Sunday, December 18, 2016

575 William F. Engdahl is a fraud.

I did meet William Engdahl two times in my life.
I love his book "A Century of War".

But I always noted that there was almost never any mentioning of Israel or jews in his articles.
His mothers maiden name is Ruth Rishoff, whic is to me a very jewish sounding name.

In his latest article on NEO he wants to tellthe world that the Bilderbergeers and the Vatican are ruling the world.
To be able to do that he must go back to 1932, a time when all religion was eradicated in Russia, and a time when The West was very afraid of Communism to conquer western Europe.
That is when Pope Pius XII saw in Hitler a companion against this existential threat for the Chirch.

So, Bilderberg and The Vatican are the ones who like to bring these muslim people to our countries. That is what Engdahl says. He does not give the mortive that the Pope would have for that.

Why is Engdahl going back so far in time, and why is he pointing at such weak agents as the Power that be?
Why does not he point at Israels Yinon Plan? ( 1982)
At A Clean Break (1997)
At the Neocons who are all jewish and act as if Israel is their first concers and use America on behalf of Israel.
In Haaretz in 2003 we could read that Thomas Freedman himself said that it was the Neocosn who wanted Iraq destroyed.
Mr. Engdahl.  It's so easy. Its so visible. It's so well documented.

Why do you lie to us, on behalf of Israel ?

Below I have Engdahl's article,  annotated by myself.  (Sometimes in Dutch.)


