HOMEPAGE   INDEX II   CHRISTIAN/PROPHECY


Who Sends US To War? - ISRAEL 
By Ted Lang
6/30/05 
 
 
"It was the Jews themselves who convinced me of the direct relationship between the international Jew and war. In fact, they went out of their way to convince me. On the peace ship were two very prominent Jews. We had not been at sea 200 miles before they began telling me of the power of the Jewish race, of how they controlled the world through their control of gold, and that the Jew and no one but the Jew could end the war. I was reluctant to believe it but they went into detail to convince me of the means by which the Jews controlled the war, how they had the money, how they had cornered all the basic materials needed to fight the war and all that, and they talked so long and so well that they convinced me. They said, and they believed, that the Jews started the war, that they would continue it as long as they wished, and that until the Jew stopped the war it could not be stopped. I was so disgusted I would have liked to turn the ship back."
-- Henry Ford to The New York Times in 1921
Something's got to give soon. The various "Lone Rangers" of the Internet and some maverick government officials are beginning to challenge G. Bush and his Zionist spooks, handlers and manipulators. And as regards virtually the entire Congress, their mantra will never return to those "thrilling days of yesteryear," when "Remember the Alamo," or "Remember the Maine," or "Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!" typified the military heroics that founded this nation. No, their mantra now is "Israel has a right to exist!" as recently articulated by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi humbling herself and the entire Congress before almighty AIPAC, the controllers and destroyers of American government and our American way of life.
Congressman John Conyers' heroic effort to get to the bottom of things launched by the Downing Street Memos, note the plural, has, it appears, been torpedoed by the very same Zionist propaganda rags and hags that refused to report the news in the first place - but now they're reactively on board and screaming a blood-curdling "ANTI-SEMITISM!" What a hoot!
The latest "Typhoid Mary" journalistic shill for Zionism is Dana Milbank in his June 17th attack against Conyers and any and all Democrats that don't sell America down the river for Israel: "Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War." Should the question be posed to the Bilderberg-supporting Washington Post with its untiring devotion to the New World Order of The International Jew, as well as to Milbank himself, inquiring as to the progress being made in the investigation of AIPAC spying? Or perhaps Milbank and his boss Abramowitz can fill US in on the Israeli weapons sales to Communist China! No?
Well then, why has it taken the Bilderberg-supporting Washington Post over six weeks to comment in any way on the original Downing Street Memo, exposed by the Sunday London Times back on May 1, 2005? Why has it taken The New York Times just as long to comment on this vital information necessary to truly inform the American public?
When will the Post and Milbank inform US on the progress of the USS Liberty complaint recently launched by some of its "survivors" against Israel for murdering 34 of our Navy personnel and wounding 173 others? Isn't Milbank proud of "Democrats" Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara for covering up Israel's "false flag" attempt to blame Egypt for that attack, which is dwarfed by Mossad's 9-11 participation to falsify claims against Saddam and Iraq? When will the true facts concerning that Israeli false flag act of terrorism be revealed by Milbank and his fellow "journalists" at the Post? Will they follow up on the "Weehawken Five?"
Milbank starts his false flag assault on Conyers offering: "The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration 'neocons' so 'the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world.' He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon." Wow! McGovern stated the whole Bush administration plan of operations in just two sentences - pretty darn good!
Milbank denigrated the Conyers meeting offering it as being held in a "Capital basement" and that it engaged in "make believe." What part of 1740 dead American service personnel is "make believe" in Milbank's judgment? Has the Post elaborated on the additional memos found to blunt Milbank's critical sarcasm? How does he know they "pretended at playing" Judiciary Committee? He also failed to mention Conyers' complaint that Republicans originally wouldn't allow the Conyers panel to convene anywhere on Congressional property, and that they only relented when Republican domination of our government was so outrageously exhibited by Congressman James Sensenbrenner's senseless insensitivity in walking out of a bi-partisan committee discussing the horrors of the USA PATRIOT Act.
So, where's the sarcasm in Milbank's latest collaborative effort with fellow "writer" Peter Baker "reporting" on the latest Bush lies and newspeak in his June 28th TV propaganda show? Milbank and Baker write in their June 29th article entitled, "Bush Says War Worth the Effort," offering: "Bush invoked Sept. 11 five times in his speech and referred to it by implication several more times." They continue: "Although he has previously agreed with investigators that there is 'no evidence' of a link between Saddam Hussein's government and the attacks masterminded by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, he used much of his speech to depict the militants in Iraq as the same breed of Islamic terrorist who struck the United States. The White House titled his remarks a discussion on the 'War on Terror,' not Iraq." Astonishing, no? Now we're not only not after a specific nation, nor even a specific group of terrorists, but a "breed" of evil-doers! Isn't word engineering a wonderful thing?!
