Make up your own Mind

Blue Link News

The American Dream By The Provocateur Network ………..

November 17, 2011 Posted by | Anti NWO, Big Brother, Gran Theft Economics, New World Order, World Politics | , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

9/11 TRUTH: Jewish Ex-Marine SPEAKS OUT on Israeli Involvement (MUST WATCH) …….

September 14th, 2011

(PressTV)

Video Israel DOES NOT want you to see and the U.S. Mainstream Media WON’T SHOW YOU.

 

2011 Interview of Alan Sabrosky regarding 9/11 truth. – September 4th, 2011

September 15, 2011 Posted by | 9/11, Anti NWO, Covert Ops, Disinformation, New World Order, World at War ( not the Game ), World People, Zionism | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

US : Trump Rips China: “Listen You Motherfuc****!” (VIDEO)

found on : http://dailybail.com

The f-bomb entertainment begins at the 5-minute mark.

April 30, 2011 Posted by | Anti NWO, World People, World Politics, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a Comment

CIA Analyst Reveals Zionists’ Role in Planning U.S. Invasion of Iraq

http://www.americanfreepress.net

By Dave Gahary

According to a retired CIA analyst, new evidence has emerged revealing the full extent to which Israel was involved in the direct planning of America’s aggressive war on Iraq that was initiated by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

During a March 10 interview, former 27-year CIA intelligence analyst Ray McGovern broke some news with AFP concerning former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. This information on the extent of Wolfowitz’s war making agenda was derived, McGovern said, from “an unimpeachable source.”

McGovern began, “Enough distance has been created between Wolfowitz and our government that I feel free to tell this story. Since Wolfowitz was largely responsible for the Iraqi invasion, his father wrote him a note that said: ‘Paul, I’m an ardent Zionist, but first and foremost, I’m an American. What you have done for the Zionist cause is beyond the pale, and you should be ashamed of yourself.’ ”

The war happened, explained McGovern, because “son Paul put Israel before the interests of the United States.”

McGovern continued, “That’s why I say, particularly in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq, the socalled neo-conservatives—Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, [Douglas] Feith, the whole coterie of folks who were running our policy at that time—they had great difficulty distinguishing between what they considered to be the strategic interests of Israel on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. They tend to see them as identical, and they’re not.”

He next addressed the ramifications of these decisions. “When you look at the hatred that our policies in the Middle East have caused among 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, and when you see that a lot of their behavior is conditioned by our being joined at the hip with Israeli policy, however violent, then you can see what damage this is doing to the interests of the United States.”

In separate interviews with The Washington Post and MSNBC, along with testimony to a congressional committee, McGovern used the term “O.I.L.” to explain why the U.S went to war with Iraq: oil, Israel and logistics. War was waged, he believes, so the U.S. and Israel could dominate that part of the world. Moreover, Israel was intimately involved with war planning.

“Was Israel part of the calculation? We have empirical evidence now. Before it was largely analysis,” McGovern explained.

banner_newsletter

The evidence he’s referring to is from former Prime Minister Tony Blair testifying before the Chilcot Inquiry earlier this year. Blair admitted that while he and Bush were scheming about Iraq in April 2002 at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas near Waco, they were in constant communication with the Israelis.

As expected, McGovern’s appearance before Congress created controversy. “Within three hours of my testimony, prominent congresspersons from New York issued a collective statement calling me anti-Semitic because I said Israel and the United States wanted to dominate that part of the world.”

Unshaken by these attacks, McGovern struck a defiant tone. “If I say Israel is a major factor in our country’s decision to initiate a war of aggression, that is fact supported by evidence. People should not shy away from that.”

AFP next asked if he thought the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has too much influence on Congress.

McGovern was no-nonsense in his reply: “They should be registered as an agent of a foreign power; it’s pure and simple. I don’t know how they escaped that, but those are the rules.”

He continued, “Even when their minions are caught spying on us, purloining classified information and giving it to the Israeli Embassy, they get off, and they’re not brought to trial, whereas Bradley Manning, the presumed WikiLeaks leaker, is in solitary confinement for 10 months now at the Marine brig in Quantico, Va.”

McGovern summed up Israel’s malignant influence with some tongue-in-cheek humor: “There’s a vicious joke that goes like this: Somebody wanted Israel to consider becoming America’s 51st state. The answer came back: No, the Israelis are not interested, because then they would only have two senators.”

.

March 29, 2011 Posted by | Americas, Anti NWO, Covert Ops, Disinformation, Genocides, Middle East, New World Order, World at War ( not the Game ), World People, World Politics, Zionism | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

FLASHBACK : Obama: “You Can Take That To The Bank”

http://dailybail.com/home


 

Video – Obama’s broken promises

The federal government borrowed 43 cents of every dollar spent in the 2010 budget.  The cost of war is bankrupting the United States…

Cut defense first…

Max Pappas, the vice president of public policy at FreedomWorks and Benjamin H. Friedman, a research fellow at the Cato Institute discuss the possibility of defense cuts and how to move forward. To date, the only US administration to cut defense spending during war time was the Nixon administration.

Tea Party supports Defense cuts…

Video – Rand Paul on budget cuts

Earlier today…

 

 

 

February 9, 2011 Posted by | Anti NWO, Anti War, Big Brother, New World Order, World at War ( not the Game ), World People, World Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

USA : HOW WE GOT WHERE WE ARE (video)

http://www.veteranstoday.com 

February 7, 2011 posted by Gordon Duff ·

 

THERE’S A NEW WORLD COMMIN’…EVEN WORSE THAN THIS ONE

“The son would kill more, millions in fact, rig two elections and run up more national debt in a single month than Jimmy Carter did in four years.  America would have its own GESTAPO, called “Homeland Security” but managed by his good friends in Israel, cementing their partnership with what was once the party of Reagan, now running America into the ground, from “triple crown winner” to “glue factory nag” in 8 long and painful years.”

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

Political dialog in America is a sick joke.  Only Ron Paul ever talks about issues and can’t move in Washington without continual snickering behind his back.  He is seen as a joke, a caricature, a anachronism, part of the “lunatic fringe” of “conspiracy theory” folks.  Paul, of course, totally charisma free and with the leadership ability of a cantaloupe, is the only one talking about the issues, albeit in a waffling “left handed” manner.

He knows very well that he is politically hopeless unless he packages himself for the Israeli lobby, an effort that would require him to reverse every stand he has ever taken.  Expect him to do just that, everyone else has.

Wait for it, his statements on 9/11 alone show him to be morally flexible enough to succeed.  He could be “Obama 2″ or even “Bush 3.”


YouTube – Veterans Today -

After all, why should Ron Paul want to die of loneliness, talking about 9/11 conspiracies or the Federal Reserve.  According to the media, these issues don’t exist, in fact I am not sure what the issues are.  Every two years we get a few “bumper sticker” slogans and personal smears, what now passes for electioneering in the United States, interspersed with a generous helping of race hatred, class envy and religious bigotry.

With the people of Egypt hitting the streets, a real outpouring of courage and political awakening, the kind of yearning for democracy that Americans have, for 235 years, talked about spreading around the world, we here at home sit complacent in an increasingly totalitarian and dictatorial state.

Where did it get us?  Where are we? What have we earned for ourselves with our new version of political activism, bullied into compliance by news censorship and domination of the media by New World Order disinformationalists.  Oh, are we dragging out the “NWO” term today?  Oh yes we are, thank you very much, I call it as I see it..

