“Please don't confuse 'em with facts or distract 'em from NFL playoffs!”

--A recent note from a prep school classmate.

* *

Noel Coward's dig at English colonial society contained in his 1932 ditty “Mad Dogs and Englishmen” was just a lark. I did not know the derivation of the phrase and had assumed it contained a more serious comment upon the British Empire. My criticism of that empire has been pointed, but not comprehensive.

True, I have been stupefied at the stupidity (or extreme shortsightedness) of the ruling establishment in Whitehall from 1900 onward. Similarly, I have been disgusted at similar behavior found in the leadership of the quasi-American empire in our own day, which malady started about the same time, to wit, with the Spanish-American war of 1898. But, aside from British rule in Ireland, I must confess to having a soft spot for that far-flung, multi-cultural empire on which the sun never set. 

From Cat Cay to Calcutta, from Jamaica to Singapore, from Gibraltar to Cape Town, from Khartoum to Bhutan, from Bermuda to Hong Kong, from the four corners of the globe there was a social and legal continuum which must have been comforting to Europeans passing through such exotic venues. It was “Europeanization” as my prep school primer, R.R. Palmer's History of the Modern World, accurately termed it. The results were not all bad. One cannot watch the 1937 Frank Capra movie “Lost Horizon” starring Ronald Colman as the idealistic diplomat Robert Conway, without feeling some nostalgia for what it may have been like in those palmy days prior to WWII. 

But now, in the post WWII era, when European colonialism is passé--indeed where it is considered outré and morally indefensible--we are confronted with the reality of a naked, aggressive form of neocolonialism in the backyard of Europe, which makes the old-style colonialism look like a garden party. 

The neocolonialism in question is misnamed “Israel” and is based on an ethnocentric ideology called “Zionism”. The movement emanated from Jews in central and eastern Europe in the late 19th century. I place the “Jewish state”--proclaimed in 1948 and legitimized by Moscow, Washington and the UN Security Council (which Moscow and Washington controlled in the immediate aftermath of WWII)--in quotes, because modern-day “Israel” is a contrived entity, created on the backs and the bones of the native inhabitants of Palestine. It was built “not beside but on top of the Palestinian people”, as former Irish Labor Minister Justin Keating put it in the November 2005 issue of The Dubliner magazine.

Unlike the European imperialists in days of yore, the Zionist have sought step by step to erase the native inhabitants, to dispossess the Palestinians. The indigenes are to be replaced by Jews from anywhere in the wide world, who in Zionist mythology possess all proprietary rights to Palestine. It is madness. 

Meanwhile, we in the West are expected to cheer this criminal enterprise on. If we don't, then we must be anti-Semites or reprobates. I sometimes wonder how anyone can be accused of being anti-Semitic, when he or she is  pro-Palestinian. Has it dawned on you? The Semites are the native Palestinians, who are getting slammed, displaced, demonized and murdered. The Jews who have emigrated to “Israel” are not Semites and have little, if any, ethnic affiliation to the ancient Hebrews. Jews in “Israel” are predominantly Ashkenazim and Khazars. Whatever they may be, America and Europe must applaud them, no matter how insane and out of control the situation becomes.

That fountainhead of “liberalism” and “progressive” thought, the New York Times, has indicated as much in its editorial “War Over Gaza” of December 30th, 2008: “Israel must defend itself.” That says it all, no other explanation is required. The victims, the injured party, the Palestinian Arabs are at fault and to be blamed. It is the natives living under military occupation who are responsible for their own slaughter.

“And Hamas must bear responsibility” the New York Times further intones “for ending a six-month cease-fire this month with a barrage of rocket attacks into Israeli territory.” The NYT is not going out on a limb. Its editorial reflects the knee-jerk mentality prevailing within Ex-America to the effect that “Israel” is just like any other country, when it plainly is not. The Zionists are the military occupying power, and all of Palestine is their conquest.  

The NYT editorial also reflects abysmal ignorance and/or a blind belief in mendacious propaganda. It reflects the outlook of the Cheney/Bush White House, the future Obama/Emanuel White House, that of the inconsequential nincompoops who reign on Capitol Hill, and that of all the “national security” think-tanks scattered about Washington. Somehow the “progressives” and the “neoconservatives” and all those “moderates” in between are united in solidarity when it comes to “Israel”. Why?