Vatican, Bilderberg and a ‘Migration’ Crisis

Column: Society
Region: Europe

The annual meeting of the secretive Bilderberg Group took place this year in Dresden, Germany from June 9-12. Notable is their terminology in an official press release announcing topics for discussion. Point three (not necessarily in terms of importance) is curiously titled “Europe: migration, growth, reform, vision, unity.” Curious is the choice of the word “migration” for the EU refugee crisis that began in Spring 2015 as Turkey opened the detention centers and refugee camps from Syrian war refugees and pointed them to the EU. More about that later on. Here I want to concentrate on the little-known historical ties or links between the Bilderberg Meetings, founded in 1954, and the Vatican, and the role of both in heating up the current EU refugee instability.
In May, 1954 in Oosterbeek, near to the German border, a highly secret meeting was held at the Hotel de Bilderberg. The meeting was hosted by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, husband of Queen Juliana. It was called simply, “Bilderberg Conference,” from the name of the hotel where the first talks were held. Out of three days of private discussion, a new Trans-Atlantic think-tank was created. It was to become one of the most effective organizations for influencing world events after 1954 up to the present, and one of the most damaging and secretive.
German-born Prince Bernhard was a controversial figure, a notorious philanderer, who had been a member of the German NSDAP and Reiter SS. In 1976 Bernhard was accused of accepting a $1 million bribe from the US fighter aircraft maker, Lockheed, to influence jet purchases by the Dutch Air Force. When Bernhard was forced to resign because of the scandals, he was succeeded as Bilderberg Chairman by then German Bundespräsident, Walter Scheel, and then afterwards by Britain’s Lord Carrington, a confidante and later business partner of Henry Kissinger. From the beginning it was clear Bilderberg was not the Little League of world politics.
In 2014 the Bilderberg Group’s official website, with sparse information, stated its purpose as simply to, “foster dialogue between Europe and North America.” It adds that it meets once a year with around 120 select attendees from finance, politics, industry, media and academia. Its rules mandate that two-thirds come from Europe and the remainder from the USA and Canada, with one third of the total always from the world of politics. Bilderberg participants from the US are always members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Shadowy origins
The Bilderberg Group, in the words of the first Bilderberg Secretary General, a shadowy and enormously influential Polish exile, Joseph Retinger, came from an initiative Retinger made in 1952 to counter, “growing distrust of America which was making itself manifest in Western Europe and which was paralleled by a similar distrust of Western Europe in America.” In brief, its aim was to make certain that the strategic policy orientation of Western Europe and of the United States was in harmony. The decisive question to be asked was harmony in pursuit of which and whose geopolitical goals?
Joseph Retinger
Joseph Retinger was one of the most influential political figures shaping the pro-Atlanticist architecture of post-World War II Western Europe. He founded the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, to lobby for the Washington-backed plan for creation of a United States of Europe, today called the European Union. He created the CIA-funded European Movement, as well as the CIA-funded European Youth Campaign. By far his most influential project was bringing the Bilderberg Group into being, and serving as its key European director and Secretary General, all far away from the public eye, as he preferred.
At the time his Bilderberg project took form the Korean War was ending and US Marshall Plan aid to Europe as well. Józef Hieronim Retinger had spent the war years in London as adviser to the exile government of Prime Minister General Wladyslaw Sikorski. While Retinger’s name was virtually unknown to the world at large, he was one of the most influential string-pullers of the postwar period in Europe and the United States. He was able to get private audiences with the Pope as well as the American President at will. It was he who selected Prince Bernhard to act as figurehead host and who selected which Americans and which Europeans would be invited to Bilderberg.
The American Steering Committee for the first Bilderberg Meeting in 1954 consisted of USA chairman Joseph E. Johnson, president of the Rockefeller-tied Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Others included George Ball, who during the Second World War was in London serving as director of the Strategic Bombing Survey, to analyze the impact of British and American bombing of German cities and civilian populations.
The American Bilderberg Steering Committee also included H. J. Heinz II, of the food group and father-in-law of John Kerry’s current wife; George Nebolsine, a State Department consultant on the Marshall Plan; and Dean Rusk, then President of the Rockefeller Foundation, later Secretary of State.
The real guiding hand behind the American side of the Bilderberg Group, however, was the first head of the newly-established Central Intelligence Agency, General Walter Bedell Smith. In 1950 Smith became Director of the CIA. The CIA helped organize, and sponsored the formation, and operation of the Bilderberg Conferences.
In late 1952, Retinger went to America to test his Bilderberg idea on his American contacts, where he met with Averell Harriman, David Rockefeller, and Bedell Smith, then director of the CIA. After Retinger explained his proposal, Smith reportedly said, “Why the hell didn’t you come to me in the first place?” The CIA chief then told Retinger to go to C. D. Jackson, who was about to become President Eisenhower’s Special Assistant for Psychological Warfare, and Eisenhower’s liaison between the Pentagon and CIAviii
The attendees at the 1954 initial Bilderberg Meeting included David Rockefeller, who today is the only Bilderberg “Advisory Group” Member. It included State Department official, Paul Nitze. As well, Gardner Cowles, US media baron and founder of Look magazine, who had been the US Government deputy director of the Office of War Information, the US propaganda ministry that created the Voice of America (VOA). It included J.P. Morgan Bank director Nelson D. Jay, a close Rockefeller associate.
The first Bilderberg attendees also included C.D. Jackson, by then Eisenhower’s architect of the Cold War; Alcide de Gasperi, Italian Prime Minister; and Antoine Pinay, a former French Prime Minister. Pinay was to become, the decisive personality shaping the long-term agenda of Bilderberg.
In Retinger’s words he founded Bilderberg Group simply to, “foster dialogue between Europe and North America.” That was for public consumption. In reality he built a very dark agenda that drew in the most reactionary circles in postwar Europe and tied them to the most powerful of postwar American oligarch families, that of Rockefeller, Harriman and their emerging “American Century.” The Bilderberg Group was to insure that that Century would be heavily influenced by postwar Vatican geopolitics. Its first meeting in 1954 was funded by Walter Bedell Smith’s CIA, with subsequent meetings financed by the CIA’s close ally during the Cold War, the Ford Foundation.
Le Cercle—The Vatican-Rockefeller Alliance
The key to the extraordinary power and influence of the annual Bilderberg Meetings from 1954 laid in the unpublished role of the secretive pan-Europeanist organization then known as Le Cercle, sometimes referred to as Cercle Pinay, a reference to the pivotal role in shaping Bilderberg played by the network of French Prime Minister Antoine Pinay, an intimate friend of Bilderberg founder Retinger.
Pinay’s Le Cercle (The Group) was the link that covertly tied most European intelligence services including the German BND and BfV, MI-6 in Britain, France’s SDECE, Holland’s BVD, Belgium’s Surete de l’Etat and Swiss and later even Saudi intelligence and apartheid South Africa’s secret service, BOSS. Prominent politicians associated with Pinay and Le Cercle included Franz Josef Strauss, Otto von Habsburg, Konrad Adenauer, Julio Andreotti of Italy, General Antonio de Spinola of Portugal, a conservative who went on later to become President; Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
Antoine Pinay’s group, Le Cercle, in turn was tied as well to the powerful and very right-wing Roman Catholic lay organization, Opus Dei, which had just been given final Catholic Church official approval in 1950, two years before plans for Bilderberg began, by Pope Pius XII. The organization was made well known, to its discomfort, as a subject of the 2003 Dan Brown historical novel, Da Vinci Code.
Among the later achievements of Le Cercle was the manipulation of the 1979 British elections that successfully brought in anti-labor right-wing Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. It was done with Le Cercle leading members, Sir Brian Crozier, MI-6 head Sir Arthur Franks, and MI-6 division head, Nicholas Elliott.
Wacht even: Le Cercle is pro EU. Maar Thatcher was NIET  pro REU ?! ( JV)
The late Bavarian political czar, Franz Josef Strauss, “The Lion of Bavaria,” noted in his memoirs that he had held a friendship with Le Cercle’s Antoine Pinay since the two first met in 1953. Le Cercle networks in Germany promoted Strauss’s candidacy, unsuccessfully, to become German Chancellor. In 1955 Strauss also became a regular member of the Bilderberg Meetings.
Bilderberg founder, Josef Retinger, a Polish-born Roman Catholic, organized his European network of the Bilderberg through the mediation of an Italian CIA asset, Prof. Luigi Gedda, head of Azione Cattolica. Gedda was also medical adviser to Pope Pius XII, a very strong right-wing anti-communist pontiff, who before the Second World War, as Cardinal Eugenio Giovanni Pacelli, had been architect of the 1933 Reichskonkordat with Hitler’s Nazi Party. Already in 1932 Pacelli as Vatican Secretary of State had played a key role in convincing Roman Catholic German Chancellor Franz von Papen to steer his Catholic Center Party into an anti-left alliance and join with the NSDAP of Hitler.
NB: In 1932 was er voor de Kerk eéén grote bedreiging: het communisme ! ( Dat schaft de religie af. ) Logisch dat de Paus die organisaties steunt die fel tegen het communisme zijn.
In 1932 !  Toen was er nauwelijks iets mis met Hitler.   Engdashl is joods, en heeft uiteraard een hekel aan Hitler èn aan de Katholieke Kerk.   
Engdahl schrijft mooie woorden over de inval in Irak ( dat het fout was etc.) Maar NOOIT  heeft hij gezegd dat zijn neefjes die inval hebben beraamd en doorgedrukt. 
NYT columnist Tomas Friedman schreef het nochtans vrij helder  op in Haaretz, in  2003: Zie mijn blog 574.  Friedman zei: “Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.
 (J.V: this is almost the same as what Henry Ford said:  "Corral the 50 wealthiest jews and there will be no wars." )