This is where we are:

  • Broke-busted, we can’t even file bankruptcy, China won’t let us.  America is 5 minutes away from a currency collapse.  94% of America’s 15 trillion dollar debt, built over 235 years, came from 3 presidents, Reagan, Bush and Bush.  That wasn’t money that was “trickling down.”
  • Continual decline in standard of living since Reagan and not by accident, the borders weren’t opened by the same people who crushed labor unions for nothing.
  • 20 million empty homes, where did the people go?
  • Hyperinflation, totally artificial, totally planned, driven by speculation in oil and commodities, price fixing in health care and Wall Street looting of the economy is hitting now.  Buying gasoline, food and paying utilities will push millions of Americans into poverty.  The extra 75 cents a gallon for gasoline alone is the biggest tax increase in history, one no American voted for, not knowingly.
  • 80% of Americans believe their “news” is continually lying to them but continue to watch, accept and believe anyway.  The American media is an outlet for press releases from the New World Order and nothing else.  It doesn’t get any better than this!
  • When the Supreme Court gave corporations full political rights, they created a class of feudal overlords.  Americans are now indentured serfs in their own country!
  • Israel receives, not 3 billion but between 10 and 20 billion yearly from the US, inclusive of “off the books” military aid and “no bid” contracts.  2 billion of that is spent in “pump priming,” paying off American politicians to take the real figure to 30 billion soon.  Problem is, Israel is one of the richest countries on earth with nearly half the world’s 1000 billionaires holding Israeli passports though only 18 were born in Israel.  Israel could give the United States 30 billion a year and not even notice it.  Where did you think the 3 trillion dollars lost during the Bush administration went to?  Check the names.
  • After 9/11, an event Ron Paul rightly fears calling the “false flag” attack it was, laws were passed in the US that ended all constitutional rights for Americans including the right to bear arms.  When habeas corpus was suspended in 2006, gun rights went with it, yes, the 2nd Amendment was eliminated but only when the government feels guns are a threat.  The best part, they get to decide “when.”  Under the Patriot Acts, which nullify the constitution further, they can enter any home, take guns, seize any property and jail any person indefinitely without legal representation or trial.  When  habeas corpus went, due processwent with it, you know, all that stuff about trials and confronting your accuser, jury of your “peers,” etc, etc. (and you were worried about “Obamacare”…)
  • Almost 900,000 Americans have security clearances with 100,000 “top secret” and over 50,000 “SCI” (Special Compartmented Intelligence).  One thing that isn’t a secret is that Israel has their pick of any American secrets, peddling our military technology to the highest bidder and sending the rest to ”Wikileaks.”  The only people kept in the dark are the American people and the information kept from them is done so for a good reason.  If the American people knew the truth, they might just so something about it, and we don’t mean “vote.”
  • Since the collapse of 2007-8, most state and municipal governments, including school systems, have been bankrupt.  None have cash reserves, only debt underwritten by bonds, and a few assets.  Those assets are quickly being sold off, including, here in Ohio, the state’s turnpike system may be heading to China.  If you don’t think you may have to have a credit card out when privatized police arrive at your home to seize your guns or take you to debtors prison, you aren’t paying attention.  I hear that the prisoners in Gitmo are having to pay for torture.  Are we waterboarding with Perrier now?

How we got here is obvious.  Reagan put us here, or did he.  Dick Eastman writes about that today:

“I can’t resist defending Ronald Reagan  — and losing friends as happens whenever I defend that even greater man, Richard Nixon.

Reagan was really a good guy — but he didn’t know his enemy, and didn’t even recognize them when they infiltrated his administration  — when they arranged an assassination attempt to but GHW Bush in the Oval Office  — and then when it failed they controlled Reagan by gatekeeping non-Rockefeller viewpoints and actually actually slipping him poisons that degraded his functioning.

Donald Regan, his Secretary of the Treasury was part of the sabotage of the US economy  — the co-architect with Burns and Volker of the so-called S & L scandal  — that diverted all investment to junk while looting savers and destroying the Savings and Loan industry to effect greater financial-intermediary concentration in Rockefeller/Morgan/Sachs/etc hands — the biggest economic crime since crashing of the stock market in 1929.  But Ronald Reagan did not know what Donald Reagan was up to.

But I know Reagan was not evil  — although he was used by evil  — because I myself held exactly the same views without realizing the evil behind them  — in 1980 I was in the doctoral program in economics at Texas A & M  – a convinced Misesian and Friedmanite Monetarist and reader of Ayn Rand  — such a perfect antidote for Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter economics (of Samuelson, Galbraith, the “inflationists” Miller)  — who really understood what Donald Reagan, Volker and the rest were up to at that time?

Reagan looked up to Wall Street as the bastion of “free enterprise” — I doubt he had heard of social credit  — I know I had not  (except for reading something about Kitson in the library one day  — but then forgetting the name — until I rediscovered him and first learned about Douglas and Kitson in the early 2000s.  These thinkers just were not known to Americans in Reagan’s time  — communism and inflation and the welfare state were the issues.    Yes, the big trade deficits began under Reagan, but there were justified as temporary and necessary for buying China off to keep her from reuniting with the USSR against us etc.  — or so we thought.

I believe that Reagan of 1980  — if he could be moved to our time and given time to study the situation  — would be a populist  — would undergo the same realizations that I did  — because the basic American virtues that are in many of us  – most certainly lived in him.  He really was a good guy, and no one is going to convince me otherwise.”

When Ron Paul spoke in front of the House of Representatives, to an empty room of course, pinning the blame for Saddam invading Kuwait on President Bush:

(from the Congressional Record)

“It had been long assumed that the United States Government, shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, gave Saddam Hussein a green light to attack.A State Department cable recently published by WikiLeaks confirmed that U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie did indeed have a conversation with Saddam Hussein one week prior to Iraq’s August 1, 1990, invasion of Kuwait.

…Ambassador Glaspie affirmed to Saddam that “the President had instructed her to broaden and deepen our relations with Iraq.” As Saddam Hussein outlined Iraq’s ongoing border dispute with Kuwait, Ambassador Glaspie was quite clear that, “we took no position on these Arab affairs.”

There would have been no reason for Saddam Hussein not to take this assurance at face value. The U.S. was quite supportive of his invasion and war of aggression against Iran in the 1980s. With this approval from the U.S. Government, it wasn’t surprising that the invasion occurred. The shock and surprise was how quickly the tables were turned and our friend, Saddam Hussein, all of a sudden became Hitler personified.

The document was classified, supposedly to protect national security, yet this information in no way jeopardized our security. Instead, it served to keep the truth from the American people about an event leading up to our initial military involvement in Iraq and the region that continues to today.

{time} 1440

The secrecy of the memo was designed to hide the truth from the American people and keep our government from being embarrassed. This was the initial event that had led to so much death and destruction–not to mention the financial costs–these past 20 years.”

Stepping this back further into time, the October Surprise, once thought to be a “conspiracy theory” also, again George H.W. Bush the actor.  Bush, a private citizen, meeting with Iranians in Paris, telling them that if they kept Americans hostage, he would reward them with advanced weapons systems, although they were “technically” an enemy.  During the Iran Contra hearings, we learned of the weapons sales, missiles of all kinds, advanced systems, millions in profit for Bush friends.

When the younger Bush took office, based on this history, 9/11 was a given.  Now proven to have been in the planning since 1999, even before taking office, it was the son upstaging the father.  Dad had rigged an election by selling out American diplomats.  Later, as president, he “green lighted” Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent war that killed hundreds of thousands.  Remember when he sold out the Kurds in Iraq, allowing them to be slaughtered by Saddam, a favor for his friends in Turkey?

The son would kill more, millions in fact, rig two elections and run up more national debt in a single month than Jimmy Carter did in four years.  America would have its own GESTAPO, called “Homeland Security” but managed by his good friends in Israel, cementing their partnership with what was once the party of Reagan, now running America into the ground, from “triple crown winner” to “glue factory nag” in 8 long and painful years.

This is how we got where we are.

Now a new generation of American geniuses are looking at Jeb Bush.

.

February 7, 2011 Posted by | 9/11, Anti NWO, Anti War, Big Brother, Covert Ops, Disinformation, New World Order, World at War ( not the Game ), World People, World Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Flashback : Massmedia vs 9/11

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net


by Christopher Bollyn

September 2, 2007
Final Edit – August 23, 2009

from Bollyn Website


The government and controlled media have lied to the public about 9-11 since the day it occurred.

Those who have discerned and exposed the lies about the “false flag” terror attacks and the fraudulent “War on Terror” have been treated like madmen and criminals.

