't stage a comeback in the event Kerry is selected to be CEO of America, there is no shortage of Israel First zealots in the Democratic Party, as evidenced by the Clinton administration (one such zealot was Martin S. Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel, who is the founding executive director for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy where the Straussian neocon Wolfowitz sits on the board of directors). Kerry's senior foreign policy adviser is none other than James P. Rubin, Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, an AIPAC-installed Zionist who believes UN-documented facts of Palestinian suffering under the brutal and interminable Israeli occupation are "exaggerated" and amount to self-inflicted misery, as he told Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi of Arab News in August, adequately demonstrating the difference between "liberal" Arab haters and "conservative" Arab haters is at best negligible.

Our collective lot is cast, Kerry or Bush.

Crushing debt and the rapid devaluation of the dollar in the coming year will result in more pink slips, more Americans relegated to the ranks of the ignored poor, more compounded and intensified misery under the leadership of Republicans, who will maintain a stranglehold on Congress no matter who is selected CEO of America. For the Israel First clan commanding the highest reaches of our government, unemployment and tumbling standards of living are far less of a concern than the "threat" posed to the sacrosanct state of Israel by Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

For Americans unfortunately age 18-35, unemployment will not be a problem in the coming year because thousands, possibly millions of them will be working for Uncle Sam as conscripted bullet-stoppers, or if not bullet-stoppers as slaves assigned to other "national security" tasks - under proposed legislation known as the "Skills Draft" - for the Ministry of Homeland Security and the misnamed Department of Defense (this behemoth should revert to its old name, the Department of War).

I will be 52 years old soon after the next CEO of America is selected, so my services will not be required - although my tax dollars will be, that is if I ever find gainful employment again (a bleak prospect for "older workers," that is to say workers who demand a living wage).

In the meantime, I sit here, in an apartment I can scarcely afford, running a computer that chews up vastly overpriced electricity (our electric corporation was owned by Enron before Enron became one of the largest criminal organizations in history). I will continue to write about the high-paid quislings in Congress, the plutocrats, the corporatists - who, as Mussolini knew, defined fascism - and the Israel Firsters, conspiring with the aforementioned quislings in Congress, who are selling our government and the American people down the river to a foreign power, about as close to a textbook definition of treason as there is.

I do not expect the American people to turn this country around.

Far too many are reduced to mindless and conditioned flag-waving and have bought into the nocuous illusion that voting for corporate candidate A or B is the only acceptable way solve our (usually government or corporate created) problems - and robotically allowing themselves to believe the "issues" are about swift boats and who will do a better job fighting perpetual wars waged against manufactured enemies, in other words Israel's opponents, not ours.

I have no faith in the American people because the Fox News induced lobotomy is too severe and obviously irreversible.

It's a long way back from where we are now.

Most of us not only don't know the way back, we don't realize there is a way back or, worse, that there is even anything particularly wrong - beyond the in-your-face nastiness of bin Laden and al-Qaeda so rudely penetrating our consumerist fantasy cocoon - and thus requiring the people to do what Thomas Jefferson implored: have a revolution every few years and throw out the quislings, defrauders, and traitors.

It's not going to happen.

History teaches that the Roman Empire fell with a loud noise - and our fall, our catastrophic decline, will be far noisier, if only because we have perfected the art of noisemaking. It took western civilization nearly 10 centuries to recover from the fall of the Roman Empire. It took over 900 years to reach the Renaissance. Hopefully, it will not take us that long to recover from what the Straussian neocons, the Israel Firsters, and their corporate collaborators - who are not particularly ideological, are more akin to scurrilous and amoral carpetbaggers going along for the profitable ride - will ultimately do to us, only because we will let them, only because we duteously believe 2 + 2 = 5, as repeated ad nauseam by the Ministry of Truth (viz., the alphabet corporate news organizations).

Such a fall, however, does have an upside. It will mean the telescreens will be blank - that is to say there will no longer be Fox News gibbering 24/7.

- Kurt Nimmo is a photographer and multimedia developer in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Visit his excellent no holds barred blog at www.kurtnimmo.com/blogger.html.

Copyright © 1998-2004 Online Journal. All rights reserved.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/
Commentary/100204Nimmo/100204nimmo.html

Alpha

From: "Couples Company"
Subject: How Perle hijacked foreign policy
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 13:44:51 -0700

The State Department's extreme makeover
A veteran Foreign Service officer warns that when Colin Powell departs in a second Bush term, America will lose its last bulwark against the radical ideologues who are planning more Iraqs.
Editor's note: "Anonymous" is a veteran Foreign Service officer currently serving as a State Department official. The views expressed are personal and not related to his official position.