Clerical fascism and Pius XII
As Pope, Pius XII had a clear political bias and it was towards support of clerical or nominally Roman Catholic fascist or extremely repressive right-wing regimes, a form of what some termed clerical fascism, the fusion of the Church with fascist or dictatorial political regimes, such as in Franco’s Spain or Spinola’s Portugal.
During the Second World War Pius XII refused to condemn the clerical fascist pro-Hitler regime of Roman Catholic Ante Pavelić, the leader of the newly proclaimed Croatian state. Informed by Catholic clergy of the genocidal murders of Orthodox Serbs who had refused to embrace the Catholic faith, Pius XII, even though he possessed a list of Croatian clergy members who had “joined in the slaughter,” did not condemn the Pavelić regime or take action against the clergy involved. Instead he elevated Aloysius Stepinac—a Croatian archbishop convicted of collaborating with the Ustaše—to Cardinal.
JV: Dat was zeker een weinig christelijke keuze van de Paus. Maar de oorlog tegen het communisme was in volle gang. De aartsvijand van de Kerk. Oorlog is oorlog. Dan wordt de vijand gedood. Voor de Kerk waren de Serven de vijand.
In effect, Retinger’s European Bilderberg networks linked the extreme right-wing European anti-communist networks—including the Vatican of Pius XII, of Opus Dei, of the Franco government in Spain, of Portugal’s General Spinola and numerous other right-wing European anti-communist networks—to the triumphant American elites around the powerful Rockefeller group, through the networks and person of David Rockefeller. It was a power marriage that was to have a profound effect on the development of postwar European society and politics.
Nogmaals: Amerika en de Kerk en Spanje en Portugal hadden een gezamenlijke vijand: het communisme. 
Dat Amerika bereid is om met fascisten samen te werken zien we ook vandaag nog in Kiev.

