portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation

Why Jared Israel Is Attacking Scott Ritter And Deceiving The 9-11 Truth Movement

Introductory note by John Kaminski: This is a brave and brilliant overview of the overwhelming pressure Israel exerts on the United States that should be read if not memorized by every single person concerned about the future of America, and the lies our leaders keep telling us. This penetrating, comprehensive look at deceptions within the 9/11 Truth Movement is the finest example I've ever seen that not all Jews condone the hijacking of American foreign policy by the Zionist spin machine. The evidence presented here puts to rest any doubt that America's adventure in Iraq was principally crafted by Israeli double agents who pose as presidential advisers, and even spotlights members of the Israeli military who regard this as a fact and question the lies shaped by Israel that were told to start the Iraq war. It is an inspiring plea for all Americans to recognize the danger that Israeli influence poses to the future of America.
Why Jared Israel Is Attacking Scott Ritter And Deceiving The 9-11 Truth Movement

By Mark S. Bilk


Jared Israel says that Scott Ritter changed his description of why he left UNSCOM, and is therefore a liar, and that he abruptly changed from a hawk to a dove on Iraq, and is therefore an agent of military intelligence. The first claim has to be evaluated very carefully from Ritter's actual statements. The conclusion of the second claim makes no sense at all. Also, Jared seems to label Ritter as a "hawk" for favoring "confrontations" with Iraq, but what Ritter was talking about were confrontational (i.e., unannounced and vigorous) *inspections*. That's not being a "hawk", which is a person who advocates war.

I present evidence here that Jared Israel has many lies on his own website, which have the purpose of covering up the role of the state of Israel in perpetrating the war on Iraq by proxy via the Bush administration neocons (as well as covering up and justifying Israel's mass robbery, torture, and murder of the Palestinians). In fact, most of his home page, and much of his entire website, is now devoted to lying propaganda on behalf of the state of Israel, rather than information about 9-11 and Yugoslavia. To put it simply, Jared Israel is a total zionist.

And Scott Ritter has voiced many criticisms of the state of Israel, thus providing a backer of Israel, such as Jared, with many motives for attacking him:

1. Ritter tried to stop the U.S. from attacking Iraq (while the state of Israel wanted the attack to happen), by exposing the "evidence" of Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) as false.

2. He criticized Israel for its role in *providing* false evidence of WMD in Iraq.

3. He criticized the neocons for their close ties to Israel, putting the good of that nation ahead of the interests of the U.S.

4. He criticized the neocons for sending U.S. soldiers to die to protect Israel, saying this is "a travesty".

5. He criticized the idea of a "Greater Israel" the zionist goal of annexing large sections of the nations around it.

6. He criticized the Israeli government for instructing its citizens to open the seals on their gas masks when the attack on Iraq began, even though it knew that Iraq had no WMD. This act of propaganda cost Israel billions, because the masks or the absorbent substances in them will now have to be replaced.

It therefore appears very likely that Jared Israel's extreme hostility toward Scott Ritter, and his attempt to pressure the New York 9-11 truth movement into dropping Ritter from its upcoming public presentation, is an attempt to discredit Ritter and to fraudulently invalidate his criticisms of the state of Israel. And this is why Jared Israel is willing to *sabotage* the breakthrough of 9-11 information into the antiwar movement as brought in by Scott Ritter, which is the all-important step for spreading the information widely and thus stopping the bogus "War on Terror" actually an eternal war of world conquest with its Nazi police state, mass murder attacks on many nations and possible nuclear war.

Furthermore, there have been recent reports that the U.S. has been secretly moving old "weapons of mass destruction" (chemical or biological) into Iraq, with the intention of "discovering" them, to serve as a pretext for extending the U.S. war of mass murder and wreckage of Iraq's infrastructure. This would continue to be largely on behalf of the state of Israel, which wants Iraq destroyed to the point where it is no longer a modern technological nation. And who would be the public figure with the greatest experience and authority to debunk this "discovery" and prove that the weapons had been planted, thus thwarting the intentions of the state of Israel? None other than Scott Ritter!

An important part of solving any crime is knowing who had the motive who benefits cui bono, because they are the natural suspects. Israel has used 9-11 as an excuse to greatly intensify its attacks on the Palestinians (whom it has long called "terrorists"), and as the means to attack Iraq (by proxy, using the zionist neocons).

Yet, contrary to a great deal of evidence, Jared Israel denies that the Israeli government wants to get rid of the Palestinians, denies that Israel wants Iraq destroyed, and denies that the neocons are backers of Israel (zionists). Thus, despite his reputation as one of the first 9-11 researchers, Jared Israel is now trying to deceive the 9-11 truth movement, and the world, about these very important aspects of the motivation for 9-11. And the fact that these *were* motivations for 9-11 is proven conclusively by one single piece of evidence the "dancing Israelis", the Mossad agents that were seen filming the attack and collapse of the WTC towers and dancing with glee. This proves that the state of Israel had planned to benefit from 9-11 *before* it happened.

For Jared Israel, a 9-11 researcher, to lie about some of the motives for 9-11, and thus try to divert attention away from some of the likely perpetrators of the crime, is an extremely harmful action a betrayal that is far worse than anything he has accused Scott Ritter of doing. It means that Jared Israel cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about any aspect of 9-11 or current events that even remotely involves the state of Israel.


The rest of this paper presents the detailed evidence that support the above statements. Many of these are in the form of the Web address of an article followed by some pertinent excerpts from it. They are arranged in the following sections:

A. The concise history of Palestine, zionism and Israel.  http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/bilk01.htm#A

B. Jared Israel's lies in support of the state of Israel.  http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/bilk01.htm#B

C. The close alliance between the Neocons and the hardline zionist Likud government of the state of Israel.  http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/bilk01.htm#C

D. The Israeli government's wish that Iraq be attacked and its assistance in providing false evidence of Iraqi WMD. The Neocons' intention to attack Iraq on behalf of Israel.  http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/bilk01.htm#D

E. The Neocons' intention to attack Syria on behalf of Israel.  http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/bilk01.htm#E

F. Statements by Scott Ritter critical of Israel.  http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/bilk01.htm#F


A. The concise history of Palestine, zionism and Israel.

If you are not familiar with the history of Palestine, Zionism, and Israel, or if you think there is still some doubt as to which side are the genocidal murderers and which side are the victims trying to defend themselves and get their country back, you can learn the facts by reading these two concise and well referenced on-line booklets, both written by jewish people. It doesn't take long to read both of them, and it's important to know this history in order to realize how outrageous the lies are about Israel and the Palestinians on Jared Israel's website.