It’s time for this criminal nightmare to end.

  • Who controls the “hidden hand” in the U.S. mass media that censors and suppresses the crucial 9-11 evidence?
  • What is the nexus connecting the architects of 9-11 with the mass media moguls who are covering up the truth?

Rupert Murdoch, a Jew,

is a supporter of Zionism and a friend of Israeli president Shimon Peres.

The on-going cover-up of the evidence of Israeli involvement in 9-11 and explosions in the World Trade Center by the U.S. mass media is indicative of a high-level connection between the architects of the “false flag” terror attacks and the media moguls who control the major news networks in the United States.

As a longtime observer of Israel and the Middle East, I have watched how the U.S. mass media has increasingly become an instrument of Israeli propaganda.

As Zionists have extended their grip on American media networks the major television, radio, film and print media outlets have effectively become propaganda tools of a foreign state – Israel – and are used to manipulate U.S. public opinion to support the Zionist agenda. The painfully obvious anti-Arab and anti-Islamic bias of Hollywood films and news-related programs has become ever more extreme as pro-Israel Zionists have achieved near total control of the U.S. mass media.

It needs to be understood that the Zionist conquest of the U.S. mass media did not simply happen by chance or as a result of natural market forces. It is the planned result of a long-term covert strategy put into effect decades ago by the government of Israel to control the news and entertainment networks that inform how Americans view Zionism, Israel, and the Middle East.

The Israelis realized that if they could control what Americans read, see, and hear about Zionism, Israel, and the Middle East then they would be able to control how they think.

Controlling U.S. public opinion is crucial to realizing the Zionist agenda.

Rupert Murdoch’s media empire acts as a Zionist propaganda network.

Zionist control of the major media networks has resulted in Americans getting an extremely distorted and biased view of the world, particularly of the Middle East and of such significant events as 9-11 and the “War on Terror.”

Understanding the strategy and the people behind Israel’s conquest of the American mass media is an essential step to recovering our national sovereignty.

As an independent journalist and researcher of 9-11, I have seen how Zionist-controlled media outlets are actively engaged in covering up the evidence of Israeli involvement in the “false flag” attacks of 9-11 and the Zionist-planned “War on Terror.” I have personally been subjected to years of slander and defamation from a host of Zionist-controlled news outlets, including CNN and FOX News, simply because I have investigated and written about the evidence of Israeli involvement.

Today, the United States of America is by all appearances an Israeli-occupied state. The U.S. Congress dutifully authorizes the annual payment of an immense tribute to Israel, some three thousand million dollars a year. Like a subservient colony, the United States provides hundreds of thousands of its young men and women to fight and die as mercenaries in Zionist-planned wars in the Middle East.

The tens of thousands of American and European christian soldiers and mercenaries fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are very similar to the former Mamluks of Baghdad – captured “male white slaves” serving their Zionist rulers.

This dismal situation is, of course, not new. It has only become more obvious and extreme. The United States has provided more than $108 billion in direct aid to the state of Israel since 1949 (Washington Report, July 2006) and the U.S. State Dept. recently promised the Israeli military another $30 billion over the next ten years – a twenty-five percent increase.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. soldiers have died as a result of serving on or near the front lines in Israel’s wars. The 241 American marines killed in the Beirut bombing of 1983 and the 34 servicemen killed during the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty are the first that come to mind.

More than 4,000 American men and women have died during the current phase, the occupation stage, of the nearly two-decade-long war against Iraq.

The U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, an illegal war of aggression, is clearly a Zionist-planned war in which Americans and other mercenaries actually do the fighting – and dying.


WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

The obvious question is, where is the outrage?

Where is the spiritual, intellectual, and political resistance to this blatant exploitation of Americans and their national resources by a tiny foreign state with a militant and racist ideology? Why do patriotic Americans tolerate this abuse of the “land of the free and the home of the brave?”

While the power of the Israeli lobby (and an occasional murder) may explain the lack of any significant political resistance in the U.S. Congress to Zionist demands, it can not explain how the American population has come to accept this extremely bizarre and abusive relationship with a foreign state.

How has Zionist control of the United States been foisted onto the American people?


ZIONIST DECEPTIONS

Many Americans willingly accept the extremely one-sided and abusive relationship with Israel because they have internalized three fundamental Zionist deceptions, which have been forced into their brains by the controlled mass media.

  • The first is the religious hoax that equates the modern state of Israel with the Israel of the Bible. This religious fraud elevates modern-day Israelis, regardless of their actual ethnicity, to being the rightful heirs of the Promised Land. Although this hoax is quickly revealed to anyone who actually reads Zionist history, it has been successfully foisted onto millions of extremely naive and gullible Christians. These misled and abused people are often referred to as christian Zionists.
  • The second fundamental Zionist deception is that Israel is a “sister democracy” of the United States and that Israelis and Americans share the same “democratic” values. This lie is also quickly exposed by reading Israeli history or visiting Israeli-occupied Palestine. The only Americans who could possibly share Israeli values are those who believe in Jewish racism and supremacism – the central pillar of the Zionist worldview that is completely un-American.
  • The third Zionist deception is that nineteen Arab Muslims under the leadership of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden were behind the 9-11 attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This deception has been used to usher in the Zionist-planned “War on Terror,” which has brought U.S. and European troops into an extensive long-term Middle Eastern war.
  • Why hasn’t the media interviewed the families of the nineteen suspected hijackers?
  • Why does the media not demand an open trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged “mastermind” of 9-11, currently held by the U.S. in Guantanamo?
  • Why is the media treatment of these people only as deep as their photos?

While the first two deceptions are primarily philosophical in nature and rather pointless to argue, the 9-11 deception is painfully real and something we allow to continue at our own peril.


“AUSCHWITZ OF THE MIND”

These Zionist deceptions, which are all demonstrably false, have been carefully planted and cultivated in the minds of millions of people through the devices of the Zionist-controlled media.

Zionist domination of the mass media and academia in the United States is so pervasive that Americans are subjected, like Truman Burbank in the film The Truman Show, to a constant barrage of multi-level deception, as if the entire population were living in a false construction – an “Auschwitz of the mind.”

Like the false world of Truman Burbank, the Zionist-created worldview is so overwhelming that it prevents many people from ever realizing that they are being held mentally captive. Even when we peel away the layers of deception and expose the fraud, somehow the show goes on. For the criminals in high places, the show must go on.

The first deception, the religious hoax of the Zionist state’s connection to the biblical Israel, is doctrine to television evangelists like Pat Robertson and his Christian Coalition, while the second and third have become “conventional wisdom” for the U.S. news and entertainment media.

Because millions of Americans have accepted and internalized these Zionist-created falsehoods, they are unable to understand the actual realities of the Middle East or the massive fraud of the “War on Terror.”

The controlled media is careful to censor any information that might disturb the perverse worldview of America’s forty million Christian Zionists who are kept in the darkness like children locked in a closet.


ZIONISM – “THE REAL ENEMY OF THE JEWS”

When, for example, the highly-regarded Israeli historian Avi Shlaim wrote his 2005 editorial entitled “Is Zionism today the real enemy of the Jews?” (below insert) his comments were published in the International Herald Tribune (IHT), which is read in 180 nations, but kept out of the pages of The New York Times, the domestic newspaper of its parent company.

 


A debate : Is Zionism today the real enemy of the Jews?
by Avi Shlaim
February 4, 2005

from TheNewYorkTimes WEbsite


OXFORD, England — Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and the state of Israel is its political expression. Israel used to be a symbol of freedom and a source of pride for the Jews of the Diaspora. Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians, however, has turned it into a liability and a moral burden for the liberal segment of the Jewish community. Some Jews, especially on the left, would go even further by linking Israel’s behavior to the upsurge of the new anti-Semitism throughout the world.

Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories since 1967 is the underlying problem. Occupation transformed the Zionist movement from a legitimate national liberation movement for the Jews into a colonial power and an oppressor of the Palestinians.

