War Without End

Alpha

AIPAC/Franklin Spy Scandal Spreads to The Whitehouse

http://www.sw-asia.com/People/Bio916.htm

www.SW-Asia.com More Notes by Barry O'Connell

As the spy scandal unfolds it now appears to spread further than AIPAC, AEI, and the Pentagon. Michael Ledeen an ultra-Zionist Likudnik believed to be an Israeli agent is a key foreign Policy Advisor to Carl Rove. Rove who is known as a small man in a big job counts on a number of marginal fringe players for advice. Of all of his oddball advisors Michael Ledeen certainly acts like an agent of influence of a foreign government.

"When The Washington Post published a list of the people whom Karl Rove, President George W Bush's closest advisor, regularly consults for advice outside the administration, foreign policy veterans were shocked when Michael Ledeen popped up as the only full-time international affairs analyst." Asia Times -Veteran neo-con adviser moves on Iran

See BBC: Michael Ledeen advisor to Carl Rove

Who is the Mole?

Larry Franklin, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst has been named as the object of the FBI probe. I have serious doubts that Franklin worked alone. Let us hope that the FBI is taking a very close look at some other people including;

First of all the FBI is leaking the ties to AIPAC but a serious look must be taken with AEI. Every time I calculate the model on the Israeli spy ring it always traces back to AEI.

Harold Rhode, Douglas Feith's top Middle East specialist. Rhode is seen as a protege of Richard Perle who certainly looks and acts like an Israeli agent of influence.

Michael Ledeen A former National Security Council official with strong ties to Richard Perle and Manucher Ghorbanifar. I suspect that Ledeen is an "Agent of Influence' for Israel. Note that Ledeen, Ghorbanifar, and Larry Franklin all link together.

The mysterious Abram N. Shulsky, Director of Office of Special Plans. He ran the OSP as if it was part of the Israeli Government.

F. Michael Maloof - Maloof has a hard time holding a security clearance and has been accused of "Rouge Operations".

William J. Luti a spy for Israel ? Is Bill Luti part of the the Israeli spy ring under Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz. CBS indicates that an analyst is "a" mole for Israel but I suspect that there are several. The Office of Special plans under Luti appears to have operated as a Mossad propaganda machine. One has to assume that if the FBI is investigating the will be applying special scrutiny to applied to Abram N. Shulsky, Director of Office of Special Plans and F. Michael Maloof. If it is an analyst then watch Shulsky and Maloof. My advice to the FBI is too lean on Bill Luti since I think he is most likely to crack. They may find more then just one mole in the Pentagon.

See FBI Suspects Israel Has Mole in Pentagon -- CBS

and FBI espionage probe goes beyond Israeli allegations, sources say

The Office of Special Plans relied heavily on data gathered (or manufactured) by Israeli intelligence agencies particularly Mossad and also on information provided by Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C. To lend credibility to the doctored material the same information was leaked to Likudnik shills such as Judith Miller of the New York Times and Columnist William Safire. By citing anonymous sources reporting the same information they could make the phony data look more solid.

SW-Asia.com

Alpha · Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2004 7:41 am Post subject: Neo-Con Spies IV

http://english.daralhayat.com/opinion/OPED/09-2004/Article-20040925-362c46c3-c0a8-01ed-002c-03ffce85c25c/story.html

(Neo-Con Spies IV)
Jihad Al Khazen Al-Hayat 2004/09/25

What is more dangerous than neo-cons spying for Israel is that some officials hijacking the U.S. foreign policy and direct it to serve the Israeli interests. In previous columns, I recorded their stances toward Iraq, Iran and Palestinians that have become U.S. policy. This is what probably led the real conservative Patrick Buchanan to say, "What the U.S. needs in the Middle East is a policy made in the U.S. not in Tel Aviv, AIPAC or the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)."

Would the Lawrence Franklin scandal be a new Iran-Contra? The bad guys of the new scandal are the same infamous ones of two decades ago in the previous one. Franklin and another "specialist" from Douglas Feith's office, Harold Rhode, were among the officials who established contacts with the Iranian arms dealer, Manucher Ghorbanifar, and Iranian refugees abroad; exactly like the arms sales scandal under the Reagan administration. It seems that the contacts reflected a competition between the neo-con clique in the administration who want "to change the regime" in Iran and the officials at the Department of State and the CIA who prefer to be cautious.