The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict

The Hidden History of Zionism, by Ralph Schoenman (1988)


"Britain's high commissioner for Palestine, John Chancellor, recommended total suspension of Jewish immigration and land purchase to protect Arab agriculture. He said 'all cultivable land was occupied; that no cultivable land now in possession of the indigenous population could be sold to Jews without creating a class of landless Arab cultivators'...The Colonial Office rejected the recommendation."
Thus there was no empty land in Palestine for Zionists to farm, and no reason for them to go there, because millions of european jews had emigrated easily to safety in the U.S. and other nations. It was purely the Zionists' forcing or enticing jews to emigrate to Palestine, which was totally unnecessary, that caused the Palestinians to be forced off of almost all of their land, which is what the Zionists had planned from the very beginning.


"[The Ottoman Land Code of 1858] required the registration in the name of individual owners of agricultural land ... Under the provisions of the 1858 law, communal rights of tenure were often ignored...Instead, members of the upper classes, adept at manipulating or circumventing the legal process, registered large areas of land as theirs. ... The fellahin [peasants] naturally considered the land to be theirs, and often discovered that they had ceased to be the legal owners only when the land was sold to Jewish settlers by an absentee landlord."

"Didn't the Zionists legally buy much of the land before Israel was established?
"In 1948, at the moment that Israel declared itself a state, it legally owned a little more than 6 percent of the land of Palestine."

And of course neither England, with its "Balfour Declaration", nor later the United Nations in 1947, had any moral right to give any part of Palestine to the zionists. So how did the UN partition of Palestine come about? By pressure from jewish people in the U.S., plus the usual style of U.S. domination by force:


Why did the UN recommend the plan partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state?
"By this time [November 1947] the United States had emerged as the most aggressive proponent of partition ... The United States got the General Assembly to delay a vote 'to gain time to bring certain Latin American republics into line with its own views.' ... Some delegates charged U.S. officials with 'diplomatic intimidation.' Without 'terrific pressure' from the United States on 'governments which cannot afford to risk American reprisals,' said an anonymous editorial writer, the resolution 'would never have passed.'" John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

Why was this Truman's position?

"I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents." President Harry Truman, quoted in "Anti Zionism", ed. by Teikener, Abed-Rabbo & Mezvinsky.

In short, the zionists had no moral basis at all for robbing the land of Palestine from its people. The zionists purchased only a tiny portion of the land, and that from dishonest absentee landlords, not from the people who lived there. And neither Britain nor the U.N. had the right to give Palestine to them. Therefore the Palestinians have the right to fight back against the Israelis; even Gandhi said that!

One final thing: here you can read how the zionists collaborated with the Nazis during World War II to prevent jews from emigrating to anywhere except Palestine, and then letting only a few go there and killing the rest. Yes, the *zionists* agreed to allow 800,000 hungarian jews to be murdered by the Nazis, as long as 600 selected jews could emigrate to Palestine.



B. Jared Israel's lies in support of the state of Israel.

You can begin either at his home page or the index page of his articles on Israel, and, knowing the actual history from reading the references in Section A above, note that his version reverses the roles of predator and victim.


Throughout, he attributes the hostility of the Palestinians toward the zionist settlers to antisemitism, rather than the obvious fact that the Palestinians knew that the zionists were taking Palestine from them piece by piece, and didn't like it.


"What the Jews did was buy land from people who wanted to sell it. The Jews needed to buy land on which to farm, and they could only buy it from those people who had title to the land. A long history of feudal exploitation of the Arab lower classes by the Arab upper classes in Palestine cannot suddenly become the fault of "the Jews" just because they buy some land."
Here, Jared Israel (or his partner Gil-White I don't distinguish between them since Jared approves of everything on his website) says it was perfectly alright for the zionist settlers to knowingly purchase land from the wealthy landlords who had fraudulently taken title to it under the 1858 Ottoman law, and thus to dispossess and evict the Palestinian farmers who were living and working there. In other words, the morality of the situation doesn't matter to Jared Israel; as long as the zionists could use an immoral law to rob Palestinians of their land, it's OK with him. Plus, he doesn't mention that the zionists had only purchased 6 percent of the land that they then seized by murderous force in 1948.


"following the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, practically all the Yemenite, Iraqi, and Libyan Jews and major parts of the other Oriental Jewish communities migrated to Israel." ... they *fled* the countries where their ancestors had lived for a hundred generations or more.
Thus, the general perception that Arabs are the only refugees produced by the Arab-Jewish conflicts since 1947 is simply wrong. The difference is that Jewish refugees who fled to Israel and who had everything taken from them in the process became Israeli citizens (or citizens of other countries). By way of contrast, Palestinian refugees were refused citizenship by every Arab state except Jordan.

And this means that... **The Arab States, Not Israel, Are Responsible For The Palestinian Refugee Problem**

First, Jared Israel says that in 1948, when Israel was created, jews in various Arab nations were forced to flee to Israel. If that is true, then, putting aside the fact that Israel was created with no moral basis whatsoever, by military force and mass murder, the existence of jewish refugees does not in any way justify robbing Palestinians of their land and making them refugees. The jewish refugees could have been settled in the U.S. or elsewhere.

Second, Jared Israel describes the robbery, expulsion and slaughter of Palestinians in 1948 and thereafter as "refugees produced by the Arab-Jewish conflicts since 1947". The actual procedures by which the zionists invaded and took over Palestine are described here; this mass murder, with no moral basis whatsoever, is totally approved of by Jared Israel, and furthermore he doesn't even mention it in an article about the creation of Israel, so his readers won't know that it ever happened.