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/salon39.html

By Anonymous

Oct. 4, 2004 | Secretary of State Colin Powell is not staying for a second Bush term. When he goes, the last bulwark against complete neoconservative control of U.S. foreign policy goes with him. The implications are enormous, yet the American electorate appears to be blinded by the Bush campaign's deliberate manipulations of 9/11.

Powell has served both as the reasoned voice of career diplomats and the experienced voice of career U.S. military in the Bush administration. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ignored military advice and excluded Department of State career professionals from Iraq planning. Power was concentrated in the hands of a clique of neocon ideologues he placed in key policy positions, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. In the first term of George W. Bush, protégés of now disgraced former Defense Policy Board member and neocon godfather Richard Perle achieved control or subordination of every executive branch foreign-policymaking body -- except the Department of State.

Career employees of the department enthusiastically greeted Colin Powell when he pulled up to the curb for the first time at Foggy Bottom in his PT Cruiser. They have supported him, and through him, have unfailingly supported the president through thick and thin over four years -- up to and including volunteering in record numbers to staff fully the highly dangerous positions in the new embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. Even after being dumped on by the Pentagon neocons and witnessing the debacle of the Pentagon's Jay Garner's post-conflict solution, the State Department's Civil and Foreign Service staff took up the slack when the Pentagon unceremoniously fled responsibility for Iraq reconstruction and stabilization. Now, Powell's departure is seen within the department as an invitation to a lynching.

The realization that the same neocons who dismissed State's accurate "Future of Iraq Project," prepared before the war, may now take over at State in the second term is widely viewed inside the department as a threat to the very integrity of the country's diplomatic first line of defense. Corridor discussion has turned desperate -- maybe former Secretary of State James Baker will intervene, maybe former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft will talk to someone, maybe 41 will talk to 43.

State personnel are used to comings and goings of Democratic and Republican administrations, serving all equally and fairly. Not since Vietnam, however, has the U.S. diplomatic establishment viewed the future with such a degree of alarm. Retired U.S. ambassadors and diplomats have raised their own public concerns in signed public statements about the direction of U.S. foreign policy -- but that concern pales compared with the quiet revolt brewing against a neocon takeover at Foggy Bottom.

After 9/11, Wolfowitz, Feith and his subordinate, Harold Rhode, recruited David Wurmser as a contractor from the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute to set up what became known internally as the "Wurmser-Maloof" project. F. Michael Maloof, neocon fellow traveler and former aide to Richard Perle, and Wurmser created a hidden intelligence unit, the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group, under Feith at the Pentagon. The purpose of the group was to end-run the CIA and create the rationale for invading Iraq. The parallel operations model was previously followed by Oliver North at the National Security Council and Elliott Abrams at State in their ill-fated Iran-Contra strategy. It should have come as no surprise that another neocon think-tank insider, Abram Shulsky, an Abrams colleague from their days as staffers to Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, would end up heading up what became the Office of Special Plans, the secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon under Feith. The weapons of mass destruction disinformation that was fed to the president and to the American public came directly from Shulsky's shop.

After setting up this operation at the Pentagon for Wolfowitz and Feith, Wurmser, with the help of Perle, was sent in early 2002 to burrow in at State as senior advisor to John Bolton, under secretary for arms control and international security.

In December 2002, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser and Vice President Cheney's national security advisor, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, acting together, maneuvered Condoleezza Rice into appointing Elliott Abrams to the position of special assistant to the president and senior director for the Middle East at the National Security Council. This appointment gave the neocons everything they wanted -- the NSC, Executive Office of the President, Office of the Vice President, the Pentagon, a cornered director in George Tenet at CIA, and Wurmser at State.

The neocons had control of the information reaching the president and a channel for their pseudo-intelligence product from Wolfowitz and Feith's secret Pentagon Office of Special Plans. The only wild card was Colin Powell and State's elite and independent Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR).

Neither Powell nor his deputy, Richard Armitage, who is also leaving with Powell, seems to have been fooled by Wurmser's desire to leave the Pentagon and join John Bolton's staff -- in effect, to come work for Powell. They cornered and then neutralized Wurmser. Wurmser's target was to get at the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, a thorn in the neocons' side and Powell's intelligence ace-in-the-hole against Tenet's "slam-dunk" sellout at the CIA.

INR kept telling Powell the truth about Saddam's nonexistent WMD. State's Future of Iraq project, led by a career Foreign Service officer, who was cold-shouldered by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, laid out what might happen if we took over control of Iraq. Unfortunately, even the sober minds of INR could not stop Powell from lending his credibility to the "unfortunate error" show at the U.N. Security Council. Modeled on Adlai Stevenson's Oct. 25, 1962, Cuban missile presentation to the Security Council, Powell's Feb. 5, 2003, presentation marks the low point of his tenure and, in retrospect, underscores how badly his credibility was needed and then was abused by Vice President Cheney and the president.