Francis and the ‘Migrants’-Words are all I have…
Now against this background of Bilderberg true history, the question to be asked is whether the first Jesuit Pope in history, Francis, is following in the heavy footsteps of Pius XII? Is he deliberately trying to stir things up in Europe through his support of the huge influx of war refugees from Syria and North Africa in the past year?
Words are an essential form of human communication, quite complex in the energy they convey to others. Depending on the word and its context, it can convey negative energy, hate energy; it can convey neutral energy, neither here nor there; it can also convey love, harmony, peace energy. If there is any organized group on the face of this Earth that is master of such word use precision it is the Society of Jesus, Pope Francis’ mother organization. This is relevant in reading his numerous missives on the population disruptions of the Middle East and Africa and the EU in the past three years.
There are three words being loosely thrown about today in regard to the EU crisis, and crisis it is. There is the word, “refugee,” legally defined as “a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.” Then there is the related term, “asylum-seeker” defined as “a person who has left their home country as a political refugee and is seeking asylum in another.” Third there is the entirely different concept behind the word used both by Pope Francis and by the 2016 Bilderberg Meeting in Dresden, namely the word “migrant.” Migrant is precisely defined as “a person who moves from one place to another in order to find work or better living conditions.” Here there is no mention of war, political persecution or life-endangering calamity.
By calling it what it clearly is not, a migration into the EU from the south, the word completely blunts the causes behind that migration, namely a US-UK-France-instigated series of wars, wars for control of oil and now gas, wars in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, initially called by Hillary Clinton the Arab Spring. The million-plus human beings streaming into the EU from Turkey over the past fifteen months are no migrants. They are refugees from wars.
In calling them migrants it implicitly makes either racist or bigot anyone questioning the legal procedures employed by the Merkel government and the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). According to reliable investigative reports conveyed to this author, the German Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) since November 2014 has abandoned
the rules and legal directives for refugees (not asylum seekers) for no public reason and without any notice to the public. Interesting.
JV: These last sentences may be interesting, but sadly I do not understand them at this moment.
Structural Reality?”
In a Papal Message of January 17, 2016, the Pope declared, “In our time, migration is growing worldwide…Migration movements are now a structural reality, and our primary issue must be to deal with the present emergency phase by providing programmes which address the causes of migration and the changes it entails, including its effect on the makeup of societies and peoples.” He goes on, “Biblical revelation urges us to welcome the stranger; it tells us that in so doing, we open our doors to God, and that in the faces of others we see the face of Christ himself.” What if that stranger wants to kill you and to rape your daughters?
Very well, mr Engdahl. The Pope is secretly happy with this influx of muslims into Western Europe. That is what you want to make us believe.   He should have said ‘refugees’ and not migrants. He should have said: Keep them out !  (That would not have been very Christian though) .
But,  mr Engdahl, why use such flimsy ‘evidence’ when there is firm evidence at hand for another explanation?  In the Isrtaeli paper Haaretz we could read that the Iraq war was caused by jews in the Americanb government ( my blog 574). We can see that upheaval in all Israels neighbouring countries is the goal of Oded Yinon ( 1982) aln also of the Neocons in their Clean Break advise to Netanyahu ( 1997).  Why go back to  1932 and to the use of this or that word, if you have motive end  perpetrator  right at hand ?
Mr.Engdahl, you are protecting Israel by spreading misleading information.  You may be jewish, as youyr mother was named Ruth Rishoff. Thatmight be your motive. I have no idea.

Nice words these are indeed. It ignores entirely the actual disruptive reality of the flood of war refugees into Germany and the rest of the EU. Rather than to focus his immense influence on bringing about peace and reconciliation of all domestic parties in Syria and condemning the terrorism of ISIS, Al Qaeda/Al-Nusra Front and the others destroying one of the oldest cultures in the world, a poly-religious one, Francis chooses to tell Europeans to open their hearts and even homes to the “migrants.” In this context, as I noted at the start, it is highly significant that this year’s Dresden Bilderberg Meeting referred in their discussion to “Migration” not Refugee Crisis. It appears both the Pope and Bilderberg planners are singing from the same sheet of music on this at least.
On January 6, in his message on the feast of Epiphany, the same Pope released a Papal video in which he called for creating a one world religion in effect: “Many think differently, feel differently, seeking God or meeting God in different ways. In this crowd, in this range of religions, there is only one certainty that we have for all: we are all children of God.”
Some days later, January 11, 2016 in an address to the Vatican diplomatic corps, Francis insisted that Europe has the means to absorb migrants without sacrificing its security or culture. He criticized the distinction made by the international community between refugees fleeing persecution and those fleeing poverty, referring to “the grave crisis of migration which we are facing.” He condemned various EU national attempts to find their own national solutions to this crisis of migration: “…there is no place for autonomous solutions pursued by individual states, since the consequences of the decisions made by each inevitably have repercussions on the entire international community. Indeed, migrations, more than ever before, will play a pivotal role in the future of our world.”
Unlike Francis, I firmly believe that borders DO matter, that national autonomy, like individual autonomy, does matter, is in fact, an essential component of our existence, our individual sovereignty our national sovereignty. We human beings are unique individuals every one. We are not some amorphous blob with no individuality. These differences are sacred in my view. Not according to the words of the Jesuit Pope. Our world with all its wars and deep disturbances is not at the state of nirvana which Pope Francis would like us to believe where peace and Christian charity overcome every obstacle. It well may be in the future but to pretend it already is belies in my view a hidden agenda.
David Rockefeller is an open partisan of a one world order where he and his ilk would sit atop all mankind, a disgusting idea. For such a one economic world, we must dissolve national borders. This, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is designed to do in large part, if, that is, EU leaders are suicidal enough to agree. Then to control an entire world, it needs a synthetic new religion. The forced refugee crisis is designed to blur national borders and historical ethnic or national culture. There is far more behind all the nice speeches of the Pope and the talks of Bilderberg than we are being told. It’s not without reason that the word “Jesuitical” in ordinary usage means “one using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing.”
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Thursday, December 15, 2016

574 Alison Weir on Israeli Terror

In 2003 the Israeli paper Haaretz confirmed that the war against Iraq was done by jewish Necons,  the same people who  advised Israel in 1997 ( Clean Break) not to choose peace but to choose agression. 

