[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

New 4um Interface Coming Soon

Attack of the Dead-2025.

Canada strips Jewish National Fund of charitable status

Minnesota State Rep. Vang just admitted that she is an ILLEGAL ALIEN.

1100% increase in neurological events since the roll-out of Covid mRNA

16 Things That Everyone Needs To Know About Violent Far-Left Revolution In Los Angeles

Undercover video in Arizona alleges ongoing consumer fraud by Fairlife

Dozens arrested after San Francisco protest turns violent Sunday

Looking for the toughest badasses in the city (Los Angeles)

Democrat Civil War Explodes: DNC Chair Threatens to Quit Over David Hogg

Invaders waving Mexican flags, pour onto the 101 Freeway in Los Angeles

Australian Fake News Journo Hit By Rubber Bullet In L.A. Riot

22-year-old dies after being unable to afford asthma inhaler

North Korean Bulsae-4 Long-Range ATGM Spotted Again In Russian Operation Zone

Alexander Dugin: A real Maidan has begun in Los Angeles

State Department Weighing $500 Million Grant to Controversial Gaza Aid Group: Report

LA Mayor Karen Bass ordered LAPD to stand down, blocked aid to federal officers during riots.

Russia Has a Titanium Submarine That Can ‘Deep Dive’ 19,700 Feet

Shocking scene as DC preps for Tr*mp's military birthday parade.

Earth is being Pulled Apart by Crazy Space Weather! Volcanoes go NUTS as Plasma RUNS OUT

Gavin, feel free to use this as a campaign ad in 2028.

US To Formalize Military Presence in Syria in Deal With al-Qaeda-Linked Govt

GOP Rep Introduces Resolution Labeling Free Palestine Slogan as Anti-Semitism

Two-thirds of troops who left the military in 2023 were at risk for mental health conditions

UK and France abandon plans to recognise Palestinian state at conference

Kamala Backs LA Protests After Rioters Attack Federal Officers

Netanyahu's ultra-Orthodox partners move ahead with Knesset dissolution plan

Former Prime Minister of Ukraine: Zelensky will leave the country

Man protesting Paramount ICE raid added to FBI's Most Wanted

JUAN O SAVIN- The Plan to Capture America


History
See other History Articles

Title: Did Jews Trick America Into Entering The First World War?
Source: Useless-Knowledge.com
URL Source: http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/apr/article322.html
Published: May 30, 2005
Author: Thomas Keyes
Post Date: 2005-05-30 10:25:50 by Zoroaster
Keywords: Entering, America, Trick
Views: 1216
Comments: 94

Did Jews Trick America Into Entering The First World War?

By Thomas Keyes Apr. 23, 2005

Herbert Asquith was the prime minister of England from 1908-1916, midway into the First World War. His chancellor, David Lloyd George, with the support of his confederates, who were critical of Asquith's direction of the British war effort, managed to topple Asquith, succeeding him as prime minister. David Lloyd George, though an evangelical Christian, like his American counterpart, Woodrow Wilson, was also an ardent Zionist, again like Wilson.

Chaim Weizmann (1874-1952), who would be the first president of Israel, was born in Motol, Russia (now in Belarus) and educated in Switzerland, where he received his Ph.D.in chemistry. Later he taught at Manchester University in England, becoming a British subject in 1910. According to most historical accounts, he helped Britain develop a procedure for producing acetone, a strategically important chemical used in manufacturing explosives, from horse chestnuts. Lloyd George claimed in his memoirs that it was in recognition of this contribution that he issued the Balfour Declaration, sometimes called the birth certificate of the state of Israel. However, historian David Fromkin of Boston University and others call this a fiction. Weizmann does not mention it in his autobiography.

Here is the text of the the Balfour Declaration.

"Foreign Office. November 2nd, 1917. Dear Lord Rothschild.

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

'His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely. Arthur James Balfour".

If David Lloyd George did not issue the Balfour Declaration to recompense Weizmann's service, as a chemist, to Great Britain, then, why did he issue it? According to some researchers, Lloyd George and Weizmann made a deal. At the time, the war was stalemated. Weizmann agreed, according to this version, to help draw the US into the war on the side of the allies, Britain, France and Russia, tipping the balance in their favor, against Germany, Austria-Hungary (then one country) and Turkey.