The whole time Wurmser was at State, career professionals around him saw someone acting more like an agent of influence than as a subordinate of the secretary of state. He was in constant contact with his Pentagon intelligence cell. Questions were asked -- but never answered -- as to how Wurmser got a full security clearance when he never registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act for his 1996 policy work for Israel's incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (including advice on how to lobby the U.S. Congress) and as someone who was married to an Israeli citizen with close ties to Israel's Likud Party -- in theory, a party to U.S.-brokered Middle East peace negotiations.

In September 2003, Wurmser left the Department of State to become Vice President Cheney's principal deputy for national security affairs under "Scooter" Libby. He left before any questions were answered about his access to and use of classified information. His clearances were never questioned when he joined the vice president's staff, and his status under the Foreign Agents Registration Act has never been clarified.

Powell's early 2005 departure is the subject of intense jockeying among the neocons. A Perle neocon protégé, Michael Rubin, has been given the task of destroying the only competition -- L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the former Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority chief, not a neocon insider and the favorite of traditional Republican conservatives. The neocon plan is to make Bremer the scapegoat: It was not bad neocon policy, it was bad Bremer decisions that has led to the fiasco in Iraq. Rubin was sent to Baghdad to be Wolfowitz's man inside the CPA. Bremer dissed Rubin as a lightweight. Rubin tried to push neocon policy inside the CPA -- what he, Perle and Ahmed Chalabi had pushed from the American Enterprise Institute -- restoring the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq by placing Jordan's Crown Prince Hassan on the throne. Bremer would have none of it. Rubin is now tasked by Perle and Wolfowitz to trash Bremer -- which he is dutifully doing in print and media appearances arranged by neocon handler, lecture agent and media booker Eleana Benador. They intend to close the Foggy Bottom door to any aspirations Bremer, a former Foreign Service officer and Kissinger protégé, might have to take over from Powell.

Given the implosion of Iraq, Wolfowitz and his coterie have doubts that Wolfowitz can be confirmed as secretary (of either DOD or State) without a debilitating confirmation process, though State remains choice No. 1. A more complicated plan is to again play behind Condoleezza Rice. With Rice as secretary of state and Wolfowitz in as national security advisor, neocons would put David Wurmser or John Bolton in as Rice's deputy, replacing Armitage.

Wurmser, Perle and Feith were the principal authors of the 1996 100-day policy plan for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. None ever registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act for this work.

That plan, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," published by Israel's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, has served as the guiding road map for the neocons both in Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office and in the Bush administration. No one should have been surprised by Iraq -- the neocons have not been coy in laying out their vision of Israel's security requirements. David Wurmser published a book-length version of his IASPS study at AEI. The introduction to that screed, "Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein," was written by Richard Perle. It lists as sources Ahmed Chalabi, Michael Ledeen, Douglas Feith and Harold Rhode.

Control at State would remove the last obstacle to the plan Perle, Wurmser and Feith laid long before 9/11. The neocons telegraphed their intentions clearly in President Bush's GOP convention acceptance speech in New York, in which the neocon hand was palpable in the ambitious agenda to remake the Middle East.

The president used political buzzwords to whip the crowd -- and the voting public -- into a noncomprehending patriotic frenzy of "four more years." Like Pope Urban at the 1095 Council of Clermont, who launched the First Crusade to cries of "God Wills It" from the frenzied Christians wanting to take back the Holy Land, Bush has decreed a crusade to bring enlightened Western democracy to the Muslim populations of the Middle East, left otherwise bereft in dysfunctional colonial-inspired states by the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.

But Bush the Crusader is off to a rocky start in Iraq. The ongoing meltdown is awakening Americans to the reality of the neocon agenda. But is it too late? Neocons are not dissuaded by the problems in Iraq; on the contrary, they are arguing that the problem is "Bremerism" -- the U.S. has not gone far enough. In their view, we need to take out the Palestinians, Syria and Iran now.

The neocons, working in tandem with a similar staff in the office of Prime Minister Sharon of Israel, have a three-part agenda for the first part of Bush's second term: first, oust Yasser Arafat; second, overthrow the secular Baathist al-Assad dictatorship in Syria; and, third, eliminate, one way or another, Iran's nuclear facilities.

Nowhere has support for the neocon Middle East crusade resonated more than in the constituency of Rep. Tom DeLay, who is the top Christian Zionist handler in the Republican Party and poised to strike GOP gold with his gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts.

