Iraq: A War For Israel

[Love Europe, Hate the EU]

Iraq: A War For Israel
By Mark Weber

The U.S. invasion of Iraq in March-April 2003, and the occupation of
the country since then, has cost more than four thousand American
lives and more than $500 billion, and has brought death to many tens
of thousands of Iraqis.

Why did President Bush decide to go to war? In whose interests was it
launched?

In the months leading up to the attack, President Bush and other high-
ranking US officials repeatedly warned that the threat posed to the US
and world by the Baghdad regime was so grave and imminent that the
United States had to act quickly to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq.

On Sept. 28, 2002, for example, he said:

“The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi
regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the
facilities to make more and, according to the British government,
could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45
minutes after the order is given... This regime is seeking a nu­clear
bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.”

On March 6, 2003, President Bush declared:

“Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country,
to our people, and to all free people... I believe Saddam Hussein is a
threat to the American people. I believe he’s a threat to the
neighborhood in which he lives. And I’ve got good evidence to believe
that. He has weapons of mass destruction... The American people know
that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.”

These claims were untrue. As the world now knows, Iraq had no
dangerous “weapons of mass destruction,” and posed no threat to the
US. Moreover, alarmist suggestions that the Baghdad regime was working
with the al-Qaeda terror network likewise proved to be without
foundation.

So if the official reasons given for the war were untrue, why did the
United States attack Iraq?

Whatever the secondary reasons for the war, the crucial factor in
President Bush’s decision to attack was to help Israel. With support
from Israel and America’s Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish
“neo-conservatives” holding high-level positions in his
administration, President Bush – who was already fervently com­mitted
to Israel – resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel’s chief
regional enemies.

This is so widely understood in Washington that US Senator Ernest
Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq
“to secure Israel,” and “everybody” knows it. He also identified three
of the influential pro-Israel Jews in Washington who played an
important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of
the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense
Secretary; and Charles Krauthammer, columnist and author. [1]

Hollings referred to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional
colleagues to acknowledge this truth openly, saying that “nobody is
willing to stand up and say what is going on.” Due to "the pressures
we get politically," he added, members of Congress uncritically
support Israel and its policies.

Some months before the invasion, retired four-star US Army General and
former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark acknowledged in an
interview: “Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now
will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that
Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid
at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it
against Israel." [2]

Six months before the attack, President Bush met in the White House
with eleven members of the US House of Representatives. While the “war
against terrorism is going okay,” he told the lawmakers, the United
States would soon have to deal with a greater danger: “The biggest
threat, however, is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass
destruction. He can blow up Israel and that would trigger an
international conflict.” [3]

Bush also spoke candidly about why the US was going to war during a
White House meeting on Feb. 27, 2003, just three weeks before the
invasion. In a talk with Elie Wiesel, the well-known Jewish writer,
Bush said: “If we don’t disarm Saddam Hussein, he will put a weapon of
mass destruction on Israel and they will do what they think they have
to do, and we have to avoid that.” [4]

Fervently Pro-Israel

President Bush’s fervent support for Israel and its hardline
government is well known. He reaffirmed it, for example, in June 2002
in a major speech on the Middle East. In the view of “leading Israeli
commentators,” the London Times reported, the address was “so pro-
Israel that it might have been written by [Israel prime minister]
Ariel Sharon.” [5] In an address to pro-Israel activists at the 2004
convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC),
Bush said: “The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly
committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state.” He
also told the gathering: “By defending the freedom and prosperity and
security of Israel, you’re also serving the cause of America.” [6]

Condoleeza Rice, who served as President Bush’s National Security
Advisor, and later, as his Secretary of State, echoed the President’s
outlook in a May 2003 interview, saying that the “security of Israel
is the key to security of the world.” [7]

Long Range Plans

Jewish-Zionist plans for war against Iraq had been in place for years.

In mid-1996, a policy paper prepared for then-Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu outlined a grand strategy for Israel in the Middle
East. Entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,”
it was written under the auspices of an Israeli think tank, the
Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Specifically,
it called for an “effort [that] can focus on removing Saddam Hussein
from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective in its
own right...” [8]

The authors of “A Clean Break” included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith,
and David Wurmser, three influential Jews who later held high-level
positions in the Bush administration, 2001-2004: Perle as chair of the
Defense Policy Board, Feith as Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser
as special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.