Around a year ago, News Day exposed the contacts with Ghorbanifar, and Washington Monthly conducted an exclusive interview with him in which he confirmed he met with officials at the Defense Department, and strongly denied the fact that they were 'chance meetings' as the Department claimed. Thus, it became obvious that there is a separatist team in the Defense Department working on changing the regime in Iran, albeit it was not the policy of the State Department or the administration, and probably without the consent of top officials, including the President.

There is an Israeli nest inside the U.S. Defense Department, and it is not supporting Yitzhak Rabin's policies but the radical Likudnik policy that is working against peace and for war in the whole region, at the expense of American souls and interests. The best image from inside of the Israeli gang in the Department is that presented by Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski about her work directly linked to Israel's gang in the Department's office for Near East South Asia (NESA). In fact, she wrote a long article in Salon Internet magazine; she talked about how she moved after two years of working in the Defense Secretary's office to the administration that opened her eyes to the "hijacking" of U.S. foreign policy.

Kwiatkowski said that between May 2002 and April 2003, she "observed firsthand the formation of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and watched the latter stages of the neo-conservative capture of the policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. This seizure of the reins of U.S. Middle East policy was directly visible to many of us working in the Near East South Asia policy office, and yet there seemed to be little any of us could do about it."

She added, "I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies."

She wrote: "To begin with, I was introduced to Bill Luti, assistant secretary of defense for NESA. A tall, thin, nervously intelligent man, he welcomed me into the fold. I knew little about him. Because he was a recently retired naval captain and now high-level Bush appointee, the common assumption was that he had connections, if not capability. I would later find out that when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense over a decade earlier, Luti was his aide. He had also been a military aide to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich during the Clinton years… Co-workers who had watched the transition from Clintonista to Bushite… I soon saw the modus operandi of "instant policy" unhampered by debate or experience with the early Bush administration replacement of the civilian head of the Israel, Lebanon and Syria desk office with a young political appointee from the Washington Institute, David Schenker. Word was that the former experienced civilian desk officer tended to be evenhanded toward the policies of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, but there were complaints and he was gone… I learned that there was indeed a preferred ideology for NESA. My first day in the office, a GS-15 career civil servant rather unhappily advised me that if I wanted to be successful here, I'd better remember not to say anything positive about the Palestinians… A politically savvy civilian-clothes-wearing lieutenant colonel named Bill Bruner served as the Iraq desk officer, and he had apparently joined NESA about the time Bill Luti did. I discovered that Bruner, like Luti, had served as a military aide to Speaker Gingrich. Gingrich himself was now conveniently an active member of Bush's Defense Policy Board.

I asked why Bruner wore civilian attire, and was told by others, "He's Chalabi's handler." Chalabi, of course, was Ahmad Chalabi, the president of the Iraqi National Congress, who was the favored exile of the neoconservatives and the source of much of their "intelligence." Bruner himself said he had to attend a lot of meetings downtown in hotels and that explained his suits. Soon, in July, he was joined by another Air Force pilot, a colonel with no discernible political connections, Kevin Jones. I thought of it as a military-civilian partnership, although both were commissioned officers.

I spent time that summer exploring the neoconservative worldview and trying to grasp what was happening inside the Pentagon. I wondered what could explain this rush to war and disregard for real intelligence. Neoconservatives are fairly easy to study, mainly because they are few in number, and they show up at all the same parties. Examining them as individuals, it became clear that almost all have worked together, in and out of government, on national security issues for several decades. Richard Perle, David Wurmser and Douglas Feith sent Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party campaign in Israel in 1996 a study entitled "A Clean Break: Strategy for Securing the Realm," in which they opposed peace with Palestinians.

David Wurmser is the least known of that trio worked in 2001, as the research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute was assigned to the Pentagon, then moved to the Department of State to work as deputy for the hard-line conservative undersecretary John Bolton, then to the National Security Council, and now is lodged in the office of the vice president. His wife, the prolific Meyrav Wurmser, executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute, is also a neoconservative team player. (She is an Israeli who came with Colonel Igal Karmon to found MEMRI and then left him and worked in the same field.)"

Kwiatkowski is an expert in her field and has occupied several positions at the American government and is now preparing a PhD in international affairs. She authored two books on African issues, her first field of specialty. I have never heard anyone refuting her writings or denying them, which gives her credibility of which the sayings of the radical neo-cons lack.