By Zionism today I mean the ideological, ultra-nationalist settlers and their supporters in the Likud-led government. These settlers are a tiny minority but they maintain a stranglehold over the Israeli political system. They represent the unacceptable face of Zionism. Zionism does not equal racism, but many of these hard-line settlers and their leaders are blatant racists. Their extremism and their excesses have led some people to start questioning not just the Zionist colonial project beyond the 1967 borders but also the legitimacy of the state of Israel within those borders. And it is these settlers who also endanger the safety and well-being of Jews everywhere.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon personifies this xenophobic, exclusive, aggressive and expansionist brand of Zionism. One of the greatest accolades in Judaism is to be a rodeph shalom, a seeker of peace. Sharon is not that by any stretch of the imagination. He is a man of war and the champion of violent solutions.

Sharon’s purpose is politicide: to deny the Palestinians any independent political existence in Palestine. His plan for withdrawal from Gaza is called “the unilateral disengagement plan.” It is not a peace plan but a prelude to the annexation of large chunks of the West Bank to Israel. Sharon, the unilateralist par excellence, is a Jewish Rambo — the antithesis of the traditional Jewish values of truth, justice and tolerance.

Sharon’s government is waging a savage war against the Palestinian people. Its policies include the confiscation of land; the demolition of houses; the uprooting of trees; curfews, roadblocks and 736 checkpoints that inflict horrendous hardships; the systematic abuse of Palestinian human rights; and the building of the illegal wall on the West Bank, a wall that is as much about land-grabbing as it is about security.

It is this brand of cruel Zionism that is the real enemy of what remains of liberal Israel and of the Jews outside Israel. It is the enemy because it fuels the flames of virulent and sometimes violent anti-Semitism. Israel’s policies are the cause; hatred of Israel and anti-Semitism are the consequences.

There has been much talk in recent years about “the new anti-Semitism.” The argument, in a nutshell, is that the resurgence of anti-Semitism has little or nothing to do with Israel’s behavior. Anti-Zionism is merely a surrogate, so the argument runs, for bad, old-fashioned anti-Semitism.

These arguments need to be addressed. First: What is anti-Semitism? Isaiah Berlin defined an anti-Semite as “someone who hates Jews more than is strictly necessary!” This mischievous definition has the merit of applying to all anti-Semitism, old as well as new.

But we need to look beyond the labels. Is there a lot of classic anti-Semitism about? Yes. Is anti-Semitism spreading in Europe? Yes, at an alarming rate. Do some people use anti-Zionism as a respectable cover for their despicable Judeophobia? Alas, yes again. What is the relative weight of hatred of Israel on the one hand and Judeophobia on the other in the making of the new anti-Semitism? I don’t know.

What I do know is that a lot of decent people, without any anti-Semitic baggage, are furious with Israel because of its oppression of the Palestinians. There is simply no getting away from the fact that attitudes toward Israel are changing as a result of its own shift towards the Zionism of the extreme right and of the radical rabbis. During the years of the Oslo peace process, Israel was in fact the favorite of the West because it was willing to withdraw from the occupied territories.

Israel’s image today is negative not because it is a Jewish state but because it habitually transgresses the norms of acceptable international behavior. Indeed, Israel is increasingly perceived as a rogue state, as an international pariah, and as a threat to world peace.

This perception of Israel is a major factor in the recent resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe and in the rest of the world. In this sense, Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews. It is a tragedy that a state that was built as a haven for the Jewish people after the Holocaust is now one of the least safe places on earth for Jews to live in. Israel ought to withdraw from the occupied territories not as a favor to the Palestinians but as a favor to itself and to world Jewry for, as Karl Marx noted, a people that oppresses another cannot itself remain free.

Now, why would the New York Times, whose motto is “All The News That’s Fit to Print,” censor the viewpoint of a renowned Israeli historian writing on the causes of modern anti-Semitism?

What did Shlaim say that the editors at the Times thought was unfit for Americans to read?

“Israel’s image today is negative not because it is a Jewish state but because it habitually transgresses the norms of acceptable international behavior. Indeed, Israel is increasingly perceived as a rogue state, as an international pariah, and as a threat to world peace,” Shlaim, an Iraqi Jew who was born in Baghdad, wrote.

“This perception of Israel is a major factor in the recent resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe and in the rest of the world. In this sense, Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews.”

When one understands that the primary function of the Zionist-controlled media is to keep Americans in the dark about the Middle East and Zionism, it becomes clear why Shlaim’s article was published in the international publication owned by the New York Times but kept from their U.S. readership.

Shlaim’s comments would have greatly disturbed the carefully cultivated Zionist worldview of millions of Americans – both Jews and Gentiles – an audience that is both protected and held captive.


THE MEDIA COVER-UP OF 9-11

As an independent journalist I have seen how many important stories have been covered-up or ignored by the controlled media.

I have written about many of these suppressed stories, such as the sinking of the Estonia, the downing of Flight TWA 800, and the dangers of depleted uranium.

At the top of my list, however, is the most egregious and criminal cover-up of the evidence of 9-11.

“Ninety-five percent of the work of the intelligence agencies around the world is deception and disinformation,” German intelligence expert Andreas von Bülow told me in December 2001.

This deception is widely propagated in the mainstream media creating an accepted version of events.

“Journalists don’t even raise the simplest questions,” he said. “Those who differ are labeled as crazy.”

After the London press conference during Jimmy Walter‘s 2005 European 9-11 Truth tour, two reporters from the BBC were eager to interview me.

“Why are you the only journalist who does not believe the official explanation of what happened on 9-11?” was their first question.

The BBC interviewing the author in London

“If that is the case,” I told them, “it is probably due to the fact that others who have questioned the official version have lost their jobs as a result.”

The van was leaving for the hotel so I decided to cut the interview short. I could see where the interview was heading.

When FOX News and CNN interviewed me on the pretense that they were interested in my 9-11 research and evidence, all they really wanted to do was to smear me as an anti-Semite.

In both cases the interviewers were clearly not at all interested in the 9-11 evidence or my research.

Alan Samuel Colmes, a Jewish talking head for Fox News,

was not interested in discussing the evidence of 9-11

but only in trying to smear the author as an anti-Semite.


“WOE BETIDE HIM…”

“The dissident cannot be taken seriously,” the veteran British journalist Roland Huntford wrote about the mass media in his book The New Totalitarians. “There is a range of tolerated opinions, and a narrow one it is: woe betide him who departs from it.”

While Huntford was writing about the controlled media of Sweden in the 1970s, his comments hold true for the Zionist-controlled mass media in the United States today, particularly when the subject is 9-11 or Israel.

I, for example, have paid a very high price for investigating and writing about the evidence that contradicts the government’s version of what happened on 9-11. The first attack came from the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL) in November 2001.

The ADL, a private organization dedicated to supporting Zionist and Israeli interests, first smeared the American Free Press, the newspaper I wrote for, as a,

“conspiratorial and anti-Semitic weekly newspaper,” which it said had “repeatedly turned to the subject of the 9-11 attacks as grist for its mill.”

The ADL then singled me out for my article, “Some Survivors Say Bombs Exploded Inside WTC” in which, the ADL said,

“Bollyn suggests that the ‘mainstream media’ is ignoring eyewitness accounts of bombs that exploded inside the World Trade Center before the collapse of the TwinTowers.”

Indeed, the first line of my article from September 2001 said exactly that:

Despite reports from numerous eyewitnesses and experts, including news reporters on the scene, who heard or saw explosions immediately before the collapse of the World Trade Center, there has been virtual silence in the mainstream media.

But, I asked,

  • Why would an organization dedicated to Israeli and Jewish interests attack me, as a journalist, for writing about eyewitness reports of explosions in the World Trade Center?
  • What did my writing about this extremely newsworthy subject have to do with Israel or Jews?

Had my BBC interview gone on, I might have asked why the BBC editors had ignored and censored the comments of their own reporter, Steve Evans, who had been in the SouthTower (WTC 2) when it was hit and who reported having observed a “series of explosions.” Shortly after the destruction of the WTC, the BBC interviewed Evans on their television news program based in London.