The role played by Bush administration officials who are associated
with two major pro-Zionist “neoconservative” research centers has come
under scrutiny from The Nation, the influential public affairs weekly.
[9]

The author, Jason Vest, examined the close links between the Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for
Security Policy (CSP), detailing the ties between these groups and
various politicians, arms merchants, military men, wealthy pro-Israel
American Jews, and Republican presidential administrations

JINSA and CSP members, notes Vest, “have ascended to powerful
government posts, where... they’ve managed to weave a number of issues
– support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control
treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey
and American unilateralism in general – into a hard line, with support
for the Israeli right at its core... On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard
line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war – not just
with Iraq, but ‘total war,’ as Michael Ledeen, one of the most
influential JINSAns in Washington, put it... For this crew, ‘regime
change’ by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and
the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative.”

Samuel Francis, author, editor and columnist, also looked into the
“neo-conservative” role in fomenting war. [10]

“My own answer,” he wrote, “is that the lie [that a massively-armed
Iraq posed a grave and imminent threat to the US] was fabricated by
neo-conservatives in the administration whose first loyalty is to
Israel and its interests and who wanted the United States to smash
Iraq because it was the biggest potential threat to Israel in the
region. They are known to have been pushing for war with Iraq since at
least 1996, but they could not make an effective case for it until
after Sept. 11, 2001...”

In the aftermath of the 2001 Nine-Eleven terror attacks, ardently pro-
Zionist “neo-conservatives” in the Bush administration – who for years
had sought a Middle East war to bolster Israel’s security in the
region – exploited the tragedy to press their agenda. In this they
were backed by the Israeli government, which also pressured the White
House to strike Iraq.

“The [Israeli] military and political leadership yearns for war in
Iraq,” reported a leading Israeli daily paper, Haaretz, in February
2002. [11]

The Jerusalem correspondent for the Guardian, the respected British
daily, reported in August 2002: “Israel signalled its decision
yesterday to put public pressure on President George Bush to go ahead
with a military attack on Iraq, even though it believes Saddam Hussein
may well retaliate by striking Israel.” [12]

Three months before the US invasion, the well-informed Washington
journalist Robert Novak reported that Israeli prime minister Sharon
was telling American political leaders that “the greatest US
assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi
regime.” Moreover, added Novak, “that view is widely shared inside the
Bush administration, and is a major reason why US forces today are
assembling for war.” [13]

Israel’s spy agencies were a “full partner” with the US and Britain in
producing greatly exaggerated prewar assessments of Iraq’s ability to
wage war, a former senior Israeli military intelligence official has
acknowledged. Shlomo Bron, a brigadier general in the Israel army
reserves, and a senior researcher at a major Israeli think tank, said
that intelligence provided by Israel played a significant role in
supporting the US and British case for making war. Israeli
intelligence agencies, he said, “badly overestimated the Iraqi threat
to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the
weapons [of mass destruction] existed.” [14]

The role of the pro-Israel lobby in pressing for war has been
carefully examined by two prominent American scholars, John J.
Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of
Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, professor of international affairs at
Harvard University. [15] In an 81-page paper, "The Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign Policy," they wrote:

“Pressure from Israel and the [pro-Israel] 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… Within the United States, the main driving force behind the
Iraq war was a small band of neoconservatives, many with close ties to
Israel’s Likud Party. In addition, key leaders of the Lobby’s major
organizations lent their voices to the campaign for war.”

Important members of the pro-Israel lobby carried out what professors
Mearshiemer and Walt call “an unrelenting public relations campaign to
win support for invading Iraq. A key part of this campaign was the
manipulation of intelligence information, so as to make Saddam look
like an imminent threat.”

For some Jewish leaders, the Iraq war is part of a long-range effort
to install Israel-friendly regimes across the Middle East. Norman
Podhoretz, a prominent Jewish writer and an ardent supporter of
Israel, has been for years editor of Commentary, the influential
Zionist monthly. In the Sept. 2002 issue he wrote:

“The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not
confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil [Iraq,
Iran, North Korea]. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and
Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘friends’ of America like the Saudi
royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian
Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen.”