The Allison Weir article is an introduction. 
The Haaretz artticle is below teh Weir article. 
A telling quote by columnist Freedman was marked red.


Alison Weir on Israel Terror.

( From: Stan van Houcke) 

Iraq Tribunal: Pro-Israel Neocons Pushed War Against Iraq

The organization called CodePink organized a tribunal to investigate the Iraq War. I was going to be part of this – my proposal to discuss the Israel connection was approved a month before. However, days before the Tribunal I learned that I was not to be included. I was greatly disappointed. I feel it is essential to understand the causation of this disastrous war – especially since the same parties who pushed us into Iraq are promoting similar attacks on other nations using similar misinformation.

 Here is what I was going to say: 

Israel and its American partisans played a major role – perhaps the decisive role – in pushing the U.S. to invade Iraq, because they considered Iraq a potential threat to Israel – an invasion that has resulted in the deaths of half a million Iraqis7,000 Americans, will cost Americans trillions of dollars, and led to the regional chaos we see today… the rise of ISIS, the flood of desperate refugees fleeing that devastated region to then overwhelm some European communities and begin to impact the US as well.

Numerous analysts have discussed the Israeli connection to the Iraq war in detail… there have been in depth articles by Stephen Green, Kathleen Christison, and many others …and essential books; the The Israel Lobby by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, and, especially The Road to Iraq by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad and The Transparent Cabal by Stephen Sniegoski. 

Mainstream Israeli media have not been shy in discussing the topic. A 2003 article in Ha’aretz, one of Israel’s main newspapers, reported bluntly: 

“The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.” 

It gave what it termed “a partial list” – US government officials Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Eliot Abrams, journalists William Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer” – describing them as “mutual friends who cultivate one another.”

The article included an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who was quoted as saying:

“It's the war the neoconservatives wanted. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite.” 

The article continued: 

“Friedman laughs: ‘I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.’”

Another Israeli newspaper article described how some of these individuals, high American officials, gave Israeli leaders tips on how to manage American actions and influence US Congressmen, concluding:

“Perle, Feith, and their fellow strategists are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests.”

American author, peace activist, and former CIA analyst Kathleen Christison discussed the situation in a 2002 article, reporting:“Although much has been written about the neo-cons who dot the Bush administration, their ties to Israel have generally been treated very gingerly.”  

The Bush administration, she wrote, was “peppered with people who have long records of activism on behalf of Israel in the United States, of policy advocacy in Israel, and of promoting an agenda for Israel often at odds with existing U.S. policy. These people,” she wrote, “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.”

Christison described the network that Friedman mentioned:

Richard Perle, head of the Defense Policy Board”… 
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, one of Perle’s many protégés, described by an associate as “over-the-top crazy when it comes to Israel” … named by Time Magazine as the “godfather of the Iraq War”) 
Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice Presidential chief of staff, mentored by Wolfowitz
Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense ], another Perle protégé, given an award by the Zionist Organisation of America, citing him as a “pro-Israel activist”
Peter Rodman and Dov Zachkeim, Assistant Defense Secretaries ….
David Wurmser, co-author with Perle and Feith of strategy papers for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu…. His wife co-founder of a website run by retired Israeli military and intelligence officers…”
Elliott Abrams, director of Middle East affairs …
Thomas Dine, head of Radio Liberty, formerly head of AIPAC, Israel’s main lobbying organ ,,,,, 
David Frum, Bush speechwriter who coined the term “axis of evil” for Bush’s state-of-the-union address ... 
Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, another Perle protégé, … 
Imports from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank spun off from AIPAC….. 
the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), whose high-powered board is often able to place members inside conservative U.S. administrations. “ 

The list goes on and on… the Kagans, Michael Ledeen, Stephen Bryen, Kenneth Adelman, Philip Zelikow,

 Their neo-con strategy papers dotted with concepts like ‘redefining Iraq,’ and ‘redrawing the map of the Middle East… [show PNAC letters]

Author Stephen Green wrote a meticulously researched expose, turned down by numerous media outlets before finally being published by CounterPunch in 2004, describing how some of these individuals, including Perle and Wolfowitz, had been investigated through the years by US intelligence agencies for security “lapses” benefiting Israel. Yet, despite a pattern of highly questionable actions suggestive of treason, they continued to procure top security clearances for themselves and cronies…. 

Israeli leaders worked to sell the war to Americans. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former Prime Ministers Netanyahu, Peres, and Barak told Americans that it was urgent that Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction program be stopped, and Israeli intelligence agencies fed the US reports supposedly documenting these.