Because Evans’ observations were ignored by the BBC and not followed up, I wrote about his report of the explosions he felt in the SouthTower:

Evans was asked what he had seen:

“Its more what I felt really,” Evans said. “I was at the base of the 2nd tower, the second tower that was hit. There was an explosion – I didn’t think it was an explosion – but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake… then when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions…”

[At this point the London news anchor cut Evans off in mid-sentence rather than listen to Evans continue to describe the "series of explosions" that he saw and felt. Evans' microphone was turned down.]

But in a minute Evans returns to the “series of explosions” that he witnessed:

“We can only wonder at the kind of damage – the kind of human damage – which was caused by those explosions – those series of explosions,” Evans said.

Evans is a professional journalist and his observations of explosions in the second tower need to be taken into account by anybody looking into the cause of the catastrophe of September 11.

Many eyewitnesses reported similar explosions, but these reports, and what they suggest, are intentionally being censored and avoided by the very people who are supposed to be investigating the cause of the collapses. The same kind of censorship occurred with FOX News, CNN, and the leading U.S. news networks that had reporters at the World Trade Center.

Firsthand reports of explosions at the WTC from professional reporters were broadcast only once – and never picked up again, except by the much-despised “conspiracy theorists.”

The news reports that five Middle Eastern men were being sought or had been captured in New Jersey after they had videotaped themselves celebrating in front of the burning towers were treated in the same way.

The arrest of the five men, all Israelis, two of whom were known Mossad agents, was only reported in the Bergen Record (New Jersey) on September 12, 2001 – but never discussed or investigated by the national news networks.


ISRAELIS FOREWARNED

Likewise, the story of the Odigo text message warning of the attacks – before they occurred – was dropped into the media’s memory hole. The instant text messages, which were precise to the minute, had been sent via the Israeli-owned Odigo instant messaging service and had even been received by Odigo employees in Israel, but the story of Israelis having prior knowledge of the attacks was never discussed in the U.S. mass media.

How did the news editors at the BBC, FOX News, CNN, and the leading networks decide to censor their own reporters and avoid discussing certain aspects of 9-11?

Let’s look at this logically.

The 9-11 event was the biggest story these news editors had ever handled. Suffice it to say that the editorial decisions about how to cover 9-11 must have been made by the boss at the top.

Any decision to omit or censor reports about explosions at the World Trade Center or indications of Israeli involvement would have been made by the senior executive of each network. In the case of CNN it would have been Gerald M. Levin, the CEO of Time Warner, who acquired Turner Broadcasting in 1997. (Levin unexpectedly announced his resignation in December 2001, less than three months after 9-11.)

At FOX News the top decision maker would have been Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corporation. At ABC News it would have been Michael D. Eisner, CEO of Disney, the network’s parent company.

  • Were the media moguls Murdoch, Levin, and Eisner involved in 9-11?
  • How else could they know that certain aspects of the event needed to be suppressed by their news networks?

Their networks have been suppressing important information about 9-11 since the day of the event.

They have also been actively involved in a conspiracy to cover-up the truth.

  • How can that be?
  • Who is behind this cover-up?
  • What occult power, what hidden hand, would be able to communicate with these men and influence them to suppress important reports and evidence from the terror attacks of 9-11?


ARNON MILCHAN – MOSSAD’S MAN IN THE MIDDLE

If one considers the known evidence of Israeli prior knowledge of 9-11, the Odigo text messages and the five arrested Mossad agents, for example, as indicative of Israeli state involvement in the crime, the identity of the occult power behind the cover-up is rather obvious.

The “hidden hand” suppressing the information about 9-11 would have to be a high-level person in the Israeli political-military intelligence establishment who also has very close relations with media kingpins like Murdoch, Levin, and Eisner.

Arnon Milchan (a.k.a. Milchen) is such a person.

While millions of Americans have watched his films, such as Pretty Woman and JFK, very few know that Arnon Milchan is a “best friend” of Shimon Peres (born Szymon Perski in Wiszniewo, Poland) the current Israeli president and godfather of Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

The Israeli movie producer Arnon Milchan (between Peres and Netanyahu) is a close friend of

Israel’s president Shimon Peres (“his first letter he wrote as president went to me”),

Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and Likud Party leader Binyamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu.

Milchan, who began his career with the fertilizer/chemical company Milchan Brothers,

reportedly owns 30 companies in 17 countries involved in plastics, electronics, communications, and pharmaceuticals.

Milchan’s 40-year friendship with Peres, the man who oversaw the illegal development of Israel’s nuclear weapon program is key to understanding Milchan’s career as an undercover operative, weapons procurer, and film producer.

The fact that Milchan, the Hollywood producer, has been Israel’s “foremost weapons procurer” for decades, brokering deals for “everything from nuclear triggers to rocket fuel to guidance systems,” is seldom mentioned in the U.S. news media.

This is probably due to the fact that Milchan is also a “best friend” and business partner of Rupert Murdoch. He is also a friend a business partner with Levin (Warner Brothers) and Eisner.

“I consider him one of my best friends,” Milchan said about Murdoch, “and I think vice versa. We’re having a ball. He’s a very cool guy.”

“Kingpins like Warner Brothers’ Gerald Levin and Disney’s Michael Eisner are quick to return his calls,” the American Jewish journalist Ann Louise Bardach wrote about Milchan in her article ‘The Last Tycoon‘ in April 2000.

In 1997, after a six-year relationship with Warner Brothers, Milchan became a partner with Murdoch, selling him twenty percent of his film company, New Regency Productions, for $200 million. Murdoch also invested another $30 million in Regency Television.

Today, Murdoch’s equity partnership with Milchan is close to fifty percent.

“Milchan’s deal with Fox also assures him a level of financial security,” Bardach wrote. “With Murdoch’s $200 million investment and a subsequent $600 million line of credit from a team of banks led by Chase Manhattan, Milchan is well into mogul territory.

“Milchan’s tony offices occupy most of Building 12, right next door to the Executive Building on the Fox lot,” Bardach wrote. “And it is from this seat of power that Milchan is building an entertainment empire that could one day rival Murdoch’s.”

Peter Chernin, president and chief operating officer of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, left,

presents Arnon Milchan with a lifetime achievement award at an event celebrating

the 60th Anniversary of the state of Israel in Los Angeles on September 18, 2008.

Chernin, Murdoch, and Milchan have worked together for many years.



THE MILCHAN INFLUENCE

The Israeli influence in films and news media has profoundly affected the quality of news reporting and entertainment.

Israeli attitudes and ideas are now disseminated through national media outlets which reach the entire U.S. population on a daily basis. Israeli-made films often reveal hints or clues about actual crimes or criminal plots the Israeli producers are aware of.

One such project, The Lone Gunmen, produced by Milchan’s “best friend” Rupert Murdoch, had an uncanny resemblance to the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Was this Milchan’s influence? The Milchan-Murdoch partnership in television production may be key to understanding the genesis of the plot of the pilot episode of this short-lived television series. In the first episode a passenger airliner is hijacked by remote control and flown toward the World Trade Center.

Disaster is averted at the last minute by over-riding the computer program that has hijacked the plane.

The Lone Gunmen, produced by Rupert Murdoch in 2000, revealed an extremely uncanny prescience of 9-11(click above image).

During the same year it was made, Milchan was producing two television series in collaboration with Fox Television: Roswell, which aired on Warner Brothers network, and Malcolm in the Middle, which was aired on Fox. The Lone Gunmen pilot episode aired on FOX Television in March 2001.

Given the long, close, and extensive collaboration between Murdoch and Milchan, it seems fair to ask:

  • Was Arnon Milchan the original source of the plotline for The Lone Gunmen?
  • Why were the people involved in the production of this episode not investigated by the media?
  • Why did the media ignore its own uncanny prescience, The Lone Gunmen episode, which mirrored reality six months later?
  • Was the similarity between the Murdoch-produced show and reality too close for comfort?
  • Was it too uncomfortable to discuss the origin of the idea for the show?

Apparently so.