In addition, Wurmser said in an address delivered at front the AEI at the beginning of 2001, eight months before the known terror occurred, that the tendency of the U.S. and Israel is a common strike to Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya.

This is what I have on the spies. I hope that what I illustrated has reached those who are able to take care, if they do not care for their peoples.

<h1>Ayoon wa Azan (Neo-Con Spies IV)</h1>
<h4>Jihad Al Khazen Al-Hayat 2004/09/25</h4>

What is more dangerous than neo-cons spying for Israel is that some officials hijacking the U.S. foreign policy and direct it to serve the Israeli interests. In previous columns, I recorded their stances toward Iraq, Iran and Palestinians that have become U.S. policy. This is what probably led the real conservative Patrick Buchanan to say, "What the U.S. needs in the Middle East is a policy made in the U.S. not in Tel Aviv, AIPAC or the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)."
Would the Lawrence Franklin scandal be a new Iran-Contra? The bad guys of the new scandal are the same infamous ones of two decades ago in the previous one. Franklin and another "specialist" from Douglas Feith's office, Harold Rhode, were among the officials who established contacts with the Iranian arms dealer, Manucher Ghorbanifar, and Iranian refugees abroad; exactly like the arms sales scandal under the Reagan administration. It seems that the contacts reflected a competition between the neo-con clique in the administration who want "to change the regime" in Iran and the officials at the Department of State and the CIA who prefer to be cautious.
Around a year ago, News Day exposed the contacts with Ghorbanifar, and Washington Monthly conducted an exclusive interview with him in which he confirmed he met with officials at the Defense Department, and strongly denied the fact that they were 'chance meetings' as the Department claimed. Thus, it became obvious that there is a separatist team in the Defense Department working on changing the regime in Iran, albeit it was not the policy of the State Department or the administration, and probably without the consent of top officials, including the President.
There is an Israeli nest inside the U.S. Defense Department, and it is not supporting Yitzhak Rabin's policies but the radical Likudnik policy that is working against peace and for war in the whole region, at the expense of American souls and interests. The best image from inside of the Israeli gang in the Department is that presented by Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski about her work directly linked to Israel's gang in the Department's office for Near East South Asia (NESA). In fact, she wrote a long article in Salon Internet magazine; she talked about how she moved after two years of working in the Defense Secretary's office to the administration that opened her eyes to the "hijacking" of U.S. foreign policy.
Kwiatkowski said that between May 2002 and April 2003, she "observed firsthand the formation of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and watched the latter stages of the neo-conservative capture of the policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. This seizure of the reins of U.S. Middle East policy was directly visible to many of us working in the Near East South Asia policy office, and yet there seemed to be little any of us could do about it."
She added, "I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies."
She wrote: "To begin with, I was introduced to Bill Luti, assistant secretary of defense for NESA. A tall, thin, nervously intelligent man, he welcomed me into the fold. I knew little about him. Because he was a recently retired naval captain and now high-level Bush appointee, the common assumption was that he had connections, if not capability. I would later find out that when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense over a decade earlier, Luti was his aide. He had also been a military aide to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich during the Clinton years… Co-workers who had watched the transition from Clintonista to Bushite… I soon saw the modus operandi of "instant policy" unhampered by debate or experience with the early Bush administration replacement of the civilian head of the Israel, Lebanon and Syria desk office with a young political appointee from the Washington Institute, David Schenker. Word was that the former experienced civilian desk officer tended to be evenhanded toward the policies of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, but there were complaints and he was gone… I learned that there was indeed a preferred ideology for NESA. My first day in the office, a GS-15 career civil servant rather unhappily advised me that if I wanted to be successful here, I'd better remember not to say anything positive about the Palestinians… A politically savvy civilian-clothes-wearing lieutenant colonel named Bill Bruner served as the Iraq desk officer, and he had apparently joined NESA about the time Bill Luti did. I discovered that Bruner, like Luti, had served as a military aide to Speaker Gingrich. Gingrich himself was now conveniently an active member of Bush's Defense Policy Board.
I asked why Bruner wore civilian attire, and was told by others, "He's Chalabi's handler." Chalabi, of course, was Ahmad Chalabi, the president of the Iraqi National Congress, who was the favored exile of the neoconservatives and the source of much of their "intelligence." Bruner himself said he had to attend a lot of meetings downtown in hotels and that explained his suits. Soon, in July, he was joined by another Air Force pilot, a colonel with no discernible political connections, Kevin Jones. I thought of it as a military-civilian partnership, although both were commissioned officers.
I spent time that summer exploring the neoconservative worldview and trying to grasp what was happening inside the Pentagon. I wondered what could explain this rush to war and disregard for real intelligence. Neoconservatives are fairly easy to study, mainly because they are few in number, and they show up at all the same parties. Examining them as individuals, it became clear that almost all have worked together, in and out of government, on national security issues for several decades. Richard Perle, David Wurmser and Douglas Feith sent Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party campaign in Israel in 1996 a study entitled "A Clean Break: Strategy for Securing the Realm," in which they opposed peace with Palestinians.
David Wurmser is the least known of that trio worked in 2001, as the research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute was assigned to the Pentagon, then moved to the Department of State to work as deputy for the hard-line conservative undersecretary John Bolton, then to the National Security Council, and now is lodged in the office of the vice president. His wife, the prolific Meyrav Wurmser, executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute, is also a neoconservative team player. (She is an Israeli who came with Colonel Igal Karmon to found MEMRI and then left him and worked in the same field.)"
Kwiatkowski is an expert in her field and has occupied several positions at the American government and is now preparing a PhD in international affairs. She authored two books on African issues, her first field of specialty. I have never heard anyone refuting her writings or denying them, which gives her credibility of which the sayings of the radical neo-cons lack.
In addition, Wurmser said in an address delivered at front the AEI at the beginning of 2001, eight months before the known terror occurred, that the tendency of the U.S. and Israel is a common strike to Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya.
This is what I have on the spies. I hope that what I illustrated has reached those who are able to take care, if they do not care for their peoples.

