A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NO MORE WAR FOR ISRAEL



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 4th 04, 03:10 PM
MORRIS434
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NO MORE WAR FOR ISRAEL

FBI agent confirms Clarke's charges:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=14334

Israel Connection Cover-up:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=14269

Subj: Head of Sept. 11 Commission Said Iraq War for Israel
Date: 4/3/04 10:38:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:
To:



Friends,

Head of Sept. 11 Commission Said Iraq War for Israel

The neocons got the US into the war on Iraq for Israel’s sake, now the 9/11
commission is headed by a pro-Israeli neocon ( a fringe neocon) by the name of
Philip Zelikow, who actually admits the Israeli motivation for the war. As the
article by Paul Skerry points out:

"Though he has no vote, the former Texas lawyer arguably has more sway than any
member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the
briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of
questioning for witnesses. He also picks which fights are worth fighting,
legally, with the White House, and was involved in the latest round of
capitulations – er, negotiations – over Rice's testimony. And the
commissioners for the most part follow his recommendations. In effect, he sets
the agenda and runs the investigation."

It so happens that Zelikow is closely connected to the Bush administration and
the neocons. Sperry points out that "In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo
for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and
restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.."
Philip Zelikow also co-authored a book on German reunification with Rice.

An article by Emad Mekay documents that Zelikow revealed that helping Israel
was the real purpose of the war on Iraq.

"’Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell
you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's
the threat against Israel,’ Zelikow told a crowd at the University of
Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts
assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda
terrorist organization.

"‘And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans
don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American
government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not
a popular sell,’ said Zelikow."

Zelikow was not telling the exact truth here. Iraq was never a military danger
to Israel. But the neocons/Likudniks planned to attack Iraq because the
destabilization/disarmament/occupation of Israel’s Middle East enemies would
enhance Israel’s security even in regard to the Palestinian demographic
threat.

So here you have it: the head of the September 11 commission once publicly
acknowledged that the Iraq war was fought for Israel, but held that the
government wanted to hide that motive. Obviously, as head of the commission he
will do his best to keep that motive hidden.

Let’s summarize a bit here.

Israeli Likudniks developed the idea of a plan to destabilize the Middle East
through a war that would begin with Iraq.

Neocons had been pushing for a US war against Iraq throughout the 1990s.

Bush administration neocons such as Wolfowitz focused on attacking Iraq from
the very start of the Bush administration.

Neocons used September 11 to push the Al Qaeda/Saddam connection lie.

Neocons pushed the WMD lie—especially relying on the neocon controlled Office
of Special Plans to provide bogus intelligence derived from neocon tool Ahmed
Chalabi and from Israel itself.

Now it appears that an individual who openly admitted that the Iraq war was for
the sake of Israel directs the 9/11 commission.

But despite all of this evidence, it is still deemed "anti-Semitic" to point
out that neocons or Israel had anything to do with the war on Iraq. Needless to
say, it is the neocons who are pushing this lie too.

_________________________

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html

March 31, 2004

Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official

By Emad Mekay



http://www.atimes.com


Front Page

Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official

By Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON - Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United
States, but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the
Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House
intelligence group.

Inter Press Service uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the
executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on
the US in September 2001 - the 9/11 commission - in which he suggests a prime
motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to
Israel, a staunch US ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel
appears at odds with the public position of US President George W Bush and his
administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the
regime of Saddam and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the
Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect
the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his tenure on a
highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.
He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you
what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 - it's the
threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on
September 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the
impact of September 11 and the future of the war on al-Qaeda.

"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans
don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American
government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not
a popular sell," said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the
Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives
of nearly 600 US troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's
desire to defend the Jewish state.

The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative
hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that
it derailed the "war on terrorism" it launched after September 11 by taking a
detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the US.

Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct
aid of US$3-4 billion.

Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they
enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information
related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory
role. Known in intelligence circles as "Piffy-ab", the board is supposed to
evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make.
The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as "code
word" that is higher than top secret.

The national security adviser to former president George H W Bush (1989-93)
Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of
intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the various
military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.


Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and e-mail messages
from IPS for this story.

Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration. Before his
appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's
transition team in January 2001. In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring
the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.

Richard A Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor
president Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has
recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism
warnings. Clarke said that Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent
threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.

Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and
subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of
Germany.

Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official - Robert
Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together,
including one in 1998 on the United States and the Muslim Middle East.

Aside from his position on the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of
the Miller Center of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of
History at the University of Virginia. His close ties to the administration
prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims
of the September attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative
body.

In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi
dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was
preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of "scarce hard currency" to harness
"communications against electromagnetic pulse", a side-effect of a nuclear
explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.

That was "a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a
nuclear exchange - they [Iraqi officials] were not preparing to ride out a
nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear
exchange with the Israelis," according to Zelikow.

He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands
of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym
Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the US, and that those weapons could
have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from
attacking Hamas.

"Play out those scenarios," he told his audience, "and I will tell you, people
have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it".

"Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the
question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the
people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel?' Easy question to
answer; the evidence is abundant."

To date, the possibility of the US attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been
only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public
acknowledgements from sources close to the administration. Analysts who
reviewed Zelikow's statements said that they are concrete evidence of one
factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.

"Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of
Israel as a component," said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute
of Policy Studies. "But this is a very good piece of evidence of that."

Others say that the administration should be blamed for not making known to the
public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq. "They [the
administration] made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for
a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of
the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it,"
said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington
University and an expert on the Middle East.

But he downplayed the Israel link. "In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't
make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran
than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat," he said.


Still, Brown says that Zelikow's words carried weight. "Certainly his position
would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of
the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more
authoritative than [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz, or Rice or
[Secretary of State Colin] Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of
fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made,"
Brown said.

(Inter Press Service)












 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.