In this instance, the talk-radio clown, Rush Limbaugh, and his loudly lambasted bête noire, the “liberal” sages at the New York Times, are in complete agreement. How odd. Or is it? Why would Limbaugh do anything which might endanger his $50 million a year meal-ticket by challenging the mindset of his deluded acolytes? It is in Limbaugh’s interest to keep his “conservative” listeners deluded. Likewise, the NYT has a financial interest to pander to the prejudices of its “liberal” and significantly Jewish readership.

Middle East expert Robert Fisk, on the same day as the NYT editorial aforesaid, threw an outsized monkey wrench into the well-oiled machine of the pro-Zionist cheerleaders and enablers--left, right, and center--when inter alia he pointed out: “...the original, legal owners of the Israeli land on which Hamas rockets are detonating live in Gaza.... That is why Gaza exists: because the Palestinians who lived in Ashkelon and the field around it...were dispossessed from their lands in 1948 when Israel was created, and ended up on the beaches of Gaza. They--or their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren--are among the one and a half million Palestinians refugees crammed into the cesspool of Gaza, 80% of whose families once lived in what is now Israel.” 

As I have often noted, the Gaza strip constitutes the largest open-air concentration camp the world has ever seen. It is a dumping ground for war refugees created by the neocolonial real estate experiment called “Israel”. Fisk continues: “...watching the news shows, you'd think that history began yesterday, that a bunch of bearded anti-Semitic Islamist lunatics suddenly popped up in the slums of Gaza--a rubbish dump of destitute people of no origin--and began firing missiles into peace-loving, democratic Israel, only to meet with the righteous vengeance of the Israeli air force.... The existence of Gaza is a permanent reminder of those hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who lost their homes to Israel, who fled or were driven out through fear or Israeli ethnic cleansing 60 years ago....”

II

“There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, 

and therefore there is no need for a humanitarian truce.”

--Ms. Tzipi Livni, former Mossad operative,

current Foreign Minister of "Israel". January 1st, 2009.

Perhaps here might be a good rest-stop to address the sad case of Barack Hussein Obama. He deserves that much at least. Some months back, I began calling him Barack “Slippery” Obama, and for good reason. Many things can be said about the ongoing massacre in Gaza, but one thing is certain. The assault has put an end to the Obama Presidency before it starts. The atrocities ordered by Tel Aviv in Gaza have stripped the Obama facade away from its framework, the mask off the actor, the illusion from the reality.

On the advice no doubt of his chief political advisor, David Axelrod, who is moving into the White House, and other worthies like Rahm Israel Emanuel and Hillary Clinton, Obama has had “no comment” in response to the fantastic war crimes now taking place in full view of the world and the American electorate. People are beginning to wonder why. What could the reason be?

Heretofore, the man has had plenty to say about the American economy and about the terrorism in Mumbai, India. But when faced with the IDF bombardment and invasion of Gaza, Obama has opted for more important matters. Like playing golf and showing off his physique at the beach in Hawaii. This is priceless. Obama is not a dreadful goof like his predecessor. Obama is aware of the true nature of the tragedy in Palestine. Yet he remains tight-lipped as the Gaza massacre unfolds. He does not utter a sound, even to call for a truce or to urge restraint by the invading hi-tech army and air force, whose equipment has largely been provided by America. Until now, he says nothing.

Why? Because Obama is a careerist. He is not a man of new ideas and brave principles. That is a front, and his passkey to success. Obama is an outstanding talker and communicator, who realizes that people will swallow just about anything. In this respect, he is similar to Bill Clinton. Obama surely understands that what matters is not the mass of gullible Americans who elected him President, but the power structure behind the scene which controls who gets what and who prevails on the Washington skyline.

To make a long story short, I see no better proof of the reach and existence of the “Israel Lobby” than Obama's current silence in the face of ongoing war crimes en plein jour in Gaza, which crimes will most certainly impact the United States and its citizens via negative repercussions from the Arab and Muslim worlds. 

Of course, the same could be said about all the running dogs in Ex America who have sold their souls to the enterprise of Zionism in exchange for votes and campaign contributions. At the top of the list would be our co-presidents in crime, Cheney & Bush, closely followed by most professional politicians on Capitol Hill of both parties.

The fact remains, however, that it was Obama who staked out his claim to being different, who spoke up for a “change” in foreign policy. His studied silence now, combined with his one-sided appointments to date, leave no doubt whatever that his Middle East foreign policy will evince the same fraud and denial which were the hallmarks of U.S. foreign policy under Bush, Jr., Bill Clinton, and Bush, Sr. The same false premises remain in place, unchallenged.