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

Dude · Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:10 pm Post subject: Great Site

Check out this site full of online videos, it's great:
www.supportthetruth.com
Great Site

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.

Alpha

From: "Ronald" <rbleier@igc.org>
To: "rbleier" <rbleier@igc.org>
Subject: Sharon's expulsion plans on track/Creveld on expulsions (2002)
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:10:34 -0400

Now that Sharon's latest offensive in northern Gaza has extended into its second week without any abatement, with already 85 Palestinians killed, half of whom are women and children, it's useful to look at the larger picture of Israel's strategic goal of expelling the bulk of the 3.5 million Palestinians in the occupied territories, the logical outcome of the Zionist project.

Since the Iraq war has thus far not provided an adequate screen to implement mass expulsions as Sharon might have hoped, he has embarked on a slower alternate route. This involves making everyday life for the Palestinian people as difficult as possible, weakening their defenses by killing as many leaders and activists as possible, through massive land and water confiscations especially through the construction of the Wall, interfering with UNWRA aid, making commerce and everyday travel as difficult as possible and on and on. Future offensives by the US and/or Israel against Iran or Syria will very likely work to forward Sharon's plans for the Palestinians.

Note that the latest Gaza offensive has been undertaken in the course of a heated US election campaign where the major party candidates (and most of the third party candidates as well) cannot bring themselves to suggest anything remotely resembling criticism of Israeli policy.

The following article by analyst Martin van Creveld, written less than a year before the 2003 Iraq war reminds us of the means and the outcome that Sharon is relentlessly pursuing and that the US is supporting. (Creveld's article was cited by Shraga Elam in an article on Israel's role in the Iraq war in Between the Lines for Feb 2003.)

-- Ronald Bleier

Sharon's plan is to drive Palestinians across the Jordan
(Filed: 28/04/2002)
by Martin Van Creveld
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/28/wpal28.xml

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

Two years ago, less than eight per cent of those who took part in a Gallup poll among Jewish Israelis said they were in favour of what is euphemistically called "transfer" - that is, the expulsion of perhaps two million Palestinians across the River Jordan. This month that figure reached 44 per cent.

Ariel Sharon

Earlier this year, when a journalist asked Ariel Sharon whether he favoured such a move, the Israeli prime minister said he did not think in such terms. A glance at his memoirs, however, shows that he has not always been so fastidious.

In September 1970 King Hussein of Jordan fell on the Palestinians in his kingdom, killing perhaps 5,000 to 10,000. The then Gen Sharon, serving as Commanding Officer, Southern Front, argued that Israel's policy of helping the king was a mistake; instead it should have tried to topple the Hashemite regime.