The Israeli article I mentioned earlier reported that the goal was far more than just an invasion of Iraq: “at a deeper level,” the piece said, it is “a greater war…… “to consolidate a new world order”  “to create a new Middle East….

“the Iraq war,” the article said, is “really the beginning of a gigantic historical experiment…”

We’re now seeing the outcome.

I’ve only scratched the surface on uncomfortable facts about the Iraq war that some wish to remain hidden, but my time is up…. 

It’s time for everyone to learn this information, the larger history behind it, and for all of us to join together to end the continuing drive for Americans to make war on Israel’s perceived enemies. 


Below the complete article about the Neocons who were behaving like spies or traitors of the US. 

White Man’s Burden

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. ( Note: article written at the start of the war. JV)  But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical

Ari Shavit Apr 03, 2003 12:00 AM
 3comments     Zen  Subscribe
 Shareshare on facebook   Tweet  send via email  reddit  stumbleupon

1. The doctrine
WASHINGTON - At the conclusion of its second week, the war to liberate Iraq wasn't looking good. Not even in Washington. The assumption of a swift collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime had itself collapsed. The presupposition that the Iraqi dictatorship would crumble as soon as mighty America entered the country proved unfounded. The Shi'ites didn't rise up, the Sunnis fought fiercely. Iraqi guerrilla warfare found the American generals unprepared and endangered their overextended supply lines. Nevertheless, 70 percent of the American people continued to support the war; 60 percent thought victory was certain; 74 percent expressed confidence in President George W. Bush.
Washington is a small city. It's a place of human dimensions. A kind of small town that happens to run an empire. A small town of government officials and members of Congress and personnel of research institutes and journalists who pretty well all know one another. Everyone is busy intriguing against everyone else; and everyone gossips about everyone else.
In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also admire Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan. They tend to read reality in terms of the failure of the 1930s (Munich) versus the success of the 1980s (the fall of the Berlin Wall).
Are they wrong? Have they committed an act of folly in leading Washington to Baghdad? They don't think so. They continue to cling to their belief. They are still pretending that everything is more or less fine. That things will work out. Occasionally, though, they seem to break out in a cold sweat. This is no longer an academic exercise, one of them says, we are responsible for what is happening. The ideas we put forward are now affecting the lives of millions of people. So there are moments when you're scared. You say, Hell, we came to help, but maybe we made a mistake.

2. William Kristol
Has America bitten off more than it can chew? Bill Kristol says no. True, the press is very negative, but when you examine the facts in the field you see that there is no terrorism, no mass destruction, no attacks on Israel. The oil fields in the south have been saved, air control has been achieved, American forces are deployed 50 miles from Baghdad. So, even if mistakes were made here and there, they are not serious. America is big enough to handle that. Kristol hasn't the slightest doubt that in the end, General Tommy Franks will achieve his goals. The 4th Cavalry Division will soon enter the fray, and another division is on its way from Texas. So it's possible that instead of an elegant war with 60 killed in two weeks it will be a less elegant affair with a thousand killed in two months, but nevertheless Bill Kristol has no doubt at all that the Iraq Liberation War is a just war, an obligatory war.
Kristol is pleasant-looking, of average height, in his late forties. In the past 18 months he has used his position as editor of the right-wing Weekly Standard and his status as one of the leaders of the neoconservative circle in Washington to induce the White House to do battle against Saddam Hussein. Because Kristol is believed to exercise considerable influence on the president, Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he is also perceived as having been instrumental in getting Washington to launch this all-out campaign against Baghdad. Sitting behind the stacks of books that cover his desk at the offices of the Weekly Standard in Northwest Washington, he tries to convince me that he is not worried. It is simply inconceivable to him that America will not win. In that event, the consequences would be catastrophic. No one wants to think seriously about that possibility.
What is the war about? I ask. Kristol replies that at one level it is the war that George Bush is talking about: a war against a brutal regime that has in its possession weapons of mass destruction. But at a deeper level it is a greater war, for the shaping of a new Middle East. It is a war that is intended to change the political culture of the entire region. Because what happened on September 11, 2001, Kristol says, is that the Americans looked around and saw that the world is not what they thought it was. The world is a dangerous place. Therefore the Americans looked for a doctrine that would enable them to cope with this dangerous world. And the only doctrine they found was the neoconservative one.
That doctrine maintains that the problem with the Middle East is the absence of democracy and of freedom. It follows that the only way to block people like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is to disseminate democracy and freedom. To change radically the cultural and political dynamics that creates such people. And the way to fight the chaos is to create a new world order that will be based on freedom and human rights - and to be ready to use force in order to consolidate this new world. So that, really, is what the war is about. It is being fought to consolidate a new world order, to create a new Middle East.
Does that mean that the war in Iraq is effectively a neoconservative war? That's what people are saying, Kristol replies, laughing. But the truth is that it's an American war. The neoconservatives succeeded because they touched the bedrock of America. The thing is that America has a profound sense of mission. America has a need to offer something that transcends a life of comfort, that goes beyond material success. Therefore, because of their ideals, the Americans accepted what the neoconservatives proposed. They didn't want to fight a war over interests, but over values. They wanted a war driven by a moral vision. They wanted to hitch their wagon to something bigger than themselves.
Does this moral vision mean that after Iraq will come the turns of Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
Kristol says that he is at odds with the administration on the question of Saudi Arabia. But his opinion is that it is impossible to let Saudi Arabia just continue what it is doing. It is impossible to accept the anti-Americanism it is disseminating. The fanatic Wahhabism that Saudi Arabia engenders is undermining the stability of the entire region. It's the same with Egypt, he says: we mustn't accept the status quo there. For Egypt, too, the horizon has to be liberal democracy.
It has to be understood that in the final analysis, the stability that the corrupt Arab despots are offering is illusory. Just as the stability that Yitzhak Rabin received from Yasser Arafat was illusory. In the end, none of these decadent dictatorships will endure. The choice is between extremist Islam, secular fascism or democracy. And because of September 11, American understands that. America is in a position where it has no choice. It is obliged to be far more aggressive in promoting democracy. Hence this war. It's based on the new American understanding that if the United States does not shape the world in its image, the world will shape the United States in its own image.