It will be remembered, for one thing, that Turkey, or the Ottoman Empire, as it was then called, controlled Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and other parts of the Near East. If England could help found a Jewish state in the region, once it had appropriated it from the Turks, it would afford protection for their shipping through the Suez Canal. Weizmann, for his part, preferred Palestine to uninhabited parts of Uganda, where the Jews had already been offered a homeland. Apparently, Weizmann did not know of the existence of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, whereby France and England had already drawn a map of the Middle East that they would implement in the event of victory. England had also made conflicting agreements with the Arabs. Don't let Christianity stop anyone from making contradictory promises!

What sparked America's entry into WWI was the Zimmermann telegram, which created a furor in the US, when released to the public on March 1, 1917. This was an encrypted telegram sent on January 16, 1917 by German Foreign Minister, Arthur Zimmermann, to Count von Bernstorff, the German ambassador to the US, to be forwarded to the President of México. Nigel de Grey and William Montgomery, of British intelligence had deciphered the intercepted telegram, according to the official version. The text of the telegram, from "The Zimmermann Telegram" by Barbara Tuchman, published in 1966 by Ballantine Books, follows.

"Most Secret. For Your Excellency's personal information and to be handed on to the Imperial Minister in Mexico.

We intend to begin unrestricted submarine warfare on the first of February. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of an alliance on the following basis: Make war together, make peace together, generous financial support, and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement detail is left to you.

You will inform the President (of Mexico) of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves.

Please call the President's attention to the fact that the unrestricted employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England to make peace within a few months. Acknowledge receipt.

Zimmermann".

Firstly, here the Germans were offering the Mexicans an alliance to be effectuated if and only if the US should enter the war, which clearly the Germans were seeking, and had every reason to seek, to avoid, so that barring US's declaring war, the effect of the telegram would have been null and nil. So if the telegram had not been deciphered, the US might not have entered the war and the proffered alliance would never have come into play. Thus the recommendations of the telegram would have been strictly moot and academic, an historical curiosity.

Secondly, one wonders if it was intended to be taken seriously. Could México have had even the remotest dream of recovering Texas, New Mexico and Arizona? Venustiano Carranza, the Mexican president, rejected the offer, as attractive as one might imagine he may have considered it.

But the question here is how the telegram came to be decoded. The Germans, whom four years of wartime intelligence and espionage had made experts in cryptology, had encoded the telegram in a recently created code, Code 7500. According to some authorities, there had not been enough messages transmitted in Code 7500 for the British to have been able to decipher the telegram. These same authorities see the hand of Chaim Weizmann in this piece of treachery.

Weizmann had connections in Germany in high places. Some authorities think that Weizmann may have been instrumental in getting one of the influential Jews in Germany to obtain Code 7500 from the German Foreign Ministry and to betray it to the British, which, of course, would have been a treasonable act. Anyway, the decipherment did accomplish the desired result of drawing the US needlessly into the war, thereby assuring an allied victory. Thus, the Ottoman Empire, including Palestine, came into Anglo-French hands, and the British were able to fulfill the promise made in the Balfour Declaration, in spite of their contradictory promises to the Arabs. Later the Balfour Declaration was introduced in US Congress by Hamilton Fish of New York and adopted.

With Jewish control of the US media and publishing industry, this view of the events leading to American's entry into WWI has been played down or silenced for decades, but certainly provides a believable explanation. Winston Churchill later only vaguely alluded to such a deal, and was reluctant to abide by it. When asked by William Yale, of the US State Department what the Jews would do if the British failed to live up to their agreement, Chaim Weizmann retorted, "If they don’t, we’ll smash the British Empire like we smashed the Russian Empire.”

------------

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 89.

#10. To: Zoroaster (#0)

Jesus H. Christ....

If anything, our own fucking lying pricks got us into WWI. A lot of people were happy as hell to avoid a war, considering we just had a Civil War not 30 or so years before. The only people who decide to wage war, are the people who have the money and desire to do so.

Every veteran after the American Revolution has died for some rich prick's desires for power, and NOT for freedom, or peace in our time. For anyone to make that claim, even the veterans who fought, would be ludicrous. Of course, they'd be right in saying they fought to keep themselves, and their fellow soldiers alive, and that would be truthful. However, every person who has died in war, has done so at the whim of a netherworldly cabal of bankers, lawyers, and politicians who are so removed from the common man it can't even be comprehended.