For the neocons, Sept. 11 and Israel's security policy under Sharon have morphed into a single concept, the kind of thinking typified by Secretary Rumsfeld's recent lapses mixing Saddam Hussein with 9/11 and Osama bin Laden with Iraq.

Working with direct input from Israeli intelligence, Feith's Pentagon office coordinated with Libby and Wurmser in the vice president's office to spread the story that the missing WMD are to be found hidden in Syria. Israeli agents have worked overtime to neutralize and undo Syrian cooperation with the CIA against al-Qaida. This comes on the heels of a similar highly successful destruction of CIA inroads with the Palestinian Authority. We are now light-years beyond the two-state solution focus of Middle East policy. Instead of chasing Laden, the neocons plan to put the U.S. on the road to Damascus -- and Tehran. The groundwork is laid.

While the FBI scrutinizes whether Pentagon neocon aide Larry Franklin and AIPAC passed secrets to Israel, the larger story of Richard Perle and the neocons' carefully orchestrated takeover of Bush foreign policy has yet to be fully comprehended by the electorate.

Powell is leaving. We need to repeat that. When this reality sinks in, we will finally understand what we are getting ourselves into in a second Bush term. A handful of conservative columnists, Republican senators and a few other GOP luminaries are trying to reclaim a traditional conservative Republican foreign policy approach. But it is clearly too late.

Comparing Bush's foreign policy views in 2000 with his New York convention acceptance speech, it is clear that since 2000, the neocons started with a blank foreign policy slate. Looking carefully at Bush's 2000 campaign and statements and comparing them with the current 2004 campaign, it is startling how far he has come from his traditional Republican base. He has become the "Neoconian Candidate."

George W. Bush has signed on to the neocon agenda with the unshakeable faith of the born again. At this point, we all need a reminder that Crusades 1 through 5 ended badly in the long run, not just for the Crusaders, but on the home front. In a new Bush crusade, in a second term, the first to fall may be the professionals at the State Department.

Alpha

The Secret Relationship Between Israel and Oil: What the US Media Hides

By Wendy Campbell Al-Jazeerah, October 6, 2004

I have found that there is nothing more inspiring than taking a trip, especially to a foreign country where I leave behind my daily routine, including e-mails and the internet, to get to think outside the box and to get a chance to write down my thoughts. The moment of inspiration for me to start writing this article on my latest trip (to Baja Mexico) came moments after I stepped into the Alaska Airlines jet and picked up the complimentary issue of The Wall Street Journal. Generally I avoid mainstream media these days since I know it is mostly pro-Israel propaganda as well as blown-up sensationalist stories, such as the case of Scott Peterson, which are meant to distract people from the more important issues of our time, such as the US foreign policy, for example. The article in the Wall Street Journal, dated September 21, 2004, that rankled me into finally writing this article, which has been brewing in my mind for some time, was one by Jeffrey Ball entitled “As Prices Soar, Doomsayers Provoke Debate on Oil’s Future”. The sub-title was: “ In a 1970’s echo, Dr. Campbell (no relation to me!) Warns Supply Is Drying Up, but Industry Isn’t Worried”.

Now let me explain to you that I have already come to the conclusion a while ago that this controversy about the “shortage of oil” is being pushed forward by mostly pro-Israel forces for their own narrow agenda that has nothing to do with the vast majority of the American people’s interests. Even in this article, it is explained that: “Dr. Campbell is at the center of a small but suddenly influential band of contrarians known as the “peak oil movement”.

Their general thesis is that the world is running out of oil and quickly. They have been saying this for years, yet most experts believe that there is no need for panic, noting that new sources are constantly being discovered. Some experts even claim that oil supplies are self-renewing.

US MEDIA DETERMINES WHO WILL BE INFLUENTIAL

Is it a coincidence that Dr. Campbell is “suddenly influential”? No, it is not. Even the Wall Street Journal is playing into the game of making Dr. Campbell “suddenly influential” with this article. Why is the US media pushing Dr. Campbell, a man who lives in a tiny Irish village, into the limelight? Because the media, which is run by pro-Israel forces, want people like Dr. Campbell to be in the limelight is why. And you may ask, why is that? Well, because Dr. Campbell’s views help support the pro-Israel agenda of that other “suddenly influential band of contrarians”, known as the NeoConservatives. The NeoConservatives are mostly Zionist Jews, headed by Paul Wolfowitz, who qualify as Israeli-Americans, and who are now openly directing US foreign policy almost completely.