3. Charles Krauthammer
Is this going to turn into a second Vietnam? Charles Krauthammer says no. There is no similarity to Vietnam. Unlike in the 1960s, there is no anti-establishment subculture in the United States now. Unlike in the 1960s, there is now an abiding love of the army in the United States. Unlike in the 1960s, there is a determined president, one with character, in the White House. And unlike in the 1960s, Americans are not deterred from making sacrifices. That is the sea-change that took place here on September 11, 2001. Since that morning, Americans have understood that if they don't act now and if weapons of mass destruction reach extremist terrorist organizations, millions of Americans will die. Therefore, because they understand that those others want to kill them by the millions, the Americans prefer to take to the field of battle and fight, rather than sit idly by and die at home.
Charles Krauthammer is handsome, swarthy and articulate. In his spacious office on 19th Street in Northwest Washington, he sits upright in a black wheelchair. Although his writing tends to be gloomy, his mood now is elevated. The well-known columnist (Washington Post, Time, Weekly Standard) has no real doubts about the outcome of the war that he promoted for 18 months. No, he does not accept the view that he helped lead America into the new killing fields between the Tigris and the Euphrates. But it is true that he is part of a conceptual stream that had something to offer in the aftermath of September 11. Within a few weeks after the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, he had singled out Baghdad in his columns as an essential target. And now, too, he is convinced that America has the strength to pull it off. The thought that America will not win has never even crossed his mind.
What is the war about? It's about three different issues. First of all, this is a war for disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. That's the basis, the self-evident cause, and it is also sufficient cause in itself. But beyond that, the war in Iraq is being fought to replace the demonic deal America cut with the Arab world decades ago. That deal said: you will send us oil and we will not intervene in your internal affairs. Send us oil and we will not demand from you what we are demanding of Chile, the Philippines, Korea and South Africa.
That deal effectively expired on September 11, 2001, Krauthammer says. Since that day, the Americans have understood that if they allow the Arab world to proceed in its evil ways - suppression, economic ruin, sowing despair - it will continue to produce more and more bin Ladens. America thus reached the conclusion that it has no choice: it has to take on itself the project of rebuilding the Arab world. Therefore, the Iraq war is really the beginning of a gigantic historical experiment whose purpose is to do in the Arab world what was done in Germany and Japan after World War II.
It's an ambitious experiment, Krauthammer admits, maybe even utopian, but not unrealistic. After all, it is inconceivable to accept the racist assumption that the Arabs are different from all other human beings, that the Arabs are incapable of conducting a democratic way of life.
However, according to the Jewish-American columnist, the present war has a further importance. If Iraq does become pro-Western and if it becomes the focus of American influence, that will be of immense geopolitical importance. An American presence in Iraq will project power across the region. It will suffuse the rebels in Iran with courage and strength, and it will deter and restrain Syria. It will accelerate the processes of change that the Middle East must undergo.
Isn't the idea of preemptive war a dangerous one that rattles the world order?
There is no choice, Krauthammer replies. In the 21st century we face a new and singular challenge: the democratization of mass destruction. There are three possible strategies in the face of that challenge: appeasement, deterrence and preemption. Because appeasement and deterrence will not work, preemption is the only strategy left. The United States must implement an aggressive policy of preemption. Which is exactly what it is now doing in Iraq. That is what Tommy Franks' soldiers are doing as we speak.
And what if the experiment fails? What if America is defeated?
This war will enhance the place of America in the world for the coming generation, Krauthammer says. Its outcome will shape the world for the next 25 years. There are three possibilities. If the United States wins quickly and without a bloodbath, it will be a colossus that will dictate the world order. If the victory is slow and contaminated, it will be impossible to go on to other Arab states after Iraq. It will stop there. But if America is beaten, the consequences will be catastrophic. Its deterrent capability will be weakened, its friends will abandon it and it will become insular. Extreme instability will be engendered in the Middle East.
You don't really want to think about what will happen, Krauthammer says looking me straight in the eye. But just because that's so, I am positive we will not lose. Because the administration understands the implications. The president understands that everything is riding on this. So he will throw everything we've got into this. He will do everything that has to be done. George W. Bush will not let America lose.