"The IZL (Irgun) and Lehi (Stern Gang) irregulars left the places in which they had been hiding and started carrying out clean-up operations in the houses. They fired with all the arms they had, and threw explosives into the buildings. They also shot everyone they saw in the houses, including women and children" ...
Here the "clean-up" had been done with machine guns, then hand grenades. It had been finished off with knives, anyone could see that. The same thing in the next room, but as I was about to leave, I heard something like a sigh. I looked everywhere, turned over all the bodies, and eventually found a little foot, still warm. It was a little girl of ten, mutilated by a hand grenade, but still alive ... everywhere it was the same horrible sight ... there had been four hundred people in this village; about fifty of them had escaped and were still alive. All the rest had been deliberately massacred in cold blood ...

They killed between eighty to one hundred Arab men, women and children. To kill the children they [soldiers] fractured their heads with sticks. There was not one home without corpses. The men and women of the villages were pushed into houses without food or water. Then the saboteurs came to dynamite them.

One commander ordered a soldier to bring two women into a building he was about to blow up ... Another soldier prided himself upon having raped an Arab woman before shooting her to death. Another Arab woman with her newborn baby was made to clean the place for a couple of days, and then they shot her and the baby."

Third, after the Palestinians were expelled from their country by these methods, Jared Israel says that the Israelis did not cause their plight, rather it was caused by other Arab states that didn't let them in.

Can we trust a person who accepts such totally immoral and insane ideas to tell the truth?

Now we get to Jared Israel's lies about Israel, Iraq, and the neocons. These are in the same web article in which he smears Scott Ritter:


A large part of this article claims to be an analysis of a speech given by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir which you can find here:


Jared claims that the speech is full of terrible antisemitism, and that its ideas came from the infamous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", in fact he makes this claim about eight times. But not only does the speech not mention the "Protocols" anywhere, it is hardly antisemitic at all. Here are all of Mahathir's mentions of "jews", "jewish", etc:

[Muslim] states were weak and badly administered, constantly in a state of turmoil. The Europeans could do what they liked with Muslim territories. It is not surprising that they should excise Muslim land to create the state of Israel to solve their Jewish problem. Divided, the Muslims could do nothing effective to stop the Balfour and Zionist transgression.
There is a feeling of hopelessness among the Muslim countries and their people. They feel ... [they] will forever be oppressed and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews.
1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way.
We are actually very strong. 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.
We also know that not all non-Muslims are against us. Some are well disposed towards us. Some even see our enemies as their enemies. Even among the Jews there are many who do not approve of what the Israelis are doing.

He does say "Jews", when the accurate term would be "most Israelis, with the support of most, but not all, Jews in the world", but he does explicitly acknowledge that some Jews don't support Israel's imperialism and mass murder. He also says that jews "have now gained control of the most powerful countries", and this is *true*, in the sense that Israel has so much power in the U.S. and England that it can, for example, order these nations to destroy Iraq and they will do it *have* done it!

Now here is where Jared Israel tries to convince people that the state of Israel did not want the U.S. to attack Iraq:

By spreading the false idea that the US is dominated by Israel, or 'The Jews,' everything the US does is explained as Israel's policy: the war in Iraq, the takeover of Afghanistan, even the covert sponsorship of Islamist terror. You name it. Anything and everything.
This belief is so full of factual and logical holes it would leak in the rain. But people are not presented with the evidence that shows the absurdity of the notion that a pro-Israel cabal is running the U.S.

Consider the argument that the US invaded Iraq to help Israel.

In fact, from a geopolitical standpoint, the invasion of Iraq was terrible for Israel. Why? Because Saddam Hussein's Iraq was hostile to the leaders of both Saudi Arabia and Iran. Situated between them, it hindered both; so the destruction of Hussein's horrible Baath dictatorship has removed an obstacle to the power of the Saudi and Iranian regimes, both of which lead international Islamist movements with antisemitism as a motivating force and the destruction of Israel as a central goal. [9C]

What country fought Iran in a fierce war that lasted almost a decade? Israel? No, Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

What next door neighbor threatened Saudi Arabia and challenged it for leadership of the Sunni Muslim world? Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Well, this may sound convincing unless you read the *facts* in the many articles in Section D, which report that Israel helped provide the falsified WMD evidence that the Bush junta used to justify the attack on Iraq, that Israel is training American soldiers in urban warfare for Iraq, that Ariel Sharon urged the U.S. not to delay attacking Iraq, that the Israeli government is upset that the Iraqis are fighting back, etc.

So Jared Israel is *lying through his teeth* when he claims that Israel did not want Iraq to be attacked!

Now we get to his claims that the neocons aren't zionists and aren't carrying out Israel's policies.

Articles in the mass media, carefully calculated actions and statements of Bush administration officials, and the statements and writings of Bush critics create a certain impression. That impression is that Jewish or pro-Jewish neoconservatives have taken control of the Bush administration and use their power supposedly to direct US foreign policy to serve evil Israeli (i.e. Jewish) ends.
First of all, the fact that Jared is saying that the U.S. mass media are scheming *against* the state of Israel, when in fact they almost never report, e.g., Israeli mass murders of Palestinians, and almost always refer to Palestinian fighters as "terrorists" means that he is absolutely untrustworthy, whether he is just cynically lying, or is so deluded that he actually believes this stuff. (Jared, not Gil-White, wrote this article.)

Second, if you read the articles in Section C, you will find that the neoconservatives *are* the Bush administration, and they are most certainly using their power (and our money) to serve evil Israeli ends (as well as to get control over the planet's oil reserves), although not *jewish* ends Jared threw that in as a straw man. Of course, you probably know all this already. But Jared Israel is trying to convince you that it's all an illusion.


C. The close alliance between the Neocons and the hardline Zionist Likud government of the state of Israel.


How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington and Launched a War
by Michael Lind
April 10, 2003

The Israel lobby itself is divided into Jewish and Christian wings. [Neocons] Wolfowitz and Feith have close ties to the Jewish-American Israel lobby. Wolfowitz, who has relatives in Israel, has served as the Bush administration's liaison to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Feith was given an award by the Zionist Organization of America, citing him as a "pro-Israel activist." While out of power in the Clinton years, Feith collaborated with Perle to coauthor a policy paper for Likud that advised the Israeli government to end the Oslo peace process, reoccupy the territories, and crush Yasser Arafat's government.