Christian Zionists such as Bush and Cheney have jumped on their bandwagon. Of course, it looks even more convincing when a non-Jew such as Dr. Campbell, puts forward claims that will lend support to the pro-Israel agenda. People whose voices the US media wants you to hear will be heard. Conversely, people whose voices and actions the US media want to hide, will go into the memory hole. It’s only an illusion that we have a free and democratic press here in the US. Personally, I think it’s about time to press for the right to vote for affirmative action laws with regards to specifically the US mass media and our US foreign policy department, both of which have a hugely disproportional percentage of Israeli-Americans in them. The over-representation of Israeli-Americans in US newsrooms tends to undermine journalistic integrity.

When the news media consistently manipulates public sensibilities with a bias favoring a foreign country such as Israel, American democratic values and institutions are compromised, as well as Americans’ ability to objectively and independently access the situation. America needs more non-Zionists (ie. people ineligible for Israeli citizenship) in high news and government positions to safeguard our own national interests against foreign interests. Whoever shapes public opinion has an unfair advantage politically. It serves as the government’s propaganda mouthpiece, but only when the government does as the media wants. Conversely, it has to power to bring politicians down who are not pro-Israel enough, often simply by ignoring them or by pulling out something unsavory from his or her dossier to suddenly put into the limelight. It’s works kind of like blackmail, actually.

The news establishment is termed by some to be “The Fourth Estate”, meaning the fourth branch of American government, after the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. This mighty, and in many ways, secretive, consolidated collection of media networks manages the American mind, shaping public opinion. American public opinion is the world’s second most powerful super-power, but it’s too bad that it is managed by the narrow interests of the elite controllers of the “free” and “democratic” media. Thank God for the internet, although “they” are franticly trying to control this last bastion of liberty as well.

LET’S DEBUNK SOME COMMON MYTHS ABOUT ISRAEL, OIL and U.S. SECURITY / INTERESTS

First of all, I’m sure many of you are aware of the notion put out there by political pundits (who are most likely pro-Israel) that the US somehow needs Israel in the Middle East to be its stationary “aircraft carrier” to act as the “tough cop” looking out for American interests in that region, specifically with regards to oil. Let me ask you these few revealing questions. When has Israel EVER sent any troops in to lend us a hand in ANY war the US has waged in the Middle East? Pretty amazing, especially when you consider that any wars the US has waged on the Middle East has been at the prodding of Israel and Israeli-Americans, particularly the NeoConservatives.

Have you ever noticed that bottled water is actually cheaper than gas?

Have you noticed or read the reports that the price of gas has not risen in keeping with inflation?

Adjusted for inflation, gasoline today would have to sell for around $3.50 a gallon to the match prices Americans paid in 1981. And this does not factor in the additional savings in consumption we enjoy since today’s cars get nearly twice the gas mileage of cars produced only 25 years ago.

Do you realize that the Arab world needs to sell its oil even more than we need to buy it from them? Did you know the US gets oil from many other countries including Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, etc. besides a few Middle Eastern countries? Actually, both Russia and Canada supply the US with quantities of oil comparable to Saudi Arabia. And what about the fact that there are more and more discoveries of new oil resources throughout the world? And that many geologists say that oil is actually a renewable resource? Even this Wall Street Journal article that sparked my writing this article gave many examples of how geologists scoff at Dr. Campbell’s prediction of an “oil crisis” looming ahead.

Even in Michael Moore’s Arab-bashing, misleading, “daring” documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11”, he made it clear that the Saudis are heavily invested in some sectors of American business, and that the Saudis are and always have been very cooperative with the US government, with the exception of the “oil crisis” of 1973, which I will discuss later in this article. It is well-known that the despotic Saudi government caters to the US government, so much in fact that the Saudi government is not popular with a vast majority of its own people, who see their government as selling out to the American government, which supports Israel’s brutal persecution of the Palestinian people.

In fact, the Saudi government risks being overthrown by its own people because of their government’s relationship with the US. Osama bin Laden was thrown out of his country Saudi Arabia, his assets frozen in banks there, and he was ex-communicated from his family, because he advocates the overthrowing of the Saudi government for cooperating with the imperialistic, materialistic, Zionist-dominated US government, which has thousands of American troops stationed on Saudi soil, a key sticking point with bin Laden.

By the way, did you notice how Michael Moore didn’t even mention the word “Israel”? Or “Zionism”? Or even “NeoConservatism” in his documentary?

Not surprising.

His agent is top Hollywood Jewish Zionist Ari Emmanuel whose brother is Rahm Emmanuel, who served in the Carter administration, and is currently a hyper pro-Israel senator in Illinois.

Another interesting note about Moore’s documentary: he even pointed out how none of the Saudis could reap any financial benefits from the war on Iraq, unlike American companies such as Halliburton.