He has often said since that Jordan, which, according to him, has a Palestinian majority even now, is the Palestinian state. The inference - that the Palestinians should go there - is clear.

During its 1948 War of Independence, Israel drove 650,000 Palestinians from their homes into neighbouring countries. If it were to try something similar today, the outcome could well be a regional war. More and more people in Jerusalem believe that such is Mr Sharon's objective.

It might explain why Mr Sharon, famous for his ability to plan ahead, appears not to have a plan. In fact, he has always harboured a very clear plan - nothing less than to rid Israel of the Palestinians.

Few people, least of all me, want the following events to happen. But such a scenario could easily come about. Mr Sharon would have to wait for a suitable opportunity - such as an American offensive against Iraq, which some Israelis think is going to take place in early summer.

Mr Sharon himself told Colin Powell, the secretary of state, that America should not allow the situation in Israel to delay the operation.

An uprising in Jordan, followed by the collapse of King Abdullah's regime, would also present such an opportunity - as would a spectacular act of terrorism inside Israel that killed hundreds.

Should such circumstances arise, then Israel would mobilise with lightning speed - even now, much of its male population is on standby.

First, the country's three ultra-modern submarines would take up firing positions out at sea. Borders would be closed, a news blackout imposed, and all foreign journalists rounded up and confined to a hotel as guests of the Government.

A force of 12 divisions, 11 of them armoured, plus various territorial units suitable for occupation duties, would be deployed: five against Egypt, three against Syria, and one opposite Lebanon. This would leave three to face east as well as enough forces to put a tank inside every Arab-Israeli village just in case their populations get any funny ideas.

The expulsion of the Palestinians would require only a few brigades. They would not drag people out of their houses but use heavy artillery to drive them out; the damage caused to Jenin would look like a pinprick in comparison.

Any outside intervention would be held off by the Israeli air force. In 1982, the last time it engaged in large-scale operations, it destroyed 19 Syrian anti-aircraft batteries and shot down 100 Syrian aircraft against the loss of one.

Its advantage is much greater now than it was then and would present an awesome threat to any Syrian armoured attack on the Golan Heights.

As for the Egyptians, they are separated from Israel by 150 miles or so of open desert. Judging by what happened in 1967, should they try to cross it they would be destroyed.

The Jordanian and Lebanese armed forces are too small to count and Iraq is in no position to intervene, given that it has not recovered its pre-1991 strength and is being held down by the Americans. Saddam Hussein may launch some of the 30 to 40 missiles he probably has.

The damage they can do, however, is limited. Should Saddam be mad enough to resort to weapons of mass destruction, then Israel's response would be so "awesome and terrible" (as Yitzhak Shamir, the former prime minister, once said) as to defy the imagination.

Some believe that the international community will not permit such an ethnic cleansing. I would not count on it. If Mr Sharon decides to go ahead, the only country that can stop him is the United States.

The US, however, regards itself as being at war with parts of the Muslim world that have supported Osama bin Laden. America will not necessarily object to that world being taught a lesson - particularly if it could be as swift and brutal as the 1967 campaign; and also particularly if it does not disrupt the flow of oil for too long.

Israeli military experts estimate that such a war could be over in just eight days. If the Arab states do not intervene, it will end with the Palestinians expelled and Jordan in ruins.

If they do intervene, the result will be the same, with the main Arab armies destroyed. Israel would, of course, take some casualties, especially in the north, where its population would come under fire from Hizbollah.

However, their number would be limited and Israel would stand triumphant, as it did in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. Are you listening Mr Arafat?

Prof van Creveld is author of The Sword and the Olive; a Critical History of the Israel Defence Force (New York, 1998). He lives in Jerusalem

27 April 2002: Plotter of Saddam's fall pleads case in US
8 February 2002: Sharon promises to help Bush if he attacks Saddam

Middle East Factfile

Research materials on refugees issues - Palestinian Refugee Research

Israel's War of Independence - Machal

Patterns of Palestinian exodus - Birzeit University

Historical myths - Electronic Intifada

Alpha

Upcoming from MER:

