Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Americans carrying out the Orders of their Jewish Masters.

Modern Day Flat Earthers.
For a couple of millenia it was nigh on impossible to convince local people that the Earth revolved around the sun given that everyday their senses were telling them that the sun was clearly revolving around the Earth. Today’s flat Earthers’ are those who look upon the reality of America’s hyper-power military status and then conclude that this military is being used to create an American empire - despite the vast masses of evidence point in the opposite direction. The american military is being used to create a global Jewish empire. America may have a military hyper-power but american jews have a "stranglehold" over congress and bush and thus, in effect, control that military. Bush’s philosophy, strategies, policies, and propaganda, are all jewish.

Many flat Earth commentators have pointed out that america’s propaganda is exactly the same as that coming from the jos. But, they do not seem to believe there is anything amiss or unusual about this even though america should have its own national, and geostrategic, interests in the middle east that are entirely different from those of the jos. How can two countries on opposite sides of the Earth have exactly the same national, geostrategic, interests?

Sharat G. Lin.
"The Bush administration, Congress, and the press repeatedly echo the Israeli government’s position that the current warfare between Israel versus Palestinians and Lebanese is a consequence of the "kidnapping" of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit by Hamas-led militants on June 25, 2006 and the "abduction" of two more Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah on July 12, 2006." (Sharat G. Lin ‘Chronology of the Latest Crisis in the Middle East’ July 25, 2006).

Pepe Escobar.
The mainstream US and European media work as nothing but press offices of Israel's Foreign Ministry." (Pepe Escobar ‘The spirit of resistance’ July 26, 2006).

Robert Fisk.
"According to US correspondents accompanying Ms Rice on her visit to the Middle East, she is proposing the intervention of a Nato-led force along the Lebanese-Israeli border for between 60 and 90 days to assure that a ceasefire exists, the deployment of an enlarged Nato force throughout Lebanon to disarm Hizbollah and then the retraining of the Lebanese army before its own deployment to the border. This plan - which, like all American proposals on Lebanon, is exactly the same as Israel's demands - carries the same depth of conceit as that of the Israeli consul general in New York, who said last week that "most Lebanese appreciate what we are doing"." (Robert Fisk ‘Smoke signals from the battle of Bint Jbeil send a warning to Israel’ July 27, 2006).

The Jews’ ‘Clean Break’ is a Modern ‘Elders of the Protocols of Zion’.
The bush administration’s policies in the middle east all derive from the strategy outlined in paper called ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’. The contributors to this paper consisted primarily of jews in america such as richard perle, david and meyrav wurmser, and douglas feith. It was submitted to the jos’s prime minister of the time, binyamin netanyahu, in an attempt to change the policies of the jos away from peace with the palestinians. Some of these contributors had worked for previous american administrations whilst others would, in the future, become a part of bush’s administrations. This situation is remarkable: a group of american politicians writing position papers for a foreign government in an attempt to make that government independent of american power so that it could pursue a far more belligerent foreign policy in the middle east that would undermine american interests in the region. It would be difficult to describe this situation without involving the word traitorous. Even the contributors realized that what they were doing might be seen to be traitorous to america so the following year they formed a new organization called ‘project for a new american century’ and produced a new position paper in which they recommended that america should pursue the same policies they’d just recommended to the jos. In other words, all they did was to suggest that america would be better off if it implemented the policies that they’d designed to maximize the interests of another government i.e. the jos.

The philosophy, strategy, policies and propaganda of the bush administration and the rest of the western world towards the middle east come directly from the jos or its agent in america, the jewish lobby. Everything that western leaders say is first spoken by the jos or its agents in america. Perhaps the most blatant example of this is the so-called war on terrorism. Since 1967, the jos had been fighting what it defined as a war against terrorism. Since the turn of the millenium, the jews were able to get the bush administration to adopt this policy as its own so that instead of americans relentlessly pursuing osama bin laden, they’ve been attacking the enemies of the jos who pose no threat to america. The so-called war on terror is a jewish policy that the jewish lobby in america and the jewish dominated media imported into america and foisted upon a gullible president. Bush has become an ever increasing jewish muppet. He simply does everything the jews want him to do irrespective of the harm it is doing to american interests.