Was the Israeli chemical magnate Arnon Milchan the author of

the plotline for The Lone Gunmen pilot episode in which a passenger airplane

was remotely hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center?

In Milchan’s highly-controversial film JFK (1991), directed by Oliver Stone, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy is ascribed to conspirators within the U.S. military-industrial complex.

Whose idea was this? Why is Arnon Milchan’s own connection with Itzhak Rabin, who was in Dallas on the day Kennedy was shot, not an issue here?

In his futuristic film Brazil (1985), directed by Terry Gilliam, terrorist explosions go off in cafes for no apparent reason, very much like the seemingly senseless terrorism that plagues occupied Iraq.

Is this Milchan’s influence?

“Anyone closely associated with Peres pretty well must be satanic,” Barry Chamish, a Canadian-Israeli wrote, “but Milchan produced a film that shows he has insider information.”

Chamish advises his readers to watch The Devil’s Advocate with Al Pacino to “understand the implication.”

“Milchan runs his company like a family business. Heading up New Regency Productions for him is his childhood friend David Matalon, whose parents were best friends with Milchan’s,” Bardach wrote.

“Daughter Alexandra [Milchan-Lambert] is vice president of production in Los Angeles.”

Matalon has served as president and CEO of New Regency Productions since 1995.

In 1986, Matalon, an Israeli co-founder of Tri-Star pictures, released a film entitled Iron Eagle, in which the aerial combat scenes were filmed entirely with the Israeli Air Force. The plot of this film is about how a few teenagers are able to steal U.S. military codes, aircraft, and information from under the noses of the military brass and run an entire military operation in which they bomb Libya without the knowledge of the military command.

This film gives some indication of the kind of projects and ideas the Israeli military has collaborated on with their fellow Israelis in Hollywood.


THE SECRETIVE MOGUL

“Averse to publicity and little known outside Hollywood” is how Arnon Milchan’s biography begins. “My idea of a good profile is no profile,” Milchan told Bardach.

Murdoch, Levin, and Eisner have obviously respected the Israeli’s wish, but why would a Hollywood mogul not want to be known to the public?

“Arnon Milchan has kept his secrets to himself,” Bardach wrote.

Arnon Milchan with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie

Indeed, very little is known about Milchan, Israel’s super weapons agent, except that he spends more time in Tel Aviv and France than he does in his office on the 20th Century Fox lot in Los Angeles, according to Bardach.

Now, why would a Hollywood movie producer spend more time in Tel Aviv, where no movies are being made, than in Hollywood?


POLISH ZIONIST ROOTS

Milchan was born on December 6, 1944, on the Zionist settlement of Rehovot, in what was then Palestine, according to his biography in Current Biography (2000). Rehovot, one of the earliest Zionist settlements, was founded in 1890 by Polish and Russian Jews, one of whom was Milchan’s paternal grandfather.

Rehovot has a street and a neighborhood named “Milchen”, no doubt in memory of his grandfather.

“My family’s been there for 500 years,” Milchan told Bardach.

“My grandfather was a very close friend of President [Chaim] Weizmann.”

Oddly, Bardach does not provide the name of his grandfather who was “a very close friend” of Israel’s first president. Nor does she give the name of the ancestors Milchan proudly claims have lived in Palestine for five hundred years.

“Milchan’s father was an enviable success story himself, having laid the sprinklers that irrigated Israel,” Bardach wrote. “Later, he would handle some of Israel’s lucrative military contracts, according to his son.”

Bardach continues:

However, it was young Milchan who put the company on the map internationally, after his father’s sudden death. Following a spot of schooling in London and Geneva, where he excelled in soccer and tennis, Milchan dropped out and returned to Israel. Soon, he struck gold.

By marketing a newly discovered nutrient that quadrupled citrus production, he brought his company stratospheric sales throughout the world.

“This is a man who made his fortune by screwing with nature,” says screenwriter Shawn Slovo, who began her career as Milchan’s secretary in 1977. “He’s the Israeli who made the desert bloom. Amazing when you think about it. He could have retired at the age of 22.”

Instead, like a kid racing around the Monopoly board, Milchan gobbled up another half dozen businesses–including electronics, chemicals, aerospace and plastics.

Still in his early twenties, he met the Shah of Iran and reportedly talked the wily Persian into dozens of contracts, one to build much of Tehran’s airport.

When one considers that Arnon Milchan, in his early twenties, was among the founders of Israel’s Labor Party in the 1960s with Shimon Peres, Moshe Dayan, and Teddy Kolleck, then one can appreciate that his contracts in Iran and his career in arms dealing and Hollywood have been done with the active collaboration of the Mossad.


“I’M AN AGENT”

Milchan is a,

“go-between for American weapons manufacturers and the Israeli government, thus playing a major role in the strengthening of the Israeli military,” according to Current Biography (2000).

“Throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and even up until the Gulf War in 1991, Milchan was Israel’s foremost weapons procurer, brokering deals for such prized superweapons as the Hawk missile and the famous Scud-foil of the Gulf War, the Patriot,” Bardach wrote.

“At different times in his career, his Israeli company, Milchan Brothers, has represented arms manufacturers such as Raytheon, North American Rockwell, Beechcraft, Bell Helicopter and Magnavox. Or, as Milchan downplays it, “there were a bunch of them.”

Nevertheless, he bristles at being called an arms dealer.

“I’m their rep in Israel,” he says emphatically. “I get a fee, a commission. I’m not even the buyer. I’m an agent.”

“What we do is send my people to the United States,” Milchan told Bardach, “so we know what these guys are talking about, and you go back and say to the buyer, ‘I think this guy has some interesting stuff. Would you meet with him?’ And then you arrange a meeting with the head of the [Israeli] air force and the head of this and the head of that.”

In 1992, Milchan was described by the Jerusalem Post as being “among the handful of Hollywood moguls with the muscle and money to single-handedly give the go-ahead for a new movie project.

The Mossad is undoubtedly the source of much of Milchan’s “muscle and money.”

Who pays Milchan’s commissions? Whether the commission is paid by the weapon’s vendor or by the state of Israel, the money going to Milchan is American money. He is paid either by the company or from the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars provided to Israel for weapons every year.

In this way, Milchan, Mossad’s man in the middle, has been greatly enriched by U.S. weapons sales to Israel.


“BIG STAR” TO RAYTHEON

In 1975, for example, Milchan reportedly received an improper $300,000 commission paid by a Raytheon subsidiary for the sale of Hawk missiles.

Raytheon makes the Patriot and Hawk missile systems and key components of the Global Hawk. Of particular interest is Raytheon’s Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) which allow remote operators to pilot the Global Hawk from “thousands of miles away.” This is the kind of technology that is thought to have been used in the terror attacks of 9-11.

Terry Gilliam told Bardach that he’ll never forget a visit to the Paris Air Show with Milchan during the filming of Baron Munchausen.

“It was wonderful to see how the whole arms business worked,” Gilliam said. “Arnon was very psyched about the video games. He brought his son with him, who was then a teenager, to play the games, which can replicate the destruction of the planet. He took me to the Raytheon booth, and it was all showmanship. He was obviously a big star to Raytheon.”

“Growing up, I would read that he was an arms dealer; he was in the Mossad, and he was a movie producer,” his daughter Alexandra told Bardach.

She is married to a Scott Lambert, an agent with William Morris in Beverley Hills and graduate of American University in Washington, D.C. (Lambert happens to share the same name of a former Director of Manufacturing Systems at Raytheon.)


MODUS OPERANDI

When one looks at Milchan’s career as an Israeli agent who bought media outlets with dirty money one should consider that this may be the modus operandi he has employed to gain influence and outlets in the U.S. media market.

Money laundering could explain his ability to make huge deals and control media networks – and his desire for secrecy.

“He’s extremely powerful because he brings money to the table,” journalist Anita Busch wrote.

“He’s unique in that way. He’s got a credit line that’s astronomical, like, you know, almost a billion dollars.” Terry Gilliam, the director of Brazil, wondered where the money came from. “Arnon can be great, but when it comes to money there’s something – I don’t know – bits just don’t seem to connect.”