This is why when our nation was founded the Constitution was explicitly written so that the common man of that time could understand it, PLAINLY. Now, we have people telling us lies about what phrases, and sentences mean, as a way to subjugate us further, oppress us, and take away our rights and freedom of choice.

But hey, don't let me stop you and other people from blaming everything on the Jews. The Middle Eastern Conflict currently, I'd say is definitely an Israeli thing, but could I blame it all on just the Jews? Hell no. There's plenty of Goyim who are just as culpable for tyranny, and treachery.

TommyTheMadArtist  posted on  2005-05-30   11:41:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#10)

True, Tommy, the rich and powerful are the only winners in war. The Rothschild family, for example, funded the wars of the British empire. Jewish bankers, as well as their goyim counterparts, have been making money over Christians killing themselves since the Thirty Years War. Today it's Christians and Muslims killing themselves amid cries of the "eternally innocent" Jews.

Zoroaster  posted on  2005-05-30   12:02:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Zoroaster (#13)

The Rothschild family, for example, funded the wars of the British empire.

So, why do you obsess over the mere war-funders and completely ignore the inbred Anglo elite war-wagers?

Why obsess over the tail and ignore the dog?

Arator  posted on  2005-05-30   12:04:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Arator (#14)

America circa 1914 was nearly fully under the control of about 4 wealthy men- all Anglophiles and not Jewish. The Mellon family alone had such political and economic power concentrated in their hands that it was said he picked the Presidents. I am more than a little tired of the Jew obssession.

The funny thing about Jews- is that you can't get any three of them to agree where to go to lunch without an argument for 20 minutes but yet they have lead what? A two or three thoasand year ongoing anti Earth conspiracy to kill all the birdies and flowers and babies?

So annoying.

Burkeman1  posted on  2005-05-30   12:20:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Burkeman1, Zoroaster, Jethro Tull, Zipporah, robin (#17)

The funny thing about Jews- is that you can't get any three of them to agree where to go to lunch without an argument for 20 minutes but yet they have lead what? A two or three thoasand year ongoing anti Earth conspiracy to kill all the birdies and flowers and babies?

So annoying.

LOL. They sure are a convenient scapegoat. What a great shield for evil elite Gentiles to wield. Just procure a few Jewish lackeys, then their ill- used subjects will obsess on and blame them for the evils THEY do, while they sit back and laugh all the way to the bank. Pretty neat trick, eh?

Jew-obsessors, you all have been played!

Arator  posted on  2005-05-30   12:49:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Arator (#21)

More than 1,600 American soldiers have been played to death fighting Israel's enemies in Iraq.

Zoroaster  posted on  2005-05-30   12:56:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Zoroaster (#22)

More than 1,600 American soldiers have been played to death fighting Israel's enemies in Iraq.

Anglo-American elitists are profiting more from their deaths than Israel ever will.

Arator  posted on  2005-05-30   13:06:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: Arator, Zoroaster, All (#23)

Zoroaster: More than 1,600 American soldiers have been played to death fighting Israel's enemies in Iraq.

Arator: Anglo-American elitists are profiting more from their deaths than Israel ever will.

The point is that we would not be in Iraq in the first place were it not for the lobby efforts of AIPAC and IsraeliFirsters in very important policy level positions within the government eg. Feith and Wolfowitz to name but a few

That other lobby groups were also happy for the US to invade Iraq - military defense industry - ( eg. Haliburton, Bechtel) is true and yes, this group is reaping considerable profits.

However, the military industry lobby groups could not get the US to invade Iraq. That decision came as a result of the power and influence of Israel lobbyists both AIPAC and gov't policy makers.

a. Here's some cut and paste from Mearsheimer and Walt, defending their research paper's conclusions:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/le tters.html

"...We also explicitly stated that the lobby, by itself, could not convince either the Clinton or the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence that the neo-conservatives and other groups within the lobby played a central role in making the case for war..."