The global jewish empire controls the american congress and the bush administration and gets americans to do all their dirty work for them such as the proxy zionist invasion of iraq which has resulted in a major calamity for the american military. The jos and the jews in america are not in the least bit bothered by the shame they are imposing on america for doing their dirty work in iraq. After the pentagon and new york bombings the whole world was sympathetic to the plight of the americans. But, as a consequence of the americans implementing the foreign policies of the racist jos, the whole world detests americans for what it is doing around the world. The americans experience no shame about their servility to the jos, "What you are witnessing is a disaster in the making – not only for Lebanon, which will require 50 years to recover, but for the United States, which stands exposed once again as a prejudiced hypocrite and an accessory to Israel's war crimes." (Charley Reese ‘Disaster in the Making’ July 22, 2006). Americans seem completely oblivious to the fact that the world despises them for implementing the jos’s policies. In the lebanon, the jews are using fighter jets paid for by American taxpayers to drop bombs that have also been paid for by american taxpayers to bomb innocent lebanese people – and the fuel used inthese fighter planes has also been paid for by america. How is it that the jews have succeeded in becoming so parasitic on america that they are able to get americans to pay for all the death and destruction they are wreaking. And how is it that americans simply do not care how much they are reviled around the world for contributing to the jos’s war crimes in the lebanon?

For the first two weeks of the jews’ onslaught against innocent lebanese civilians western leaders, and a few arab leaders, dismissed the need for a ceasefire in order to allow the jews time to commit their war crimes. When it became obvious that the war wasn’t going the way the jews thought it would, several jewish-financed, world leaders such as tony blair began advocating the need for an international force to be set up in lebanon - not to effect a ceasefire, but to do the job the jos couldn’t do. "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she wants a ``robust'' international military force to try to oust Hezbollah forces from southern Lebanon, as she prepares to leave on a diplomatic mission to the region next week." (Rice Seeks `Robust' Lebanon Force to Oust Hezbollah’ (Update2) July 21, 2006). It is not in the least bit surprising that such a force would have been paid for by the international community. The international community seems willing to pay any price for the defence of the jewish racist state. If it has been implemented, this international force would have suffered many casualties. But to the jos that’s alright because at least these dimwits would have sacrificed their lives for the greater good of the racist jos and their jewish masters.

‘A Clean Break’ is basically an updated version of ‘The Elders of the Protocols of Zion’. In it the global jewish elite outlines the policies which it expects its non-jewish slaves in american politics to implement - policies that are solely beneficial to the jos. There is no such thing as an american empire. The global jewish empire rules america and much of the rest of the western world.

The following commentators believe that ‘A Clean Break’ is the primary document shaping the bush administration’s foreign policies. Whilst they admit that it was written by jews specifically for the jos in the hope of promoting the jos’s national interests, they simply will not draw the logical conclusion that extreme fundamentalist rabbis have taken over congress and the white house. They prefer to live on a flat Earth.

Muriel Mirak-Weissbach.
"To understand the why of the assassination - although the material perpetrator, the who, remains unclear - one must look back at the 1996 policy paper prepared under the supervision of now-Vice President Dick Cheney, and his neo-con task force of Richard Perle, Doug Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser, et al. Entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" this paper outlined a scenario whereby the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would be torn to shreds, and, first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Iran, would be targetted for military assault and political destabilization."

"The document flatly stated that Israel should engage "Hisbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by ... establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces [and] striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper." Furthermore, it said, Israel should divert "Syria's attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon." The paper also called for focussing on "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq...."" (Muriel Mirak-Weissbach ‘Lebanon's Hariri Killed To Make a 'Clean Break'?’ Executive Intelligence Review February 25, 2005).

Naseer H. Aruri.
"Moreover, with US Middle East policy now consigned to the likes of David Wurmser, Edward Feit, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams and other Sharon operatives in the think tanks, media and the administration, Syria's regional role will not be seen in the same context employed by Bush I and Baker. It should be recalled that David Wurmser helped draft a document entitled "Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: the US Role?" in 2000, which called for a confrontation with Syria, which it accused of developing "weapons of mass destruction". According to Charles Glass (‘Bashar Assad: The Syrian Sphinx,’ Independent, February 19, 2005) "Washington's neoconservatives were sharpening their knives for Syria long before they assumed office courtesy of George Bush. Many of them have already been advisers to Binyamin Netanyahu during his brief tenure as prime minister of Israel." Glass adds: "the American advisers, including Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, counseled Israel in 1996 that it can shape its strategic environment... by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria,.an effort that can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."" (Naseer H. Aruri ‘Remapping the Middle East’ February 22, 2005).