Bush is intent on painting allies and enemies in the Middle East as evil
By Robert Fisk
10 September 2002

... a large number of former Israeli lobbyists are now working within the American administration and the Bush plans for the Middle East which could cause a massive political upheaval in the Arab world fit perfectly into Israel's own dreams for the region. [The Nation] listed Vice-President Dick Cheney the arch-hawk in the US administration and John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for Arms Control, with Douglas Feith, the third most senior executive at the Pentagon, as members of the advisory board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) before joining the Bush government. Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, is still an adviser on the institute, as is the former CIA director James Woolsey.

Michael Ledeen, described by The Nation as "one of the most influential 'JINSAns' in Washington" has been calling for "total war" against "terror" with "regime change" for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Mr Perle advises the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld who refers to the West Bank and Gaza as "the so-called occupied territories"
JINSA's website says it exists to "inform the American defence and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East".
According to The Nation, Irving Moskovitz, the California bingo magnate who has funded settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, is a donor as well as a director of JINSA.



Mother Jones January/February 2004 Issue

The Lie Factory
By Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest

[Neocon] Feith, a former aide to [neocon] Richard Perle at the Pentagon in the 1980s and an activist in far-right Zionist circles, held the view that there was no difference between U.S. and Israeli security policy and that the best way to secure both countries' future was to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem not by serving as a broker, but with the United States as a force for "regime change" in the region.
Along with Perle and Feith, in 1996 Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav, wrote a provocative strategy paper for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It called on Israel to work with Jordan and Turkey to "contain, destabilize and roll back" various states in the region, overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq, press Jordan to restore a scion of the Hashemite dynasty to the Iraqi throne, and, above all, launch military assaults against Lebanon and Syria as a "prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity."



The Men From JINSA and CSP
by Jason Vest
August 15, 2002

According to its website, JINSA [Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs] exists to "educate the American public about the importance of an effective US defense capability so that our vital interests as Americans can be safeguarded" and to "inform the American defense and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East."
JINSA relishes denouncing virtually any type of contact between the US government and Syria and finding new ways to demonize the Palestinians. To give but one example (and one that kills two birds with one stone): According to JINSA, not only is Yasir Arafat in control of all violence in the occupied territories, but he orchestrates the violence solely "to protect Saddam.... Saddam is at the moment Arafat's only real financial supporter.... [Arafat] has no incentive to stop the violence against Israel and allow the West to turn its attention to his mentor and paymaster." And if there's a way to advance other aspects of the far-right agenda by intertwining them with Israeli interests, JINSA doesn't hesitate there, either. A recent report contends that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge must be tapped because "the Arab oil-producing states" are countries "with interests inimical to ours," but Israel "stand[s] with us when we need [Israel]," and a US policy of tapping oil under ANWR will "limit [the Arabs'] ability to do damage to either of us."

The bulk of JINSA's modest annual budget is spent on taking a bevy of retired US generals and admirals to Israel, where JINSA facilitates meetings between Israeli officials and the still-influential US flag officers, who, upon their return to the States, happily write op-eds and sign letters and advertisements championing the Likudnik line. (Sowing seeds for the future, JINSA also takes US service academy cadets to Israel each summer and sponsors a lecture series at the Army, Navy and Air Force academies.)
Almost every retired officer who sits on JINSA's board of advisers or has participated in its Israel trips or signed a JINSA letter works or has worked with military contractors who do business with the Pentagon and Israel.


This paper is *by* the U.S. neocons, not about them. It's the actual "A Clean Break" strategy document from an Israeli organization that shows the neocons' dedication to the state of Israel.


A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000."
* paralleling Syria's behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

* striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.

This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right
Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
David Wurmser, IASPS
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University


D. The Israeli government's intention that Iraq be attacked and its assistance in providing false evidence of Iraqi WMD. The Neocons' intention to attack Iraq on behalf of Israel.


The spies who pushed for war
Thursday July 17, 2003

Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force
According to former Bush officials, all defence and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defence Intelligence Agency.

The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hardline conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.
"They surveyed data and picked out what they liked," said Gregory Thielmann, a senior official in the state department's intelligence bureau until his retirement in September. "The whole thing was bizarre. The secretary of defence had this huge defence intelligence agency, and he went around it."

In fact, the OSP's activities were a complete mystery to the DIA and the Pentagon.
The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.

"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.

The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.

In 1996, he and Richard Perle now an influential Pentagon figure served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.


PM urging U.S. not to delay strike against Iraq

Friday, August 16 2002
By Aluf Benn

Israel is pressing the United States not to defer action aimed at toppling Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has sent messages to the U.S. administration in recent days saying that postponing the Iraq operation "will not create a more convenient environment for action in the future." But Sharon added that Israel would support any American action, and would respect U.S. decisions regarding the method and the timing.



Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel Bush Adviser
by Emad Mekay
Monday, March 29, 2004

WASHINGTON IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States 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 U.S. ally in the Middle East.



US, Israel prepare mass killings in Iraq
By Bill Vann
10 December 2003

The Bush administration is about to launch a campaign of wholesale killings in Iraq with the assistance of the Israeli military, according to both US and Israeli sources quoted in several recent news reports.

Frustrated over the growing popular resistance to the US military occupation and determined to reduce US casualties in Iraq before next November's election, the administration has authorized a policy that could well resemble the infamous "Operation Phoenix" assassination program run by the CIA during the Vietnam War. That operation claimed the lives of as many as 41,000 Vietnamese over a four-year period beginning in 1968.

In preparation for the new counterinsurgency campaign, the US military has brought urban warfare specialists from the Israeli Defenses Force (IDF) to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the headquarters of the US Special Forces. They are training assassination teams in methods that the IDF has used to suppress Palestinian resistance to the Israel occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

"This is basically an assassination program.... This is a hunter-killer team," a former senior intelligence official told the British Guardian newspaper. He warned that Washington's reliance on Israeli assistance in launching the operation would only intensify anger over the US occupation throughout the Middle East.