Now Bush freely admits no connection to either Saddam or Iraq as regards 9-11, and Milbank doesn't see anything amiss here? Why was there a connection before the Downing Street Memo and none whatsoever at the present time? He doesn't see how heavily Bush touted this farce to mislead America, lie to Congress, and cause the deaths of 1,740 of our own military? He still cannot connect the Downing Street Memos, the substantiation and proof of manufactured false intelligence, and the actual statements of other Bush accusers along with those of McGovern and Conyers? What about Clark, O'Neill, Reynolds, Shayler, Edmonds and Kwiatkowski? Do Milbank, Baker and the Washington Post even know who these people are?
Milbank is the "hit man" for the Zionist media! His assignment? Take out Conyers and whatever Democrats support him, help Bush and the GOP to continue to dominate and run interference for Ariel Sharon and Israel. Dan Balz comes a lot closer to exposing the Bush fraud when commenting on Bush's June 28th TV show: "One year after the transfer of power in Iraq, President Bush found himself in a familiar, if unsettling, position last night, as he sought to reinvigorate public support for his policies in the face of almost daily suicide bombings and continued U.S. casualties that have called into question whether the administration has a workable strategy for success and exit there." But if the Post had only paid more attention to some of the words in Downing, they would have learned, "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
In his "'Lessons of Sept.11' Take Center Stage Again" of June 29th, Balz continues, "Sept. 11 remains Bush's most reliable argument with the public when he faces political headwinds; it gave him the highest-rated moments of his presidency and helped sustain him through a difficult reelection campaign. Surprisingly, given how effectively he has used the collective emotion of that day in the past, Sept. 11 has been largely missing in the administration's discussions of Iraq this year." Nothing surprising here - once Bush and the GOP got US into this war for Israel, oil and bases in the Mid East, we were all supposed to quickly dwell on the evil of Islam that needed eradicating.
But Bush is now backpedaling once again, hoping to hide in the comfy zone of a heroic wartime president launching anew the Crusades of the 21st century. And while the Zionist MSM has been covering for him and his international criminal activities, the Internet and an increasing number of Democrats, and now even some Republicans, are causing worry and uncertainty that yet another "Gitmo eruption" or other uncovered outrage/lie will blow wide open Bush's scheme regime of lying Zionist Nazis. And with this uncertainty, Bush and his war are dropping rapidly in public opinion polls.
So here's Balz's very key observation: "The stakes for Bush could hardly be higher, given the reality that unpopular wars can lead to the unraveling of a presidency. Bush's lofty ambitions for a free, stable and democratic Iraq may stir Americans' sense of idealism, but if events on the ground call those goals into question, the potential for erosion in support remains significant."
And then, Balz follows with an ominous observation: "No single speech can cement public opinion, particularly in a conflict in which the administration has been guilty of misjudgments about the strength of the opposition and the timetable for stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq. To a surprising degree, given the strength of the insurgency in Iraq, Bush has maintained support for the broad goals of his Iraq policy and for a continued military presence there. But nothing guarantees continued support if there is little sign of progress on the ground."
The danger exposed is that Bush and his regime had always counted on the Zionist MSM to cover up for the Bush imperial criminal agenda, but the Internet has indeed shaken some of their former resolve. Scott Ritter has alluded to hostilities on the part of our over-extended forces as already being deployed in Iran; please remember that Downing also mentioned "spikes of activity" before the invasion of Iraq to provoke Saddam. The Bush regime's popularity at the time carried them back then; it will not carry them now. Veterans have returned to tell of the horrors of Iraq, as have continuing lines and rows of flag-draped caskets. Bush has built his regime on lies, deception and falsehoods, which are unmentioned in Balz's admonition - these have become a staggering risk factor to Bush's rapidly decreasing popularity.
The situation is similar to the American political environment immediately preceding September 11, 2001. Americans could not see any need to do Israel's bidding. The Zionist PNAC cabal that controls the White House, the Pentagon and the Congress, will now require yet another "Pearl Harbor for the 21st century." This will be needed to blunt increasing exposure and focus on the Bush regime's war crimes and torture, its PATRIOT Act, the coming gulags, the failing economy, the ever-decreasing job market, the ever-increasing employment instability, and the planned invasions of Iran and Syria.
Will the Bush crime regime become desperate and arrange yet another terrorist attack? Where will the Mossad strike this time? Will that be the most expedient political solution again for these gangsters increasingly recognized as such by more and more ordinary people? Sadly, I feel something's going to happen soon!
 
THEODORE E. LANG 6/30/05 All rights reserved