To be fair, for those willing to take a second look, the mantra of “change” did not survive even routine scrutiny during the campaign itself. So there is no reason for surprise now. The “change” Obama spoke of was little more--probably nothing more--than an election slogan. Everybody is his right mind wanted a change from the lies and the disaster of Cheney/Bush. David Axelrod and Obama knew that, and they ran with it.

If I was fooled, it was only for a day, in a fit of wishful thinking. My excoriations of the official “neocon” candidate, Crackbrain McCain, were never meant to be an endorsement of Barack “Slippery” Obama. In any case, Obama's visit to Tel Aviv in July 2008 to troll for Jewish votes in America and his subsequent Berlin speech, on the way home, made it crystal clear that he had put himself in the vest pocket of Tel Aviv and was playing in the same Washington foreign policy sandbox with everybody else. 

The double-talk of the Obama campaign has been duly noted in “The Messianic Syndrome” of last August. Obama's inaction and "no comment" as Tel Aviv blows the Gaza Strip and its imprisoned inhabitants to bits is true to form. Moreover, Obama has surrounded himself with Jewish operatives of the “Israel Lobby” like R.I. Emanuel and David Axelrod, Dennis Ross and James Steinberg, et al., and by fellow Gentile captive entities, e.g. Hillary and Bill Clinton, who represent the apotheosis of Washington careerism, corruption, profiteering and disingenuity. The writing is on the wall.

You might be thinking that I am overreacting or exaggerating. Do I ignore domestic policy? Surely, you say, any shortcomings of Obama with respect to this one foreign policy issue, over which the “Israel Lobby” maintains a choke-hold, does not mean that Obama's administration is a failure before it starts. Actually, it does. Among other things, I am a Bacevichian. I follow the logic of Colonel-Professor Andrew Bacevich when it comes to diagnosing America's national problems. 

The colonel's reasoning was set forth in his small book, The Limits of Power. Bacevich makes a persuasive argument that American foreign policy and American domestic policy are inextricably linked, and that domestic policy is a reflection of foreign policy and vise versa. You cannot compartmentalize them.

Bacevich does not address “Israel” or the “Israel Lobby” in Limits. He does not need to. The most important foreign policy issues for America are the Middle East in general and the tragedy of Palestine in particular. Accordingly, my conclusion is, since Obama has demonstrated his willingness to act as a frontman for the “Israel Lobby”, his foreign policy will by necessity be a sham and a fraud. Ergo, his domestic policy will follow suit. Everything will remain dysfunctional, downhill and a lie. In sum, more of the same. 

III

"The Israeli Army is the most decent and restrained army in the world."

--Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel, quoted in the IHT, June 23rd, 2006

Let's back up a moment, and see current events in Gaza in some perspective. 

The best single article about the conflict I have seen so far has been "Molten Lead" (03/01/09) by Uri Avnery, the Israeli peace activist. He knows what he is talking about, he has been around forever, and he makes a number of important points. For instance, Hamas did not break the cease-fire. Gaza was under siege. The blockade of Gaza by Tel Aviv was an ongoing act of war, so there was no real cease-fire to begin with. “The blockade on land, on sea and in the air against a million and a half human beings is an act of war, as much as any dropping of bombs or launching of rockets. It paralyzes life in the Gaza Strip: eliminating most sources of employment, pushing hundreds of thousands to the brink of starvation, stopping most hospitals from functioning, disrupting the supply of electricity and water.” 

Avnery continues: “Some time ago I wrote that the Gaza blockade was a scientific experiment designed to find out how much one can starve a population and turn its life into hell before they break. This experiment was conducted with the generous help of Europe and the US. Up to now, it did not succeed. Hamas became stronger and the range of the Qassams became longer. The present war is a continuation of the experiment by other means.” 

Avnery refers to President Bush as a “blood-soaked moron” and says that the timing of the Gaza blood-bath makes sense, because Bush was sure to support it wholeheartedly during his final days in office. This begs the question, however, when would Bush not have supported the operation? For my part, I have wondered if Cheney/Bush gave the “all clear” to attack Gaza as a kind of consolation prize to Tel Aviv for not having bombed Iran. The public relations campaign for that proposed misadventure was huge, and flowed seamlessly out of the larger White House mania to deconstruct the Middle East and make it over to please Tel Aviv.