So his whole Arab-bashing approach basically backfires. It shows how cowardly Moore is in the face of Zionist Hollywood, not to mention how greedy he obviously is to go for the big bucks, which toeing the Zionist line assures anyone in the worlds of US media and politics. It’s ever so convenient and “somehow” politically “acceptable” to scapegoat Arabs and Muslims in Zionist Hollywood and US media.

Consider this as well: does it make any sense whatsoever to spend over $200 BILLION on the war on Iraq to get control of Iraqi oil for US interests? Especially when we could easily buy it, if we needed to? Not to mention the war’s cost in human lives and alienating much of the world in the process? The “War for Oil (for US interests)” fable is a completely ridiculous and outrageous lie!

SO WHAT IS REALLY THE PRO-ISRAEL AGENDA WITH REGARDS TO OIL? What is the connection between Israel and Arab oil, and where does the US fit into this picture?

First of all, the ethno-centric Jewish state of Israel is a small, resource-poor country, with no natural oil resources, and is almost completely dependent on US support in the form of not only massive financial support (billions of US tax dollars yearly) but US military and political cover as well. Israel, quite simply, would not survive as the apartheid, imperialistic, war-mongering Jewish state that it is, without the massive support of the US government.

Israel is surrounded by well-deserved, self-made enemies thanks to the initial injustice of the UN unilaterally giving away Arab land that was not theirs to give away in the first place to Eastern European Zionist Jews who have been committing ethnic cleansing and persecution of the indigenous non-Jewish Palestinians ever since 1948. Since that time, Israel has continued to aggressively steal even more Arab land and has blatant ambitions to control the entire Middle East, using the power and might of the United States. If more Americans were truly aware of how racist and imperialistic Israel is, they would most likely demand that our government stop supporting Israel at all until it is transformed into a true democracy for all regardless of religion, race or gender, as the world pressured South Africa to transform from an apartheid country to a true democracy ten years ago.

If more Americans knew how support of Israel increases anti-American sentiment worldwide and ensures endless unjust wars, they might very well question their government’s support of Israel. There are many reasons for Americans to question their government’s support of Israel including first and foremost for real financial and security concerns as well as our country’s hard-won reputation as a democracy for all, regardless of religion, race or gender.

The fact is that the pro-Israel, Zionist-dominated US media very rarely even mentions the topic of Israel outside of incidents that involve Palestinian suicide bombers, which then make the screaming front page headlines. The footage of the aftermath of such an attack is played over and over again, back to back on ZNN (oops! I meant to write CNN!) and Fox News and all the other US media. These isolated attacks by Palestinian suicide bombers are thus over-reported while the context in which these desperate acts occur is usually completely ignored. The on-going brutal persecution of the non-Jewish Palestinian people, including the killing of innocent civilians and children, since 1948 by the Israeli army goes almost totally unreported and is generally veiled from view by the American public.

MOST AMERICANS DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT ZIONISM IS, US MEDIA LIKES TO KEEP IT THAT WAY

Most Americans don’t even know what Zionism is. In a nutshell, it is a racist, nationalistic, political ideology conceived by Theodor Hertzl, an Austrian Jew in the 1890s, that maintains that there must be a Jewish state in Palestine, although that means and always has meant policies of ethnic-cleansing, apartheid and general persecution of the indigenous non-Jews of that land, the Arab Muslim and Christian Palestinians. In a nutshell, advocates of this racist Zionist ideology are driving our US foreign policy. What ever happened to separation of synagogue/ church and state?

Isn’t it time to openly discuss this? Why are double standards allowed for Israel and for Zionists? However the US media does not want Americans to even think about these things, never mind discuss them! Certainly, the pro-Israel media does not want Americans to question our government’s support of Zionist Israel. That is why there is never any mention in mainstream US media of the Israeli connection to 9-11, to the war on Iraq, to the so-called “war on terror”, and to the subject of Israel’s quest for oil. This intentional covering up by the Zionized US media of the Israeli connection to anything that impacts the US negatively has been going on for decades.

WHAT THE US MEDIA STILL HIDES ABOUT THE 1973 “OIL CRISIS” And nothing proves to me that the US media has been covering for Israel and still covers for Israel (refusing to show the negative effect for Americans of the US government’s “special relationship” with Israel) more than this article about the “oil crisis”. Here is a specific case in point: Does anyone remember that time during 1973 when there was such an “oil crisis” that there were really long lines at all the gas stations and when gas was actually rationed out at the gas stations so that you could only get gas every other day, depending on whether or not your license plate ended in an even or an odd number? I do remember that time vividly.