"...Probably the most popular argument made about a countervailing force is Herf and Markovits’s claim that the centrepiece of US Middle East policy is oil, not Israel. There is no question that access to that region’s oil is a vital US strategic interest. Washington is also deeply committed to supporting Israel. Thus, the relevant question is, how does each of those interests affect US policy? We maintain that US policy in the Middle East is driven primarily by the commitment to Israel, not oil interests. If the oil companies or the oil- producing countries were driving policy, Washington would be tempted to favour the Palestinians instead of Israel. Moreover, the United States would almost certainly not have gone to war against Iraq in March 2003, and the Bush administration would not be threatening to use military force against Iran. Although many claim that the Iraq war was all about oil, there is hardly any evidence to support that supposition, and much evidence of the lobby’s influence. Oil is clearly an important concern for US policymakers, but with the exception of episodes like the 1973 Opec oil embargo, the US commitment to Israel has yet to threaten access to oil. It does, however, contribute to America’s terrorism problem, complicates its efforts to halt nuclear proliferation, and helped get the United States involved in wars like Iraq..."

b. Also here's some cut and paste from M & W's first submission re: their research study, which amplies on the Israeli lobbying efforts both "from without and within" that pressured/manipulated the WH to invade Iraq:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/me ar01_.html

"...Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’

On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached ‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’

Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors back in. ‘The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must,’ Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. ‘Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.’

At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that ‘the greatest risk now lies in inaction.’ His predecessor as prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled: ‘The Case for Toppling Saddam’. ‘Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,’ he declared. ‘I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.’ Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, ‘the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.’

As Netanyahu suggested, however, the desire for war was not confined to Israel’s leaders. Apart from Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990, Israel was the only country in the world where both politicians and public favoured war. As the journalist Gideon Levy observed at the time, ‘Israel is the only country in the West whose leaders support the war unreservedly and where no alternative opinion is voiced.’ In fact, Israelis were so gung-ho that their allies in America told them to damp down their rhetoric, or it would look as if the war would be fought on Israel’s behalf.

Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo- conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s major organisations lent their voices to the campaign. ‘As President Bush attempted to sell the . . . war in Iraq,’ the Forward reported, ‘America’s most important Jewish organisations rallied as one to his defence. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.’ The editorial goes on to say that ‘concern for Israel’s safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.’...The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam’s removal from power. The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA or WINEP, and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war.

At a key meeting with Bush at Camp David on 15 September, Wolfowitz advocated attacking Iraq before Afghanistan, even though there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks on the US and bin Laden was known to be in Afghanistan. Bush rejected his advice and chose to go after Afghanistan instead, but war with Iraq was now regarded as a serious possibility and on 21 November the president charged military planners with developing concrete plans for an invasion.

Other neo-conservatives were meanwhile at work in the corridors of power. We don’t have the full story yet, but scholars like Bernard Lewis of Princeton and Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins reportedly played important roles in persuading Cheney that war was the best option, though neo-conservatives on his staff – Eric Edelman, John Hannah and Scooter Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff and one of the most powerful individuals in the administration – also played their part. By early 2002 Cheney had persuaded Bush; and with Bush and Cheney on board, war was inevitable...Outside the administration, neo-conservative pundits lost no time in making the case that invading Iraq was essential to winning the war on terrorism. Their efforts were designed partly to keep up the pressure on Bush, and partly to overcome opposition to the war inside and outside the government. On 20 September, a group of prominent neo-conservatives and their allies published another open letter: ‘Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack,’ it read, ‘any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.’ The letter also reminded Bush that ‘Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism.’ In the 1 October issue of the Weekly Standard, Robert Kagan and William Kristol called for regime change in Iraq as soon as the Taliban was defeated. That same day, Charles Krauthammer argued in the Washington Post that after the US was done with Afghanistan, Syria should be next, followed by Iran and Iraq: ‘The war on terrorism will conclude in Baghdad,’ when we finish off ‘the most dangerous terrorist regime in the world’.

This was the beginning of an unrelenting public relations campaign to win support for an invasion of Iraq, a crucial part of which was the manipulation of intelligence in such a way as to make it seem as if Saddam posed an imminent threat. For example, Libby pressured CIA analysts to find evidence supporting the case for war and helped prepare Colin Powell’s now discredited briefing to the UN Security Council. Within the Pentagon, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group was charged with finding links between al-Qaida and Iraq that the intelligence community had supposedly missed. Its two key members were David Wurmser, a hard-core neo-conservative, and Michael Maloof, a Lebanese- American with close ties to Perle. Another Pentagon group, the so-called Office of Special Plans, was given the task of uncovering evidence that could be used to sell the war. It was headed by Abram Shulsky, a neo-conservative with long- standing ties to Wolfowitz, and its ranks included recruits from pro-Israel think tanks. Both these organisations were created after 9/11 and reported directly to Douglas Feith.