Aside from the WMD lie, the Cheney/Bush White House justified its invasion of Iraq in early 2003 by another canard--that of bringing "democracy" to the Middle East. The average naive American could buy into these multiple cover stories so long as (a) the Iraq war and the so-called "Global War on Terror" (GWOT) were outwardly going smoothly and (b) what was really happening in various venues remained well hidden. 

The White House purported to want “democracy” in Lebanon and Palestine as well as in Iraq. Remember? Bringing democracy to the Middle East became the grand cover story; seemingly everything could be justified by it. 

In Lebanon, allow me to point out that with or without Washington, Hizzbulah is a legitimate political organization representing a substantial numbers of Lebanese. But Hizzbulah actively opposes the continuing IDF occupation of Lebanese territory in south Lebanon known as the Shebaa Farms. So Hizzbulah is on the White House hit list. Hizzbulah would not even exist if it were not for the repeated invasions and bombardments of Lebanon by “Israel” starting in 1978. Tel Aviv created Hizzbulah, so now it has to deal with it, and somehow it has become America's problem.

Condoleezza Rice spoke breathlessly about “the birth pangs of a new Middle East” when Tel Aviv bombarded Beirut and blanketed a million made-in-America cluster bomblets over the Lebanese countryside in the summer of 2006. This endeavor apparently had something to do with bringing “democracy” to Lebanon. I have concluded that Condoleezza Rice is untrustworthy and deranged. 

When there was an election in the “Palestinian territories” in January 2006--meaning that part of Palestine conquered in the 1967 war and still occupied--the Palestinians voted for Hamas by a large majority, because Fatah had not delivered peace or justice despite its long negotiations with the Zionist overlords during the Oslo “peace process”. The Oslo flimflam commenced in the aftermath of the first Gulf War in 1991 and lasted throughout the Bill Clinton/Dennis Ross/Martin Indyk years until the end of 2000.

The 1993 Oslo Accord was followed by other flimflams, culminating in the Annapolis Conference of November 2007. Nothing positive has come from any of it. In the interim, Tel Aviv expropriated more land from the Palestinians, built a concrete wall  higher and longer than the Berlin Wall to encase the West Bank, and subjected Palestinians to harsher conditions, most especially in Gaza, which has been transformed into a gigantic prison and free-fire, killing zone. 

So what did the White House do in the aftermath of the Hamas election victory on the West Bank and in Gaza at the start of 2006? The White House immediately set about to destabilize and sabotage the Palestinians so as to punish them for not electing the authorized interlocutors assigned to them by Tel Aviv and Washington. You can read about some of these machinations in, of all places, Vanity Fair. What the White House did is despicable to the nth degree, like so much else undertaken by Cheney/Bush.

Let's get real. Neither Washington nor Tel Aviv has any interest in “democracy” in Palestine, for the simple reason that democracy and justice there would logically spell the termination of the Zionist nightmare called “Israel”. Why? Because a democratic solution to the conflict would necessarily involve a return of Palestinian war refugees and their descendants to their villages, homes and land inside what is now designated as “Israel” proper.  

Objectively speaking, the entire ethnocentric, garrison state known as “Israel” is occupied territory. The authorities in Tel Aviv know that, and they must act accordingly. By that I mean, more suppression, aggression, diversion and mendacity. The music must not be allowed to stop. One manufactured crisis or bogus threat must be followed by another. Iraq. Iran. Lebanon. GWOT. Syria. Pakistan. Whatever it takes to avoid facing the central issue.

There is “democracy” and freedom inside “Israel” but it is reserved for those who seized and stole the land from the Palestinians in 1948 and 1967. These uninvited guests are mostly Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe, to which have been added crazed American Jewish “settlers” since 1967, who are intent upon colonizing more territory and ethnically cleansing more Palestinians, using American foreign aid in billions annually plus U.S. tax-deductible contributions.  This arrangement amounts to a fraud upon the U.S. treasury. Furthermore, any Jew in the world can book a flight to Tel Aviv and overnight become “an Israeli”, thereby acquiring more rights than a Palestinian whose family may have lived in Palestine for hundreds of years. 