I didn’t know why it was happening at the time, but I know exactly why now. And it’s not because I got “enlightened” by the pro-Israel US media. Here is how this Sept. 21, 2004 Wall Street Journal article by Jeffrey Ball (who obviously passed the required litmus test of being pro-Israel enough to work in the US media) presented the “oil crisis” of 1973, in such a manner that still puts a veil of the Israeli connection to that event even today. Here is a direct quote: “Then in 1973, the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) tightened their spigots, and the world panicked. The result: high prices, long lines and frequent shortages at gas stations across the U.S. and Europe.” There was exactly no mention of the context of why OPEC “tightened their spigots” in 1973. No mention at all. Are you ready for the Israeli connection to this crisis that is almost uniformly covered up by the pro-Israel US media? Here it is: In 1973, Egypt went to war against Israel in order to win back the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel had stolen six years earlier in Israel’s infamous pre-emptive “Six Day War” in 1967 against her neighboring countries. In that pre-emptive 1967 war, Israel not only stole the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, but also part of southern Lebanon, which Israel has since relinquished, and the Golan Heights from Syria, which is still being occupied to this day by Israeli forces, as well as The Palestinian Territories: the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, now generally referred to as The Occupied Territories. Pro-Israel forces generally prefer to refer to the Occupied Territories as the “disputed territories”. Egypt appeared to be winning its retaliatory war against Israel in 1973, so Golda Meir, the American-Israeli Prime Minister of Israel at the time, worked with American-Israeli Henry Kissinger to pressure the US government to come to Israel’s rescue, which it did. Therefore in a show of solidarity with Egypt, the Arab countries of OPEC “tightened their spigots” of gas and oil for export to the U.S. There you have it: the real reason for the “oil crisis” of 1973. But the pro-Israel US media does not want Americans to realize that support for Israel has many negative effects on the lives of Americans, which includes potential politically induced “oil crises”, such as was obviously the case in 1973.

Pro-Israel forces in this country and around the world want to minimize the power of Arab countries which is mostly due to their oil resources. Therefore the pro-Israel forces are relying on the US government to directly control these resources primarily for Israel via wars, campaign contributions and a manipulative media. Pro-Israel people detest going to the gas station, because every time they pump gas into their cars, they angrily believe they are helping Arab Muslims (“terrorists”), whose land and resources Zionists view somehow as rightfully theirs. But of course, they don’t want the non-Zionist or unaware-of-it-all Americans to resent their US government’s support for Israel which can possibly mean paying more for gas in a future politically induced “oil crisis”, as it did in 1973. Another example of the Israelization of America: have you been to the airports lately?

The kinds of procedures at the US airports that you have been experiencing lately have always been the “norm” in Israel. This is a prime example of how Israel’s “war on terror” has SOMEHOW become America’s “war on terror” and how it directly impacts the lives of Americans. The “war on terror” is NOT about democracy. It’s an imperialistic war which will have no end if the Zionists (anyone who is pro-Israel) have their way, because it is unjust and breaks International Laws. There is another aspect of the Israeli connection to the war on Iraq, which many people wish to believe is all about oil for the US, rather than the Zionist ideology that is actually the driving force behind the push for a war on the entire Middle East, which began with Afghanistan, and moved onward to Iraq, and threatens to expand to Iran, Saudi Arabia, and even Syria, which is not an oil exporting country (which just goes to show once again: it’s not just about the oil!)

PRO-ISRAEL FORCES WANT TO RE-OPEN A PIPELINE FROM IRAQ TO HAIFA, ISRAEL

The fact that American-Israelis in our government are endeavoring to use the war on Iraq as a way for Israel to gain control over oil in the Middle East is rarely reported in the Zionized mainstream US mass media, however it has been reported in Jewish newspapers with Jewish readership as well as in Israeli papers. A case in point is the fact that American-Israelis in our government want to “re-open” or re-instate, the pipeline that used to exist between Iraq and Palestine, which is now specifically Haifa, Israel. When Israel was created in 1948, that pipeline was re-directed by Iraq to Syria. Now pro-Israel forces are actively seeking to cut off the pipeline to Syria and re-direct it to Haifa, Israel. For more information on this, please do a Google-search using such keywords such as “Iraq oil pipeline to Haifa Israel” and see what you come up with. Just as Israel’s connection to the war on Iraq has been kept out of the US mainstream mass media (as you may have noticed, Israel has not even been mentioned as one of our “allies” in the war on Iraq !), this choice nugget of information with regards to Israel’s ambition to get a basically free supply of Iraqi oil is also kept out of view for the vast American public consumption.