Date: 2003-12-12 09:18:13 PST

"A key U.S. ally behind-the-scenes in the war in Iraq, Israel has been contributing intelligence, tactics and technology mostly in secret to avert an Arab backlash, congressional aides and analysts said" today in Washington.

MID-EAST REALITIES MER www.MiddleEast.Org Washington 11 December 2003:

Even with a former ranking Israeli official publicly calling for an investigation of the false and misleading information provided by the Israelis to push the U.S. to invade Iraq, still official Washington cowers.

Inquiry urged into Iraq war intelligence supplied by Israel
By Joshua Mitnick

[The Washington Times 5 December TEL AVIV] An Israeli reserve brigadier general has called for an investigation of the role his country's intelligence community played in overstating the threat of Saddam Hussein's unconventional arsenal before the Iraq war.

Arguing that the United States and Britain also exaggerated the threat from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, the general said in a research paper, "The third party in this intelligence failure, Israel, has remained in the shadows."

"Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence," wrote Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom, now a fellow at Tel Aviv University's Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies. He said Israel should investigate the handling of the prewar intelligence reports.



Israel linked to Iraq intelligence failure, general says
By Molly Moore
December 6, 2003

Israel was a "full partner" in American and British intelligence failures that exaggerated former president Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs before the US-led invasion of Iraq, a report by an Israeli military research centre has alleged.

"The failures of this war indicate weaknesses and inherent flaws within Israeli intelligence and among Israeli decision-makers," Brigadier-General Shlomo Brom wrote in an analysis for Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies.

Israeli intelligence services and political leaders provided "an exaggerated assessment of Iraqi capabilities", raising "the possibility that the intelligence picture was manipulated", wrote General Brom, former deputy commander of the Israeli military's planning division.
"In the questioning of the picture painted by coalition intelligence, the third party in this intelligence failure, Israel, has remained in the shadows," the report said.

"Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq's non-conventional capabilities.
The report prompted Israeli lawmaker Yossi Sarid, a member of the Meretz party, to renew his previous demands for an investigation. The report said the Israeli defence establishment spent "a great deal of money on addressing threats that were either non-existent or highly unlikely".

Washington Post




Israel unsettled by US Iraq quagmire
by Khalid Amayreh in Occupied Jerusalem
Sunday 11 April 2004 4:52 PM GMT

Resistance in Iraq is worrying Israeli leaders

Israeli political and military leaders are increasingly apprehensive at the "unpleasant developments" in Iraq, a reference to mounting Iraqi resistance to occupiers.

On Thursday, top Israeli military and intelligence chiefs met in Tel Aviv to discuss the "deterioration of the security situation in Iraq" and its possible ramifications on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

At the end of the meeting, Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz said he was confident the "coalition forces will prevail over the terrorists."

Mofaz also reportedly conveyed his condolences to his American counterpart, Donald Rumsfeld, for the death of a few dozen American occupation troops in battle with Iraqi resistance fighters.

Likewise, the Israeli state-run radio began referring to slain American soldiers as "Challalim" or martyrs.



Too Many Smoking Guns to Ignore: Israel, American Jews, and the War on Iraq
by BILL and KATHLEEN CHRISTISON former CIA political analysts
January 25, 2003

Most of the vociferously pro-Israeli neo-conservative policymakers in the Bush administration make no effort to hide the fact that at least part of their intention in promoting war against Iraq (and later perhaps against Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians) is to guarantee Israel's security by eliminating its greatest military threats, forging a regional balance of power overwhelmingly in Israel's favor, and in general creating a more friendly atmosphere for Israel in the Middle East. Yet, despite the neo-cons' own openness, a great many of those on the left who oppose going to war with Iraq and oppose the neo-conservative doctrines of the Bush administration nonetheless utterly reject any suggestion that Israel is pushing the United States into war, or is cooperating with the U.S., or even hopes to benefit by such a war. Anyone who has the temerity to suggest any Israeli instigation of, or even involvement in, Bush administration war planning is inevitably labeled somewhere along the way as an anti-Semite. Just whisper the word "domination" anywhere in the vicinity of the word "Israel," as in "U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East" or "the U.S. drive to assure global domination and guarantee security for Israel," and some leftist who otherwise opposes going to war against Iraq will trot out charges of promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the old czarist forgery that asserted a Jewish plan for world domination.

This is tiresome, to put it mildly. So it's useful to put forth the evidence for the assertion of Israeli complicity in Bush administration planning for war with Iraq, which is voluminous, as the following recitation will show. Much of what is presented below could be classified as circumstantial, but much is from the mouths of the horses themselves, either the neo-con planners or Israeli government officials, and much of it is evidence that, even if Israel is not actively pushing for war, many Israelis expect to benefit from it, and this despite their fear that a war will bring down on Israel a shower of Iraqi missiles.

The evidence below is listed chronologically, except for two items grouped separately at the end. Although deletions have been made for the sake of brevity, and emphasis has been added to occasional phrases and sentences, no editorial narrative has been added. The evidence speaks for itself. ...



A Rose By Another Other Name
The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties
by KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON, former CIA political analysts
December 13, 2002

... The link between active promoters of Israeli interests and policymaking circles is stronger by several orders of magnitude in the Bush administration, which is peppered with people who have long records of activism on behalf of Israel in the United States, of policy advocacy in Israel, and of promoting an agenda for Israel often at odds with existing U.S. policy. These people, who can fairly be called Israeli loyalists, are now at all levels of government, from desk officers at the Defense Department to the deputy secretary level at both State and Defense, as well as on the National Security Council staff and in the vice president's office.

We still tiptoe around putting a name to this phenomenon. We write articles about the neo-conservatives' agenda on U.S.-Israeli relations and imply that in the neo-con universe there is little light between the two countries. We talk openly about the Israeli bias in the U.S. media. We make wry jokes about Congress being "Israeli-occupied territory." Jason Vest in The Nation magazine reported forthrightly that some of the think tanks that hold sway over Bush administration thinking see no difference between U.S. and Israeli national security interests. But we never pronounce the particular words that best describe the real meaning of those observations and wry remarks. It's time, however, that we say the words out loud and deal with what they really signify.