Charles McKeown, a film writer, had a hard time getting paid by the billion dollar Israeli.

“You just never know whether he was telling the truth or not,” McKeown said.

“The kind of deals he was in, the level of finance and the way he operated, seemed to me like a world upside down. I felt we were dealing with a sort of dangerous, shady quality.”


MONEY LAUNDERER

In 1975, the Israeli government headed by Yitzhak Rabin and Defense Minister Shimon Peres recruited Milchan to launder money from South Africa.

Milchan,

“has admitted laundering some of the more than $100 million spent by the South Africans during the 1970s in an attempt to improve the white government’s image abroad,” according to the authors of The Iran-Contra Connection.

Because both Israel and South Africa were ostracized in the 1970s,

“The money laundering was part of the two countries’ plan to buy newspapers and other media in various parts of the world,” his biography reads.

“The Rabin government recruited… Milchan to launder cash… to purchase influential publications,” Andrew and Leslie Cockburn wrote in their book Dangerous Liaison.


THE MIDDLEMAN

Milchan told Bardach he was asked by,

“prominent Israelis if ‘we can use your companies to make deals to buy newspapers.’ I said, ‘Sure. It sounds like fun.’ Basically, I was used as a middleman.”

A citizen of both Israel and Monaco, he is said to control thirty companies in seventeen countries, profiting in everything from film production to the weapons trade.

But, how does one man control thirty companies in seventeen countries? Clearly there must be an entire team behind these businesses.

Milchan’s team could be called Team Mossad.

“I’ll say it in my own words,” Milchan told Bardach. “I love Israel, and any way I can help Israel, I will. I’ll do it again and again. If you say I’m an arms dealer, that’s your problem. In Israel, there is practically no business that does not have something to do with defense.”

Milchan also funds Christian Zionist movements.

Milchan has reportedly contributed significantly to the Christian Coalition, an organization started by the Reverend Pat Robertson, a staunch supporter of Israel. He also underwrites the Israeli Network which transmits Israeli television programs to the United States and Canada via cable and satellite.

Milchan is also an owner of the Israeli television station known as Channel 10. The other owners are Ronald Lauder, who like Milchan owned about twenty-five percent, and Josef (Yossi) Maiman, who owns fifty-one percent and who has been with Channel 10 since it was founded in 2003. Rupert Murdoch bought nine percent of Channel 10 stock from Milchan and Lauder in 2006. Maiman, a Mossad agent, owns and controls a great deal of the gas fields of Turkmenistan.

One of the main goals of the occupation of Afghanistan is to build a pipeline to bring the Israeli-owned gas of Turkmenistan to India and China.

(Maiman and Lauder are both linked to the Mossad and 9-11. For more on Maiman read my article, “The Great Game: The War For Caspian Oil And Gas.” Information about Lauder can be found in “Mossad -The Israeli Connection To 9-11″)


SMUGGLING NUCLEAR TRIGGERS

Milchan should have been busted in 1985 for smuggling triggers for nuclear bombs, when a business associate, Richard Kelly Smyth, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles on charges of smuggling 810 krytrons to Israel.

Because krytrons are used as detonators or triggers for nuclear weapons, their export is tightly regulated.

In 1973, Smyth started a company called Milco International, Inc., financed, according to the Washington Post, by Milchan, hence its name. Up to eighty percent of Milco’s business was reportedly with Milchan and Israel. In 1980, the federal indictment asserted, Smyth and Milco sent 610 krytrons to Israel without the necessary licenses, plus another 200 in 1982.

The 1985 indictment identified the Israeli buyers of the nuclear triggers as Heli Trading Ltd. and Milchan Brothers, two of Milchan’s Israel-based companies. Federal authorities told NBC News in 1993 that Milchan also shared in the profits derived from the sales.

Announcement of the indictments came four days after the Israeli Defense Ministry, reacting to news of the grand jury probe, admitted that it had the devices, known as krytrons. The krytrons were shipped between 1979 and 1983 to an Israeli firm under contract to the government for defense work.

The Israeli Ministry of Defense returned only 469 of the krytrons, and Smyth vanished a week before he was to appear for trial.


PROTECTING ISRAEL

Robert C. Bonner, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, refused to comment on questions about whether the Israeli government had been involved in the illegal actions.

State Department spokesman Edward Djerejian said,

“I can only note that the indictment does not mention any Israeli citizen.”

Djerejian added that the United States,

“has expressed its serious concern to the Israeli government about this alleged violation of U.S. law” and had been assured that Israel will cooperate with the continuing U.S. investigation “to the full extent permitted under Israeli law.”

“Smyth’s disappearance, and the unwillingness of Israeli officials to cooperate with U.S. investigators on the case, left federal authorities unable to proceed,” Robert Windrem of NBC News reported in July 2001.

Although Milchan is not mentioned in the indictment, a Milco employe, Gretel Siler, who identified herself as corporate treasurer of Milco, told the Washington Post that Milchan had been associated with Milco in various export transactions and had been involved in purchasing the krytrons from the manufacturer, EG&G, of Wellesley, Mass.

Milchan denied being involved in the $60,000 krytron deal, but told “60 Minutes” (CBS) that he had allowed the Israeli government to use his companies as conduits for trading with the United States.

“I’m not saying I’m an innocent person – but in this specific case, I knew nothing about it,” Milchan told Frank Rose of Premiere magazine.

In any case, Milchan was never charged in the case.

Robert Mainhardt, a nuclear scientist and former director of Milco, told “60 Minutes” that he had resigned after Milchan had asked him to obtain advanced nuclear reactor designs and a supply of uranium hexachloride, which is used in the enrichment of bomb-grade uranium. Mainhardt’s fellow directors at Milco, Arthur Biehl and Ivan Getting began to feel uneasy sometime in 1982, the Washington Post reported.

The Washington Post did a series of articles about this smuggling.

The most important excerpts are the following:

When they joined the board of directors of Milco International in 1980, Biehl and Getting recalled, they thought the company’s primary business was developing aerospace software for U.S. military and space programs.

They had been recruited by the company’s owner, Richard K. Smyth, while serving with him on an influential panel that advises the U.S. Air Force on advanced technologies, work that required them to have top-secret clearances.

But they soon realized that Smyth, a California-based computer expert, spent most of his time trying to buy equipment with military applications, including a uranium byproduct known as “green salt” that can be processed into weapons-grade uranium, for the government of Israel.

Often, they said, the sales were made through an Israeli middleman, Arnon Milchan, a flamboyant businessman who sold arms before becoming a producer of such popular movies as the recent Brazil.

“I didn’t have any evidence there was anything improper,” Biehl said. “I just thought it was a strange way to do business… I wondered why the Israelis were paying fees to (Milco and Milchan) when they could get the same equipment directly” using U.S. foreign aid.

In late 1982, Biehl and Getting resigned from Milco’s board of directors, in part because of their misgivings about Smyth’s dealings with Milchan and Israel.

Asked why Israel didn’t buy the krytrons through its 200-member procurement staff in New York, which buys military equipment with $1.8 billion in annual U.S. aid, Yossi Gal, spokesman with the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC, told the Post that Israel occasionally used “independent agents” to make purchases.

Under U.S. laws, Smyth needed a munitions license from the State Department to ship the krytrons overseas. If he had tried to obtain one, according to a knowledgeable State Department source, he would have been turned down because Israel has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Smyth’s relations with Israel began in the early 1970s when he was working for North American Rockwell as a chief engineer in its avionics division and traveled to Israel to help set up a subsidiary. There, he met Milchan, who was Rockwell’s representative and “point man” with the Israeli government, according to an associate of Smyth from that period.

In January 1973, Smyth founded Milco while still working at Rockwell. His associate recalled Smyth once saying that Milchan provided money to start Milco; this associate said he believes that the name Milco was derived from Milchan.