I could go on about all this (and, yes, there is much more) but I will stop here. You get the picture, I hope. You won’t get it from the Zionized US mainstream media. *********** Wendy Campbell is a California-based producer and distributor of political documentaries. For more information, please check out her websites www.marwenmedia.com <http://www.marwenmedia.com/> and www.exposingisraeliapartheid.com <http://www.exposingisraeliapartheid.com/> . MarWen Media...ahead of the curve! Note: Ms. Campbell’s latest documentary “Rosa Remembers Palestine”, featuring an interview with a Palestinian woman who became a refugee when the Jewish state of Israel was created in 1948, will premiere at La Pena Cultural Center on Thurs. Oct. 28 at 8pm. For more information on this and other ground-breaking documentaries, please visit www.marwenmedia.com.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/October/6o/The%20Secret%20Relationship%20Between%20Israel%20and%20Oil%20What%20the%20US%20Media%20Hides%20By%20Wendy%20Campbell.htm

Alpha

U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD (of course not as the Zionist neoconservatives simply used WMD as a pretext to launch their war for Israel agenda as conveyed by James Bamford in his 'A Pretext for War' book):

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html

3 minutes ago

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s weapons of mass destruction programs had deteriorated into only hopes and dreams by the time of the U.S.-led invasion last year, a decline wrought by the first Gulf War (news - web sites) and years of international sanctions, the chief U.S. weapons hunter found.

And what ambitions Saddam harbored for such weapons were secondary to his goal of evading those sanctions, and he wanted them primarily not to attack the United States or to provide them to terrorists, but to oppose his older enemies, Iran and Israel.

The report of weapons hunter Charles Duelfer was presented Wednesday to senators and the public in the midst of a fierce presidential election campaign in which Iraq (news - web sites) and the war of terror have become the overriding issues.

The report chronicles the decay of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs after its defeat in the 1991 Gulf War. By the late 1990s, only its long-range missile efforts continued in defiance of the United Nations (news - web sites); even then, Iraq's ballistic and cruise missile designs had not proceeded far past the drawing board. Saddam's other plans would have to wait until he was free of the sanctions and free of international attention.

President Bush (news - web sites)'s spokesman said the report justified the decision to go to war. Campaigning in Pennsylvania, Bush defended the decision to invade.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," the president said in a speech in Wilkes Barre, Pa. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

A spokesman for his opponent, Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites), said the report "underscores the incompetence of George Bush (news - web sites)'s Iraq policy."

"George Bush refuses to come clean about the ways he misled our country into war," Kerry spokesman David Wade added.

"In short, we invaded a country, thousands of people have died, and Iraq never posed a grave or growing danger," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group drew on interviews with senior Iraqi officials, 40 million pages of documents and classified intelligence to conclude that Iraq destroyed its undeclared chemical and biological stockpiles under pressure of U.N. sanctions by 1992 and never resumed production.

The U.S.-led invasion pushed one of Iraq's leaders into seeking chemical weapons to defend the country. But it doesn't appear that Saddam's son Odai located any.

Iraq ultimately abandoned its biological weapons programs in 1995, largely out of fear they would be discovered and tougher enforcement imposed.

"Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the presidential level," according to a summary of Duelfer's 1,000-page report.

And Iraq also abandoned its nuclear program after the war, and there was no evidence it tried to reconstitute it.

Saddam's intentions to restart his weapons programs were never formalized.

"The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions," the summary says. "Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policymakers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them."

Duelfer's findings contradict most of the assertions by the Bush administration and the U.S. intelligence community about Iraq's threat in 2002 and early 2003. The White House had argued that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons stockpiles and production lines and had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

The United States led an invasion into Iraq in March 2003, taking the capital, Baghdad, within weeks. Since then, the United States and its allies have fought a dangerous insurgency of Iraqis as well as Islamic extremists who have come to Iraq to kill Americans.

Some 1,196 coalition personnel have been killed since the start of the war. Of those, 1,060 are American, 67 British and 69 are from other coalition countries. Unknown numbers of Iraqis have also died on both sides of the conflict.

Before the war, Saddam's chief success was in manipulating a U.N. oil for food program that began in 1996 to avoid the sanctions' effects for a few years, acquiring billions of dollars to import goods such as parts for missile systems. Duelfer also in the report accused the former head of the U.N. oil-for-food program of accepting bribes in the form of vouchers for Iraqi oil sales from Saddam's government.

"Once the oil for food program began, it provided all kind of levers for him (Saddam) to manipulate his way out of sanctions," Duelfer told Congress on Wednesday.

He said he believed sanctions against Saddam — even though they appeared to work in part — were unsustainable long term.

Duelfer's Iraq Survey Group had more than 1,000 intelligence, military and support officials working for it at any one time. They were frequently hampered by the dangerous conditions of postwar Iraq.

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

Zionist Richard Perle:'Inspections Or Not, We'll Attack Iraq - page 4