The Secrets of U.S.-imposed Debt Relief for Iraq

Israeli AIPAC Spy Scandal - Update

MIDDLEEAST.ORG - MER - Washington - 7 October: It was just a month ago that the latest Washington spy scandal involving the very heart of the Israeli-Jewish Lobby had everyone buzzing. Then it faded from view as the corporate media moved on, as CBS News which originally broke the story found itself under assault, and as the election campaign and debates took center stage. Interesting, not one question from the PBS moderators about Israeli spying, nor even about the U.S. veto of the Security Council resolution condemning Israel, nor the International Court of Justice decision doing the same. Here's an update -- however inadequate -- from yesterday's L.A.Times. Though the real heart of the story should be AIPAC and the influence, tactics, and status of the Israeli-Jewish lobby; instead they focus on just the individual and not as they should on the large group of support persons and organizations. This should especially include, of course, the current cabal of largely Jewish neocons in top positions...including the one who hired Larry Franklin (Douglas Feith), and the ones who hired him (Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle).

THE NATION

Policy Analyst Is Said to Have Rejected Plea Deal

Larry Franklin, who is accused of passing secrets
on Iran, also has replaced his attorney.

By Richard B. Schmitt

Los Angeles Times - October 6, 2004 WASHINGTON — A Pentagon analyst being investigated for allegedly helping pass secrets to Israel has stopped cooperating with authorities and retained a new lawyer to fight possible espionage charges, sources familiar with the case said Tuesday.

The analyst, Larry Franklin, has been a key witness in a continuing FBI investigation looking into whether classified intelligence was passed to Israel by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential Washington lobbying firm.

Franklin has been accused of passing the contents of a classified document about U.S. policy on Iran to two AIPAC officials, who in turn may have given the information to Israeli officials in Washington, sources have said.

Federal prosecutors had proposed an agreement under which Franklin would plead guilty to some of the charges. Such agreements usually are done in exchange for leniency and are accompanied by a pledge of cooperation.

But sources said Franklin had rejected a proposed deal because he believed the terms were too onerous. He recently replaced his court-appointed lawyer. "It looks like there is going to be a battle," a source familiar with the case said.

FBI officials have not yet sought charges against Franklin or anyone else in the case, although the breakdown of plea negotiations would appear to raise the odds that he could be charged soon.

The scope of the investigation is believed to encompass a top diplomat at the Israeli Embassy in Washington; two high-ranking analysts at AIPAC; and the Pentagon office in which Franklin works as an Iran analyst, which is headed by Defense Undersecretary Douglas J. Feith.

The case has attracted widespread attention because it spotlights U.S. relations with a longtime ally and raises questions about whether those relations have become too close in recent years. Israel has become acutely sensitive to the growing nuclear capabilities of Iran, which it considers to be its most worrisome and deadly foe.

Both the Israeli government and AIPAC have denied that they engaged in any wrongdoing or were given unauthorized access to secrets.

A spokesman for Paul McNulty, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, whose office has been assigned the case, declined to comment.

A prominent Washington defense lawyer, Plato Cacheris, confirmed this week that he recently had been retained by Franklin.

"We consider him a loyal American who did not engage in any espionage activities," said Cacheris, the first person representing Franklin to speak on his behalf since the investigation surfaced a month ago. "Any charge of espionage will be met with fierce resistance."

Cacheris has represented a number of accused turncoats, including CIA operative Aldrich H. Ames, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1994 after confessing to years of spying for the Soviet Union. Cacheris also represented former FBI counterintelligence agent Robert P. Hanssen, also convicted of passing secrets to the Soviets, who received a life sentence in 2002.

Cacheris' other clients have included former Clinton White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky and Nixon administration Atty. Gen. John Mitchell.

Some U.S. officials familiar with the investigation have said there was little hard evidence that Franklin intended to commit espionage and no hint that he was paid for any role he might have played.

U.S. officials believe there is more evidence that Franklin — described by colleagues and friends as diligent and thoughtful yet periodically unreliable and disorganized — might have handed over information without understanding the gravity of his actions.

During two decades at the Pentagon spent tracking threats, he was considered a journeyman analyst and an absent-minded professor who often could be found in his office buried behind huge stacks of documents.

The classified information he is suspected of sharing includes the contents of a draft version of a national security presidential directive, or NSPD, on Iran. The draft advocated measures the United States could take to help destabilize the regime in Tehran, a subject of intense interest to the Israelis.

But officials also have said that the draft, which originated at the Pentagon's Near East and South Asian Affairs office, where Franklin worked, contained little in the way of sensitive secrets that had not been reported by the media already.

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.

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President - page 39