Like virtually all the neo-conservatives, Feith is deeply committed to Israel; he also has long-term ties to Likud. He wrote articles in the 1990s supporting the settlements and arguing that Israel should retain the Occupied Territories. More important, along with Perle and Wurmser, he wrote the famous ‘Clean Break’ report in June 1996 for Netanyahu, who had just become prime minister. Among other things, it recommended that Netanyahu ‘focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right’. It also called for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East. Netanyahu did not follow their advice, but Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon urging the Bush administration to pursue those same goals. The Ha’aretz columnist Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and Perle ‘are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments . . . and Israeli interests’.

Wolfowitz is equally committed to Israel. The Forward once described him as ‘the most hawkishly pro-Israel voice in the administration’, and selected him in 2002 as first among 50 notables who ‘have consciously pursued Jewish activism’. At about the same time, JINSA gave Wolfowitz its Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award for promoting a strong partnership between Israel and the United States; and the Jerusalem Post, describing him as ‘devoutly pro- Israel’, named him ‘Man of the Year’ in 2003.

Finally, a brief word is in order about the neo-conservatives’ prewar support of Ahmed Chalabi, the unscrupulous Iraqi exile who headed the Iraqi National Congress. They backed Chalabi because he had established close ties with Jewish- American groups and had pledged to foster good relations with Israel once he gained power. This was precisely what pro-Israel proponents of regime change wanted to hear. Matthew Berger laid out the essence of the bargain in the Jewish Journal: ‘The INC saw improved relations as a way to tap Jewish influence in Washington and Jerusalem and to drum up increased support for its cause. For their part, the Jewish groups saw an opportunity to pave the way for better relations between Israel and Iraq, if and when the INC is involved in replacing Saddam Hussein’s regime.’

Given the neo-conservatives’ devotion to Israel, their obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn’t surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests. Last March, Barry Jacobs of the American Jewish Committee acknowledged that the belief that Israel and the neo-conservatives had conspired to get the US into a war in Iraq was ‘pervasive’ in the intelligence community. Yet few people would say so publicly, and most of those who did – including Senator Ernest Hollings and Representative James Moran – were condemned for raising the issue. Michael Kinsley wrote in late 2002 that ‘the lack of public discussion about the role of Israel . . . is the proverbial elephant in the room.’ The reason for the reluctance to talk about it, he observed, was fear of being labelled an anti- semite. There is little doubt that Israel and the Lobby were key factors in the decision to go to war. It’s a decision the US would have been far less likely to take without their efforts. And the war itself was intended to be only the first step. A front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the war began says it all: ‘President’s Dream: Changing Not Just Regime but a Region: A Pro-US, Democratic Area Is a Goal that Has Israeli and Neo- Conservative Roots.'

c. Also there's more from above article that speaks directly to Clean Break and what Sharon wanted and how they envisioned an invasion of Iraq would benefit Israel ( though that back-fired as we know now):

"...By the late 1990s, however, the neo-conservatives were arguing that dual containment was not enough and that regime change in Iraq was essential. By toppling Saddam and turning Iraq into a vibrant democracy, they argued, the US would trigger a far-reaching process of change throughout the Middle East. The same line of thinking was evident in the ‘Clean Break’ study the neo- conservatives wrote for Netanyahu. By 2002, when an invasion of Iraq was on the front-burner, regional transformation was an article of faith in neo- conservative circles.

Charles Krauthammer describes this grand scheme as the brainchild of Natan Sharansky, but Israelis across the political spectrum believed that toppling Saddam would alter the Middle East to Israel’s advantage. Aluf Benn reported in Ha’aretz (17 February 2003):

Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such as National Security Adviser Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel’s other enemies . . . Along with these leaders will disappear terror and weapons of mass destruction..."

d. I have no problem with AIPAC et al as registering themselves as "foreign agent lobby groups." But they should not be allowed to function as they do today.

Similarly, I have no problem with dual citizens being hired to positions at lower levels of the federal civil service. But dual citizens should not be allowed to fill policy level positions within the US gov't, federal or state.

scrapper2  posted on  2006-08-26   20:41:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: scrapper2 (#87)

Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such as National Security Adviser Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel’s other enemies . . . Along with these leaders will disappear terror and weapons of mass destruction..."

Strike that, and plan B, C and D.

robin  posted on  2006-08-26   20:45:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 89.

        There are no replies to Comment # 89.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 89.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]