Dual loyalties. The issue we are dealing with in the Bush administration is dual loyalties the double allegiance of those myriad officials at high and middle levels who cannot distinguish U.S. interests from Israeli interests, who baldly promote the supposed identity of interests between the United States and Israel, who spent their early careers giving policy advice to right-wing Israeli governments and now give the identical advice to a right-wing U.S. government, and who, one suspects, are so wrapped up in their concern for the fate of Israel that they honestly do not know whether their own passion about advancing the U.S. imperium is motivated primarily by America-first patriotism or is governed first and foremost by a desire to secure Israel's safety and predominance in the Middle East through the advancement of the U.S. imperium.
[12 pages of examples follow]


E. The Neocons' intention to attack Syria on behalf of Israel.


March 10, 2004
Neocons' Iraq Strategy Now Focused on Syria
by Tom Barry

Immediately before the Iraq invasion, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security traveled to Israel and promised Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran, and North Korea afterwards." In April 2003 Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz warned: "There's got to be a change in Syria."
One of the key figures who has set Washington on the road to Damascus is Ziad K. Abdelnour, an expatriate investment banker from Lebanon who, together with neocon supporters of Israel's Likud Party and the Christian Right, established the U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon (USCFL) in 1997.
The neoconservatives, strongly backed the right-wing Zionist lobby through such groups as the Orthodox Union and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, have followed a similar strategy to advance their agenda for political transformation in Syria and Lebanon. In much the same way that they moved forward their agenda for regime change in Iraq step by step, the neocon advocates for a radical transformation in the Middle East have in the case of Syria and Lebanon also formed a "front group" USCFL and supported bipartisan legislation that establishes the political base for sanctions against Iraq and eventual U.S. military action. USCFL's page of "selected links" recommends just three lobbying organizations: Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Christian Coalition of America.
USCFL's core supporters, which it calls its "Golden Circle," include several members of the Bush administration: Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Paula Dobriansky, Michael Rubin, and David Wurmser. Other prominent neocons in the Golden Circle include Daniel Pipes (Middle East Forum and U.S. Institute for Peace), Frank Gaffney (Center for Security Policy), Jeane Kirkpatrick (AEI), Michael Ledeen (AEI), David Steinmann (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), and Eleana Benador (Middle East Forum).
USCFL may be "non-sectarian," but its list of core supporters and the "pro-Lebanon" groups listed on its website signal its neoconservative and pro-Likud sympathies. Among the organizations interlocked with USCFL's Golden Circle include Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Project for the New American Century (PNAC), Center for Security Policy (CSP), Middle East Forum, Hudson Institute, and Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
The appointment of David Wurmser, a long-time advocate of U.S. military action against Syria, to the staff of Vice President Cheney in September 2003, followed by the president's signing of the Syria Accountability act in December were widely regarded as another signal that the U.S. regional restructuring crusade might soon be embarking on the road to Damascus. If the president imposes sanctions against Syria rather than attempting to engage it through diplomatic channels, it's likely that the Syrian regime will be painted with the same fear-mongering brush used to justify the invasion of Iraq. With Osama bin Laden still on the lam and bedlam in occupied Iraq, the Bush administration needs to refocus public attention on another evildoer which, not so coincidently, is also the next preferred target of the Likudniks in Israel.


F. Statements by Scott Ritter critical of Israel.


Scott Ritter on the Situation in Iraq

Pitt: Who in the American government is driving this push so far? You've heard recent comments by Condolezza Rice seeming to lay out only two options: do nothing or go to war.

Ritter: Condolezza Rice isn't a player.

Pitt: She is a mouthpiece. But for whom?

Ritter: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.

Pitt: Why?

Ritter: Because they come from a neo-conservative think-tank environment that has extremely close ties to Israel, and which views Iraq as a threat to Israel and the United States. They've committed themselves ideologically, politically, to Saddam Hussein's removal.



Active citizenship: Interview With Scott Ritter

SR: There's also the unspoken aspect of this cabal and I think it's got to be spoken about. I say this as someone who believes in Israel's right to exist but, having said that, there is an aspect of this project, the PNAC, which has Zionist elements to it. It's hard to speak of this, because the second you say anything you're accused of being anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli. But I believe in an Israel, not a "greater Israel", but one defined by the United Nations, and by the rule of law. Among the members of the PNAC are people who believe that aspects of US power have to be connected to the security of the state of Israel. That's why I'm concerned.

SI: Do you mean "who's next?" and that it won't stop at Iraq's borders?

SR: Right. Iraq is simply the case study for the implementationof this new doctrine of global hegemony. And now the same people who were saying "We needed to get rid of Saddam Hussein" are saying: "Well, now that we have all these troops here we need to turn left and go into Syria." And what for? To secure Israel's northern border. So there are US soldiers going to fight and die to secure Israel's border, without Israel being attacked. It's a travesty and needs to be looked at very carefully.



Claims Israel misled US over Iraq
February 4, 2004 8:07AM

A government critic said that Israel was aware before the war against Iraq that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, but Israel did not inform the United States.
"The Israeli intelligence reached this conclusion many years ago," Ritter told the Ynet internet site, affiliated with the Yediot Ahronot newspaper. "Despite this, the security establishment instructed citizens to open their gas masks, a move that cost Israel billions."

Ritter, an ex-Marine officer, has been a vocal critic of Bush's Iraq policies.



Arms Control Today June 2000
The Case for Iraq's Qualitative Disarmament
Scott Ritter
The Security Council must also follow through on the promise it made in paragraph 14 of Resolution 687, which speaks of regional disarmament. While monitoring-based inspections in Iraq must be expected to last indefinitely, they cannot be expected to last in a vacuum. Unless arrangements are made to address WMD programs in Iran and Israel, as well as the regional proliferation of advanced conventional weaponry, Iraq will never accept perpetual disarmament.


Copyright 2004 Mark S. Bilk,  mark@cosmicpenguin.com.