Ray McGovern.
"The twin decisions of (1) To "tilt" more decidedly toward Israel and (2) to prepare to attack Iraq were right out of a blueprint drafted in 1996 by a small group of Americans and Israelis, including arch-neoconservatives Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. Shortly after the Jan. 30 NSC meeting, the two were given influential posts in the Department of Defense directly under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz – Perle as chair of the powerful Defense Policy Board and Feith as undersecretary of defense for policy (no.3 in the defense hierarchy). The policy's prescriptive blueprint, titled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," had been prepared originally for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but it proved to be too extreme even for him. No matter. As the new Bush administration took shape, Perle and Feith retrieved the mothballed study, made an end-run around the hapless Powell, and sold it to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush." (Ray McGovern ‘Sadly, the Plural of 'Fiasco' Requires No 'E'’ August 2, 2006).

Although mcgovern states that some of the jewish neocons who wrote a Clean Break are in the bush administration and are thus helping to implement these policies and that congress is entirely dominated by jews and that the american media is almost entirely dominated by jews are are giving the bush’s clean break policies a huge cheer of approval the redoubtable mr mcgovern argues that america and the jos are just joined at the hip rather than bush being the jews’ puppy dog, "Seldom before has Washington been so widely seen to be joined at the hip to an Israel on the rampage. Seldom has U.S. stock in the region sunk to such depths as it did last week, with civilian casualties in Lebanon piling up (literally) and with Rice joining Israel in rejecting appeals for an immediate cease-fire on grounds that it must be "sustainable." Policy and performance alike have been myopic in the extreme, and have resulted in an embarrassing U.S. setback from which it will take decades to recover." (Ray McGovern ‘Sadly, the Plural of 'Fiasco' Requires No 'E'’ August 2, 2006).

Sidney Blumenthal.
"In order to try to understand the neoconservative road map, senior national security professionals have begun circulating among themselves a 1996 neocon manifesto against the Middle East peace process. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," its half-dozen authors included neoconservatives highly influential with the Bush administration - Richard Perle, first-term chairman of the Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense; and David Wurmser, Cheney's chief Middle East aide."

""A Clean Break" was written at the request of incoming Likud Party Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and intended to provide "a new set of ideas" for jettisoning the policies of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Instead of trading "land for peace," the neocons advocated tossing aside the Oslo agreements that established negotiations and demanding unconditional Palestinian acceptance of Likud's terms, "peace for peace." Rather than negotiations with Syria, they proposed "weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria." They also advanced a wild scenario to "redefine Iraq." Then King Hussein of Jordan would somehow become its ruler; and somehow this Sunni monarch would gain "control" of the Iraqi Shiites, and through them "wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria."

"Netanyahu, at first, attempted to follow the "clean break" strategy, but under persistent pressure from the Clinton administration he felt compelled to enter into U.S.-led negotiations with the Palestinians. In the 1998 Wye River accords, concluded through the personal involvement of President Clinton and a dying King Hussein, the Palestinians agreed to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel and Netanyahu agreed to withdraw from a portion of the occupied West Bank. Further negotiations, conducted by his successor Ehud Barak, that nearly settled the conflict ended in dramatic failure, but potentially set the stage for new ones."

"At his first National Security Council meeting, President George W. Bush stunned his first secretary of state, Colin Powell, by rejecting any effort to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. When Powell warned that "the consequences of that could be dire, especially for the Palestinians," Bush snapped, "Sometimes a show for force by one side can really clarify things." He was making a "clean break" not only with his immediate predecessor but also with the policies of his father." (Sidney Blumenthal ‘The neocons' next war’ August 03, 2006).