None of these inequitable circumstances can be addressed by Washington. The Zionists control Washington lock, stock and barrel. The current slaughter in Gaza is further proof of that reality. As an anti-Zionist Gentile, I naturally find this situation disturbing, bizarre and unhealthy. I can’t be alone. In 1973, Senator William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated on CBS's Face The Nation: “Israel controls the U.S. Senate. The Senate is subservient, much too much. We should be more concerned about the U.S. interests, rather than doing the bidding of Israel. The great majority of the Senate of the U.S.--somewhere around 80%--are completely in support of Israel. Anything Israel wants, Israel gets.”

At at early hour, before Zionism had officially obtained its clubhouse on the Mediterranean coast, Mahatma Gandhi spoke out against the madness. [See 2nd edition, The Unauthorized World Situation Report, pages 115 & 116.] In 1938, at a time when the Zionists were working under the cover and protection of the British Empire in Palestine, Gandhi denounced the push to carve a Jewish state from Arab lands as “a crime against humanity”. Further, he stated, “...what is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct.”

A decade later, in August 1947, Gandhi wrote, “...the Jews have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terror. Why should they depend on American money for forcing themselves on an unwelcome land? Why should they resort to terrorism to make good their forcible landing in Palestine?”

Can you begin to imagine what Gandhi would say about the present genocide and terror in Gaza perpetrated by the same actors and enablers some 60+ years later? Does one need to be a Mahatma Gandhi to recognize that it is crazy?

IV

The man officially in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East at the National Security Council is the hyper-Zionist Jew, Elliott Abrams, son-in-law of  the “neoconservative” fanatic, Norman Podhoretz. Abrams was put in charge by White House CEO Dick Cheney and Bush political strategist Karl Rove. Abrams is careful to stay off the radar screen. He has been feverishly plotting with Cheney and like-minded Israel-firsters since December 2002 to advance the “neoconservative” agenda in the Middle East. Abrams also “serves unofficially as the President's liaison to Jewish organizations on Middle East issues.” Beautiful. In brief, Abrams is Likud’s agent inside the White House.

Outside of “Israel”, it is entirely possible that the person most responsible for the current wholesale butchery in Gaza is Elliott Abrams, followed closely by that self-satisfied, beyond creepy “useful idiot”, Dick Cheney, followed then by our pathetic  Secretary of State, Dr. Rice, who remains the arch-enabler and public face for the lunacy which passes as American foreign policy. [Reference the Vanity Fair article mentioned above.] G.W. Bush is not worth discussing. He is a waste of time. He is little more than a spokesperson, but in that capacity he has earned the moniker of "the most pro-Israel President in history."

Barack Obama's incoming Vice President, Joseph Biden, who, like William Fulbright before him, is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, proudly stated in March 2007: “When I was a young Senator, I used to say, 'If I were a Jew I'd be a Zionist.' I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.” And you don’t have to be a U.S. Senator to be an idiot, but it helps.

Judging by Obama's pandering, unbalanced speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual “Policy Conference” in June 2008 in Washington and his fawning performance in Israel the following month, Obama too is an unapologetic Zionist, willing to go the final mile to prove his bona fides to the gang in charge. He would not have been elected President otherwise.

V 

Broadly speaking, the Gentiles in America are a blank when it comes to the issue of Zionism and “Israel”. My guess is that 95% of them are totally ignorant, with 2% aware but suborned, and with the remaining 3% vaguely aware but terrified to do anything about it for fear of economic or social retaliation. 

When it comes to current affairs and politics, the 90% who comprise the ignoramuses--including the Christian Zionists--spend their time obsessing over petty party politics (Democrat vs. Republican) and analyzing the supposedly-important Conservative vs. Liberal divide. Hosts on talk-radio like Limbaugh make fortunes off of it. These 90% regard the recent U.S. Presidential election as a significant event. What interests them is mostly irrelevant and a waste of time. In a word,  entertainment.

The suborned 2% are politicians and functionaries in Washington and elsewhere. They are the opportunistic beneficiares of the ongoing racket. They cash in. Then there is the silent 3%, who remain motionless in the tall grass.

I regret to say that the Europeans are in certain respects more deplorable. Why? Because most of them are not ignorant like most Americans. Moreover, Palestine is right next door, arguably in their “sphere of influence”--to use an outdated diplomatic term. But European politicians are quite content to sit on their collective backsides, playing it safe, while consigning the entire Middle East dossier to Washington, even though Europe knows full well that Washington is in the pocket of Tel Aviv and its agents.