Published on Serendipity, 2004-04-22.

homepage: homepage: http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/bilk01.htm
address: address: Serendipity

The Mystery of Scott Ritter and the Iraq War 24.Apr.2004 11:42

Jared Israel

The Mystery of Scott Ritter and the Iraq War - Part 2

"A group of protesters momentarily disrupted Ritter's speech [at Drew University], calling him a CIA spy and accusing him of trying to incite the country and global community into another military strike against Iraq."
- (India) Tribune, 20 November 1998

by Jared Israel
[Posted 22 April 2004]


[ www.tenc.net ]

I concluded Part 1 of this article with a list of points I will deal with in subsequent sections. I left out an important issue - the charge raised as few days ago by the (London) Financial Times regarding ****. According to Scott Ritter, *** invested $400,000 in Ritter's film, 'Shifting Sands.' The Financial Times story suggests that *** was a Saddam-funded millionaire, also something of a gangster, and also Ritter's partner in more than 'Shifting Sands.'

The idea is that Ritter's behavior - his switch from Hawk to Dove - can be explained by his being Iraq's payroll. I don't know whether the charges concerning *** are true. But whether or not Ritter was on Saddam's payyroll, indirectly or even directly, however, I don't see how this can explain the gentle treatment has received from the mass media and the Bush administration. Anyway, I'll deal with the Financial Times article later. Now let us look some more at Scott "I'm-not-two-guys" Ritter.


-1- Scott Ritter, from Hawk to Dove

Wherein I demonstrate that Ritter was a leading Hawk when he resigned from UNSCOM at the end of August 1998; that he became a Dove without a word of explanation in the midst of the bombing of Iraq on 16 December 1998; and that, with the exception of some inconsistencies in January of 1999, he has been Ritter-the-Dove ever since.


Nowadays Scott Ritter claims that he left UNSCOM in August 1998 because Richard Butler was carrying out a US agenda of staging confrontational inspections to jusdtify war. [1]

"Unfortunately, UNSCOM, under pressure by the United States and Great Britain to accept nothing less than 100 percent compliance by Iraq, and under the direction of a new Executive Chairman, Richard Butler...did not acknowledge the considerable achievements in the field of disarmament that had been made."

Ritter claims that he came to the conclusion that Iraq was essentially (or "qaulitaitvely", as he puts it) disarmed and that whatever proscribed documents and parts Iraq still possessed were of no practical consequence: [2]

"When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."

However, it is ab8undtantly clear, from reading the transcripts of Ritter's 1998 media interviews and Congressional apperances, that this is *not* what he said at the time. He said the exact opposite. He said the US was *obstrcuting* inspections which Ritter wanted to carry out in order to show the sworld that Iraq was not complying.

Here is an excerpt from his September 3, 1998 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Note that his expressed view at the time was that the proper role of UNSCOM was to use inspections expose alleged Iraqi deceit to the world, not to finish up and go home because Iraq was basically disarmed: [3]

[Excerpt from Ritter's Senate testimony starts here]

Ritter: ...the United States has on repeated occasions put pressure on the executive chairman of the Special Commission and put pressure on member states of the Security Council to withhold support and to encourage the executive chairman to stop, postpone or cancel inspections of discovery inside Iraq.


Mr. Chairman, my job as the chief of the Concealment Investigations Unit with the Special Commission was to expose the mechanisms used by Iraq to hide their retained weapons capabilities from discovery by United Nations' weapons inspection teams.

[Excerpt from Ritter's Senate testimony ends here]

Ritter told the Senatgors (and the world media) that Iraq retained significant weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities:

"RITTER: ... what I can say is that we have clear evidence that Iraq is retaining capabilities, prohibited weapons capabilities, in fields of chemical, biological and ballistic missile delivery systems of a range greater than 150 kilometers, and if Iraq has undertaken a concerted effort, run at the highest levels inside Iraq to retain these capabilities, then I see no reason why they would not exercise the same sort of concealment efforts for their nuclear programs."

Later I will give examples of where Ritter-the-Dove contradcitgs Ritter-the-Hawk, forr example regarding the Rumaina sting operation, where Iraq was caught trying to purchase special gyroscopes for a ballistics missle. For the moment, suffice it to say that in the summer and fall of 1998 Ritter was a hero for those who advocated invading Iraq. Those who opposed an invasion had quite a different attitude: [4]

[Excerpt from (India) Tribune dispatch starts here]

MADISON (AP): Former United Nations arms inspector Scott Ritter has said that the only way to threaten the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is to invade with ground troops.

Mr Ritter, speaking to an audience of 200 at Drew University, yesterday said threatening air strikes, as has been done in recent weeks, wasn't an effective tactic against Mr Hussein, whom he called Iraq's "centre of gravity."

If you have to take Saddam Hussein and make him accountable, you have to threaten his regime," Mr Ritter said. "The only way to threaten his regime is to use ground forces."

But he said Congress would not be able to get public support for a military strike of that magnitude without taking the matter to the American people.

A group of protesters momentarily disrupted Mr Ritter's speech, calling him a CIA spy and accusing him of trying to incite the country and global community into another military strike against Iraq.

After listening quietly, Mr Ritter said he welcomed the protesters and that the issue needs to be more widely discussed by the American public.

[Excerpt from (India) Tribune article ends here]

A month after the confrontation with these antiwar protesters, Mr. Ritter changed, like magic. And, as with magic, there was no explanation.


A Hawk in the morning, but he's a Dove at night


On December 16th, shortly after UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler gave the UN a report accusing Iraq of flagrantly obstructing arms inspections, the US and UK began a bombing attack on Iraq. NBC,m the US Television network, had hired Ritter as a special consultant when he resigned from UNSCOM. Ritter made numerous TV appearances on the 16th and the next several days.

That afternoon, Ritter strongly supported UNSCOM chief Richard Butler. Although he had told the students at Drew University that punitive bombing raids were not an effective tactic - the US needed to invade, according to Ritter - he held back on criticizing the attack as being too weak: [5]

[Excerpt from NBC News starts here]

Tom Brokaw: Do you think, Scott Ritter, that you could ever, ever be effective in finding all that that he has, given the size of that country and the total control that he has?

Mr. Scott Ritter (NBC News Analyst): Well, we would never be able to find the totality of his retained capabilities. We did have very good success in finding proof that he hadn't turned everything over. And, in fact, this past summer if we had been allowed to go forth with some inspections, we would have closed in on locations where weapons were hidden. But that only exposes the fact that Iraq was not complying.