4. Thomas Friedman
Is this an American Lebanon War? Tom Friedman says he is afraid it is. He was there, in the Commodore Hotel in Beirut, in the summer of 1982, and he remembers it well. So he sees the lines of resemblance clearly. General Ahmed Chalabi (the Shi'ite leader that the neoconservatives want to install as the leader of a free Iraq) in the role of Bashir Jemayel. The Iraqi opposition in the role of the Phalange. Richard Perle and the conservative circle around him as Ariel Sharon. And a war that is at bottom a war of choice. A war that wants to utilize massive force in order to establish a new order.

Tom Friedman, The New York Times columnist, did not oppose the war. On the contrary. He too was severely shaken by September 11, he too wants to understand where these desperate fanatics are coming from who hate America more than they love their own lives. And he too reached the conclusion that the status quo in the Middle East is no longer acceptable. The status quo is terminal. And therefore it is urgent to foment a reform in the Arab world.

Some things are true even if George Bush believes them, Friedman says with a smile. And after September 11, it's impossible to tell Bush to drop it, ignore it. There was a certain basic justice in the overall American feeling that told the Arab world: we left you alone for a long time, you played with matches and in the end we were burned. So we're not going to leave you alone any longer.
He is sitting in a large rectangular room in the offices of The New York Times in northwest Washington, on the corner of 17th Street. One wall of the room is a huge map of the world. Hunched over his computer, he reads me witty lines from the article that will be going to press in two hours. He polishes, sharpens, plays word games. He ponders what's right to say now, what should be left for a later date. Turning to me, he says that democracies look soft until they're threatened. When threatened, they become very hard. Actually, the Iraq war is a kind of Jenin on a huge scale. Because in Jenin, too, what happened was that the Israelis told the Palestinians, We left you here alone and you played with matches until suddenly you blew up a Passover seder in Netanya. And therefore we are not going to leave you along any longer. We will go from house to house in the Casbah. And from America's point of view, Saddam's Iraq is Jenin. This war is a defensive shield. It follows that the danger is the same: that like Israel, America will make the mistake of using only force.

This is not an illegitimate war, Friedman says. But it is a very presumptuous war. You need a great deal of presumption to believe that you can rebuild a country half a world from home. But if such a presumptuous war is to have a chance, it needs international support. That international legitimacy is essential so you will have enough time and space to execute your presumptuous project. But George Bush didn't have the patience to glean international support. He gambled that the war would justify itself, that we would go in fast and conquer fast and that the Iraqis would greet us with rice and the war would thus be self-justifying. That did not happen. Maybe it will happen next week, but in the meantime it did not happen.
When I think about what is going to happen, I break into a sweat, Friedman says. I see us being forced to impose a siege on Baghdad. And I know what kind of insanity a siege on Baghdad can unleash. The thought of house-to-house combat in Baghdad without international legitimacy makes me lose my appetite. I see American embassies burning. I see windows of American businesses shattered. I see how the Iraqi resistance to America connects to the general Arab resistance to America and the worldwide resistance to America. The thought of what could happen is eating me up.
What George Bush did, Friedman says, is to show us a splendid mahogany table: the new democratic Iraq. But when you turn the table over, you see that it has only one leg. This war is resting on one leg. But on the other hand, anyone who thinks he can defeat George Bush had better think again. Bush will never give in. That's not what he's made of. Believe me, you don't want to be next to this guy when he thinks he's being backed into a corner. I don't suggest that anyone who holds his life dear mess with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush.

Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

Still, it's not all that simple, Friedman retracts. It's not some fantasy the neoconservatives invented. It's not that 25 people hijacked America. You don't take such a great nation into such a great adventure with Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard and another five or six influential columnists. In the final analysis, what fomented the war is America's over-reaction to September 11. The genuine sense of anxiety that spread in America after September 11. It is not only the neoconservatives who led us to the outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very American combination of anxiety and hubris.

Ari Shavit
Haaretz Correspondent

 Send me email alerts
read more:

( Note from JV: Friedman's retraction is fine. Did he say too much, even for publication in an Israeli paper? More important: how does it look if these samen Neocons were the ones who made 911 possible?  As many well informed people say.)