Patrick J. Buchanan, the well-known writer and commentator, and former
White House Communications director, has been blunt in identifying
those who pushed for war: [16]

“We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to
ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s
interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those
wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately
damaging US relations with every state in the Arab world that defies
Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of
their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all
over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris,
and bellicosity...

“Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds
nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to
survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the
West and Islam?

“Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.”

Uri Avnery – an award-winning Israeli journalist and author, and a
three-time member of Israel’s parliament – sees the Iraq war as an
expression of immense Jewish influence and power. In an essay written
some weeks after the US invasion, he wrote: [17]

"Who are the winners? They are the so-called neo-cons, or neo-
conservatives. A compact group, almost all of whose members are
Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration, as
well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in formulating
American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential news­papers...
The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its
close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists,
who nowadays control Bush's Republican party. ... Seemingly, all this
is good for Israel. America controls the world, we control America.
Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center
of world power.”

In Britain, a veteran member of Britain’s House of Commons bluntly
declared in May 2003 that Jews had taken control of America’s foreign
policy, and had succeeded in pushing the US into war. “A Jewish cabal
have taken over the government in the United States and formed an
unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians,” said Tam Dalyell, a
Labour party deputy and the longest-serving House member. “There is
far too much Jewish influence in the United States,” he added. [18]

Summary

For many years now, American presidents of both parties have been
staunchly committed to Israel and its security. This entrenched policy
is an expression of the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s political and
cultural life. It was fervent support for Israel – shared by President
Bush, high-ranking administration officials and nearly the entire US
Congress – that proved crucial in the decision to invade and subdue
one of Israel’s greatest regional enemies.

While the unprovoked US invasion of Iraq may have helped Israel, just
as those who wanted and planned for the war had hoped, it has been a
calamity for America and the world. It has cost many tens of thousands
of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Around the world, it has
generated unmatched distrust and hostility toward the US. In Arab and
Muslim countries, it has fueled intense hatred of the United States,
and has brought many new recruits to the ranks of anti-American
terrorists.

Americans have already paid a high price for their nation’s commitment
to Israel. We will pay an ever higher price – not just in dollars or
international prestige, but in the lives of young men squandered for
the interests of a foreign state – until the Jewish-Zionist hold on US
political life is finally broken.

[CoalMineCanary]

In article
<3dfd0bc5-42c1-4690...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,

"Love Europe, Hate the EU" <eu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Iraq: A War For Israel
> By Mark Weber
>
> The U.S. invasion of Iraq in March-April 2003, and the occupation of
> the country since then, has cost more than four thousand American
> lives and more than $500 billion, and has brought death to many tens
> of thousands of Iraqis.
>
> Why did President Bush decide to go to war? In whose interests was it
> launched?
>
> In the months leading up to the attack, President Bush and other high-
> ranking US officials repeatedly warned that the threat posed to the US
> and world by the Baghdad regime was so grave and imminent that the
> United States had to act quickly to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq.
>
> On Sept. 28, 2002, for example, he said:
>
> �The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi
> regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the
> facilities to make more and, according to the British government,
> could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45

> minutes after the order is given... This regime is seeking a nu-clear

> bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.�
>
> On March 6, 2003, President Bush declared:
>
> �Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country,
> to our people, and to all free people... I believe Saddam Hussein is a
> threat to the American people. I believe he�s a threat to the
> neighborhood in which he lives. And I�ve got good evidence to believe
> that. He has weapons of mass destruction... The American people know
> that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.�
>
> These claims were untrue. As the world now knows, Iraq had no
> dangerous �weapons of mass destruction,� and posed no threat to the
> US. Moreover, alarmist suggestions that the Baghdad regime was working
> with the al-Qaeda terror network likewise proved to be without
> foundation.
>
> So if the official reasons given for the war were untrue, why did the
> United States attack Iraq?
>
> Whatever the secondary reasons for the war, the crucial factor in
> President Bush�s decision to attack was to help Israel. With support
> from Israel and America�s Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish
> �neo-conservatives� holding high-level positions in his

> administration, President Bush � who was already fervently com-mitted

> American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential news-papers...

and there are other reasons for these Wars.
The Neo-Cons have lusted for their own OPEC.
The banks want poppy production maintained.
The U.$. wants an excuse to invade Pakistan for the Nukes.
The U.$. wants to prevent Iran from attacking Israel.
have I missed a few?
--
Hint; Enjoy the moment !