I think Richard Butler did absolutely the correct thing. He has said without any reservations that UNSCOM cannot do its job. Iraq will not cooperate, and there's no sense going on with this illusion of arms control. And I--I applaud him for his--for his decision.

[Excerpt from NBC News ends here]

Interviewed by the same Tom Brokaw a couple of hours later, Ritter sounded distinctly like a Dove: [6]

"Scott Ritter: ... And unfortunately, these missiles, although they'll be impressive, will be hitting empty facilities and achieving little more than coalescing the Iraqi people, coalescing anti-US sentiment around the region and killing innocent people."

Tom Brokaw didn't bat an eye:

"Tom Brokaw: Scott Ritter, thank you very much. We'll ask you to continue to stand by."

By the next day Ritter was - for the first time - attacking Richard Butler: [7]

"Mr. RITTER: Well, look, if you're going to use the United Nations as a trigger for military action, then you have to ensure that the process is pure, and, unfortunately, what took place in the last two weeks in terms of the United States putting pressure on Richard Butler to get inspections in to carry out inspections of sites where we knew there was no material, there's a procedural inspection deliberately provoking the Iraqis, it's...(network audio difficulties)...realistically to justify an American military response, but you've left too many loose ends to allow the Russians, the French, and Chinese to pick it apart. They will say, 'We are the United Nations. We weren't consulted. You can't use us a cover.' This is a pure unilateral military action on the US."

The attack was answered by Madeleine Albright. [8]

[Excerpt from Meet the Press starts here]

MR. RUSSERT: Scott Ritter, one of those former inspectors, said that this was a total setup, that it was a deliberate attempt to provoke and elicit Iraqi defiance, and that the United States had--was a party to writing the United Nations report all as, in effect, a ploy to begin the bombing.

SEC'Y ALBRIGHT: That's just wrong. I can tell you that Chairman Butler is a very independent actor. We knew ahead of time, obviously, because he stated that these inspections were going to take place at a particular time. He had intrusive inspections. Frankly, I thought that Saddam Hussein would comply. He had an easy way of complying and then going to the comprehensive review, and this--to say that it was a setup is just dead wrong. What happened here was that Butler acted independently, and we were prepared to take action if, in fact, as Butler said, there--he was not able to do his work, but absolutely no setup.

[Excerpt from Meet the Press starts here]

In the next section, I will demonstrate that Ritter now derides positions for which the former Ritter was chief advocate.


Jared Israel
Editor, Emperor's Clothes

Footnotes and Further Reading

[1] Copyright 2001 Harvard International Relations Council Winter
Harvard International Review
Winter 2001
Section: Vol. 22, No. 4; Pg. 28-32; Issn: 07391854
B&H-Acc-No: 65229207
Doc-Ref-No: Hir-2016-14
Length: 3219 Words
Headline: The Saddam Trap
Scott Ritter Is A Former Weapons Inspector With The United Nations Special Commission.

[2] From Ritter's interview published by the group, Fellowship for Reconciliation. The interview was conducted in June 1999.

[3] September 3, 1998, Thursday;Type: Committee Hearing;Length: 23791 Words;Committee: Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Headline: Holds Hearing With The Senate Armed Services Committee On U.S. Policy Regarding Un Weapons Inspections Of Iraq; Location: Washington, D.C. Body: Senate Committees On Armed Services And Foreign Affairs Hold Joint Hearing On U.S. Policy Regarding Un Inspections Of Suspected Iraqi Chemical Weapons Sites

[4] The (India) Tribune article which reports the picketing of Ritter at Drew U. may still be accessed online at a google.com cache address. Since such addresses are also ridiculously long, I have shorted this one to the convenient substitute,
Scroll down to the heading 'Madison (AP)' which is subhead of "UN team demands secret papers" and you will find the whole article.

Notice that the article states that Ritter spoke "yesterday" which would suggest 19 November. However, an AP dispatch published on the 18th refers to Ritter speaking the same day (the 18th). AP dispatch heading:
The Associated Pressnovember 18, 1998, Wednesday, Am Cyclesection: State And Regional
Length: 596 Words; Headline: Former UN Weapons Inspector Says Ground Invasion Only Effective Threat Against Iraq; Byline: Deepti Hajela, Associated Press Writer
Dateline: Madison, N.J.

[5] Show: NBC News Special Report: Showdown With Saddam (5:00 Pm Et);December 16, 1998, Wednesday 3:12 PM;Length: 144 Words; Headline: Scott Ritter Says Due To Size Of Country And Saddam's Control Finding All Weapons In Iraq Very Difficult;Anchors: Tom Brokaw; Body: Tom Brokaw, Anchor:

[6] National Broadcasting Co. Inc. NBC News Transcripts; Show: Nbc News Special Report: Showdown With Saddam (4:22 Pm Et); December 16, 1998, Wednesday 5:20 Pm; Length: 127 Words; Headline: Air Strike Aimed At Being Punitive Rather Than Have Meaningful Impact On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction

[7] Show: Today (7:00 Am Et); December 17, 1998, Thursday 5:20 Pm; Length: 586 Words; Headline: Former Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter Continues Talking About Latest Military Action In Iraq; Anchors: Katie Couric; Body: Katie Couric, Co-Host:

[8] Copyright 1998 National Broadcasting Co. Inc.
Nbc News Transcripts; Show: Meet The Press (10:00 Am Et); December 20, 1998, Sunday; Length: 1873 Words; Headline: Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright Discusses The Bombing Of Iraq

The Mystery of Jared Israel's Israel 24.Apr.2004 12:51

Count Folke Bernadotte

Innterestingly, Jared seems to think that the theft of Palestine was kosher.

PALESTINE BELONGS TO THE ARABS in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French.

IT IS WRONG AND INHUMAN to impose the Jews on the Arabs... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home."
- Mahatma Gandhi

...in my opinion, they [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 TERRORISM... Why should they depend on American money or British arms for forcing themselves on an unwelcome land? Why should they resort to terrorism to make good their forcible landing in Palestine?"
- Mahatma Gandhi