Daniel Levy.
"In 1996 a group of then opposition U.S. policy agitators, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, presented a paper entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" to incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The "clean break" was from the prevailing peace process, advocating that Israel pursue a combination of roll-back, destabilization and containment in the region, including striking at Syria and removing Saddam Hussein from power in favor of "Hashemite control in Iraq." The Israeli horse they backed then was not up to the task. Ten years later, as Netanyahu languishes in the opposition, as head of a small Likud faction, Perle, Feith and their neoconservative friends have justifiably earned a reputation as awesome wielders of foreign-policy influence under George W. Bush." (Daniel Levy ‘Ending the neoconservative nightmare’ August 04, 2006).

Justin Raimondo.
"I note that "mainstream" writers, such as Sidney Blumenthal, are now acknowledging the "Clean Break" plan, put together in 1996 by several key players in the Bush administration, which called for the elimination of Iraq as a prelude to going after Syria, and this is key to understanding Israel's actions. The important thing to remember about this scenario is that it was put together not for American policymakers, but for the benefit of then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – and that it summed up the program of a powerful faction, not only within Israel but also within the highest reaches of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus. Its thesis, embraced by American neoconservatives as well as Israeli hawks, was that Israel needed to make a "clean break" with the peace process, which was undermining the foundations of the Jewish state. It needed to break out of its passivity and make a new start characterized by a policy of relentless aggression, and there was only one direction it could go, at least initially: north, into Lebanon." (Justin Raimondo ‘About Those 'Birth Pangs' August 16, 2006).

William Rivers Pitt.
"Over the last several weeks, an old White Paper found new life in the shattered ruins of Lebanon's infrastructure. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," the paper was masterminded by three neo-con hawks who, in the fullness of time, became powerful members of the Bush administration: Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser. The three were working for a pro-Israel think tank called the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies when the paper was first drafted.

"A Clean Break" was originally written for the benefit of Benjamin Netanyahu after he rose to the position of Prime Minister of Israel in 1996. This, in and of itself, was unique; it is rare indeed to have a trio of American foreign policy specialists crafting national security policy for a foreign power. Those who have seen the hand of the Israeli Likud Party guiding American foreign policy over the last several years base their premise, to no small degree, upon the involvement of these three men in Israeli affairs before their ascendancy in American government. The arguments contained in this document eventually became the basis for the now-infamous White Paper by the Project for the New American Century titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses," which was authored in 2000.

Perle, Feith and Wurmser's vision for a new Israel centered around the re-invigoration of the discredited policy of pre-emption, i.e., attacking a perceived foe based on whatever premise can be found in order to show strength in the region and intimidate local governments into compliance. "Israel's new agenda," read the paper, "can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone, and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response."

Beyond reviving pre-emption, the paper argued that Israel's wisest course of action involved a military invasion of Lebanon, followed by attacks upon Syria and Iran. "Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil," read the paper. "An effective approach, and one with which American[s] can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon."

In order for pre-emption to be successful, according to the paper, a premise for attack must be established. It did not matter if the premise was based upon actual facts or genuine threat. It only needed to be plausible enough to rally the support of the American people. "A Clean Break" advocated attacking Lebanon and Syria based upon the premise that Syria is involved with laundering drug money and counterfeiting. The paper likewise instructed Netanyahu to draw the world's attention to Syria's WMD stockpiles.

Prime Minister Netanyahu chose to ignore the advice offered in "A Clean Break," and the paper was shelved. After George W. Bush occupied the Oval Office, however, the paper was given new life. Richard Perle became chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith became Undersecretary of Defense for Policy; and David Wurmser became a senior State Department official before becoming Middle East Adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.

It became clear during the first national security meeting of the Bush administration, in late January 2001, that the removal of Saddam Hussein was of primary importance. The policy initiatives espoused in "A Clean Break" were dusted off and re-introduced. Pre-emption became the watchword for a new American foreign policy, and the establishment of a premise for the invasion of Iraq became a priority.

"A Clean Break" required little redacting to become central to American foreign policy regarding Iraq. "Israel can shape its strategic environment," read the original paper, "in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."

The premise for invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein came eight months later with the attacks of September 11. Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein loathed Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda - feelings that were entirely mutual - and had no hand in those attacks, 9/11 became the established premise for attack. Dire warnings of Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear weapons stockpiles were spread far and wide, thanks to a concerted administration propaganda campaign and the help of a few well-placed members of the mainstream news media." (William Rivers Pitt ‘Everything Old Is New’ August 15 2006).


Post a Comment

<< Home