This transfer and abdication of responsibility by Europe to Washington is scandalous. After all, this is a human rights issue at bottom. The situation is a fantastic charade in which everybody plays his part, and nobody breaks the spell. All sides pretend that nothing out of the ordinary is happening. 

May I suggest that you reread the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, “The Emperor's New Clothes” for some insight into the present state of world affairs. Most instructive. Get a good, unexpurgated copy. We remember that the spell of unreality and fraud is broken when a child points out to the adults that the Emperor is wearing, in fact, nothing in public, not a magnificent outfit as he thought.

Please take note, however, that even after the spell has been broken and what is obvious has been acknowledged by all concerned, still the parade continues as before. The naked Emperor sees no alternative but to keep the charade going. Read the story. Its implications are priceless for America and Europe.

In the meantime, criminal insanity continues as the order of the day in Palestine and most especially in the Gaza Strip. The upshot is murder and mayhem. Be advised that this has been going on for decades. All of it, made possible thanks to the complicity of America and Europe.

**

--Afterthoughts--

Monday, January 19th, 2009

The above entry was written two weeks ago, during the opening stages of Tel Aviv's free-fire assault on the Gaza Strip. In the meantime, a whole host of war crimes has been committed by "the only democracy in the Middle East" and America's "best friend and ally". Washington has done nothing to halt it. To the contrary, Washington has applauded it, especially on Capitol Hill.

The incoming President has remained silent as the tomb, except to say that he will hit the ground running when he takes office. Hitting the ground running with the same tired, triangulating Clinton team of Hillary, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and all the rest of these second-bench Israel Firsters is like hitting the ground from a very high place with a straight jacket on, instead of a parachute.

A ceasefire has been unilaterally declared by Tel Aviv. Since Washington and Tel Aviv have unilaterally declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization, they cannot talk with it, even though Hamas has been since 2006 the democratically-elected government of those Palestinians who have been living under military occupation since 1948 and 1967. I am not sure who, if anyone, speaks for the Palestinians living in refugee camps outside of Palestine. They exist in squalor and degradation, as they have for decades thanks to Zionism.

Everything has to be unilateral, please understand. Tel Aviv and Washington like it that way, in case you haven't noticed. They can maintain maximum freedom of amoral action with no accountability. Talking would mean exposing themselves to reason, facts and equity, which might prove embarrassing.

Three days ago (January 16th) The Washington Post had the temerity to reprint an amazing column by conservative columnist Robert Novak which first ran on April 16th, 2007. The piece, entitled "Olive Branch from Hamas", was so strikingly relevant and illuminating to the current blowup that the newspaper had little choice. Novak must have pointed the item out to the editors. It is a hell of a story, which under more normal circumstances and in an earlier age would have resulted in an outcry for a Congressional investigation.

I stated above that "neocon" starting-bench Israel Firster, Elliott Abrams, was probably more responsible than any single individual outside of occupied Palestine for the present slaughter in Gaza. Novak's column buttresses that contention. Abrams was in the driver’s seat of U.S. Mideast policy for years.

On the surface, an innocent bystander might regard what happened at the White House in April of 2007, as recorded by Novak, to be nonfeasance as opposed to misfeasance or malfeasance. Actually, what happened verges on treason, which is nothing new for the White House--and not just the Cheney/Bush White House. (I will not bore you with talk about FDR and Pearl Harbor in 1941 or LBJ and the USS Liberty in 1967.)

Abrams, the Likud apparatchik embedded inside the National Security Council, and Dick Cheney, the Israel Lobby’s “useful idiot” telling G.W. Bush what to do, were engaged in a conspiracy to arrange a civil war between the Palestinian factions. We know this from David Rose’s April 2008 article in Vanity Fair. The idea of having a dialogue with Hamas, the elected leader of the Palestinians, was not on the White House "democracy" agenda. Is that surprising? A cardinal tenet of "neoconservatism" is promoting chaos and conflict, not tranquility, peace or compromise. You see the results, none of which have been by accident. All of it has been in service to Tel Aviv’s “Greater Israel” agenda and under the direction of the U.S. Israel Lobby.

Elliott Abrams has been called “the neocon's neocon” for a good reason. Let's see if he receives a second Presidential pardon, this time from the son of the President who gave him the first one. Abrams certainly has earned it. G.W. may want to consider pardoning himself, just for good measure. He too has earned it. The enabling of war crimes is also a war crime, even though the enabler is far removed from the scene of the crimes.  

--Copyright 2009 Patrick Foy--