At the time that Milco was founded, former U.S. intelligence officials said, the Central Intelligence Agency knew that Israel was working to perfect a solid-fuel tactical missile, known as the Jericho, that could carry nuclear warheads. In late 1973, Smyth’s associate recalled, he saw Milco order forms for several barrels of a butyl compound used to bind explosive powders into solid rocket fuel. Smyth said he was shipping the butyl to Milchan through another company he owned in Houston, the associate recalled.

Smyth’s next known contact with Israel occurred in 1975, about a year after he left Rockwell to run Milco full time. On Oct. 30 of that year, Smyth applied for a munitions license to ship 400 krytrons to Heli Trading Inc., Milchan’s company in Israel.

The application, which is filed in court records in Los Angeles, said that the “end user” would be Rehovot Instruments Ltd. and that the krytrons would be used as “remotely located intrusion detectors.”

Smyth filed the application after being told by an official from an unnamed U.S. intelligence agency that a license was required, according to court records.

Smyth met with the official and told him that,

“Arnon Milchan [had] requested that a certain number of krytrons be shipped to Israel,” according to a letter filed by William Fahey, the prosecutor in the current case.

Internal Milco records, provided by former Smyth associates, show that the company struggled financially from 1975 to 1980. It landed several small contracts for less than $25,000 with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Air Force for studies on computer software for avionics systems in advanced aircraft, the MX missile and a small ship defense missile called the Patriot.

It was also in 1980, the federal indictment alleged, that Milco sent 610 krytrons to Israel in 11 shipments without obtaining the needed licenses. Smyth bought them from EG&G in Salem, Mass., the sole producer of the switches in the United States.

In mid-1981, Smyth listed several contracts with Heli Trading to acquire training simulators for Hawk air defense missiles, a voice scrambler and lasers. He also cited “probable” contracts for a computerized flight control system for Israel’s Lavi fighter plane, and thermal batteries and gyroscopes.

James Russell, vice president of Incosym Inc., a maker of gyroscopes in Thousand Oaks, Calif., said he sold Milco several $10,000 gyroscopes in that period. Smyth told him the navigation aids would be used on Israeli navy patrol boats. Milco also won a flight control contract for the Lavi in 1983, according to a listing in Aviation Week magazine.

Smyth’s world started to crumble in early 1983 after someone broke into Milco’s offices and took several thousand dollars worth of computer and software equipment.

Because he was doing some classified U.S. government work and feared some records of it might have been stolen, Smyth wrote a lengthy report about the theft for the Pentagon and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, then-company attorney Brian R. Carter said.

Milco company records revealed that Milchan’s companies had ordered large quantities of missile-related equipment and materials between 1977 and 1982.

Among the nuclear items listed were the 810 krytrons, plus neutron generators, high-speed oscilloscopes and high-voltage condensers, according to a 1996 paper on Israel’s Nuclear Weapon Capability by the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

In August 1985, U.S. Customs subpoenaed the financial records linking Smyth and Milchan. The records were neither turned over nor found.

Smyth and his wife disappeared just days before his scheduled trial, which almost certainly would have involved Milchan.

“There were so many…indictments that they probably decided just to get out,” Mainhardt, who operates a security business in Dublin, California, said. “If I had to make a guess, I’d say they’re in Israel.”

“Let’s assume that there’s nothing that Israel and the United States do separately,” Milchan told Bardach. “Smyth, a U.S. fugitive for more than a decade, was last seen in Herzliya Pituach, an affluent suburb of Tel Aviv, where Milchan owns a home,” Bardach wrote in 2000.

In July 2001, Smyth was arrested in Malaga, Spain. Smyth pleaded guilty in December to one count of violating the Arms Export Control Act and one count of making a false statement to Customs agents. Prosecutors dropped twenty-eight other counts.

On April 29, 2002 Smyth was sentenced to forty months in federal prison and fined $20,000 for illegally exporting to Israel the devices that are used as triggers for nuclear weapons.

Smyth, 72, was immediately made eligible for parole at his sentencing.


MILCHAN AND PERES

“In Israel, Milchan spends much of his time with best friend Shimon Peres,” Bardach wrote.

She continued, “Milchan’s political connections would prove to be the foundation of his future empire. In addition to agriculture, there would be biotechnology, advertising, aerospace, and the biggest jackpot of them all – arms.”

Arnon Milchan is deeply engaged in chemicals and helped build Israel’s nuclear arsenal,

which was developed by his good friend Shimon Peres.

What does he know about the super-thermite that demolished the World Trade Center?

In 1953, at age thirty, Shimon Peres was appointed by Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, to become Director-General of the Ministry of Defense.

Within three years, Peres had laid the foundation for Israel’s nuclear weapon program, according to the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. Peres started Israel’s program to develop nuclear power and nuclear weapons by convincing the French to help Israel build a secret nuclear reactor beginning about 1957. He chose France as the major supplier, arranged the sale of a nuclear reactor, and spent the next decade overseeing the construction of the Dimona nuclear weapon production complex.

Peres is the one who came up with Israel’s most often repeated nuclear declaration. At an April 1963 meeting in the White House, Peres responded to President John F. Kennedy’s questions about Israel’s nuclear program by saying:

“Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East.”

Two years later, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol elevated Peres’s words to Israel’s official nuclear line.

Sources & Recommended Reading

Bardach, Ann Louise, “The Last Tycoon” Los Angeles Magazine, April 2000 http://www.bardachreports.com/articles/oa_20000400.html

Bollyn, Christopher, “Intel Expert Says 9-11 Looks Like A Hollywood Show” December 2001

Bollyn, “9/11: What Did Rupert Murdoch Know?” October 3, 2003

Bollyn, “Mossad – The Israeli Connection To 9-11″ April 14, 2005

Bollyn, “Some Survivors Say Bombs Exploded in WTC” September 2001

Bollyn, “‘Series of Explosions’ in WTC – BBC” June 28, 2002

Bollyn, “9-11 Mossad Agents Admit Mission: ‘Our Purpose Was to Document the Event’” June 28, 2002

Bollyn, “Why was Kobi Alexander Allowed to Flee? The Israeli Fugitive, Odigo, and the Forewarning of 9/11″ August 24, 2006

Bollyn, “The Great Game: The War For Caspian Oil And Gas” October 14, 2001

Lima, Paolo, “Five men detained as suspected conspirators,” Bergen Record, September 12, 2001 http://web.archive.org/web…/2bombvan200109125.htm

McArthur, Shirl, “A Conservative Estimate of Total Direct U.S. Aid to Israel: $108 Billion” Washington Report, July 2006 http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_2006/0607016.html

Washington Post, “Computer Expert Used Firm to Feed Israel Technology” October 31, 1986

Washington Post, “L.A. Man Indicted in Export of Potential Nuclear Bomb Component to Israel” by John M. Goshko, May 17, 1985

Washington Post, “U.S. Asks to Inspect Israeli Atom Sites To Verify Use of Restricted Device” by John M. Goshko, May 15, 1985

Washington Post, “Israel Got U.S.-Made Devices” by John M. Goshko, May 14, 1985

Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, “Israeli Nuclear Program Pioneered by Shimon Peres,” The Risk Report, Volume 2 Number 4, July-August 1996 http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/Israel-nuclear-peres.html

.

January 30, 2011 Posted by | 9/11, Anti NWO, Big Brother, Covert Ops, Disinformation, New World Order, World Politics, Zionism | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

IRAN: THE PHANTOM MENACE

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com

December 30, 2010 at 17:52 (Conspiracy Theories, Cover Up, Deception, Guest Post, Iran, Israel)

The Phantom Menace:
Fantasies, Falsehoods, and Fear-Mongering about Iran’s Nuclear Program

Submitted by Nima Shirazi

“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary.”

- George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

Facts rarely get in the way of American and Israeli fear-mongering and jingoism, especially when it comes to anti-Iran propaganda. For nearly thirty years now, U.S. and Zionist politicians and analysts, along with some of their European allies, have warned that Iranian nuclear weapons capability is just around the corner and that such a possibility would not only be catastrophic for Israel with its 400 nuclear warheads and state-of-the-art killing power supplied by U.S. taxpayers, but that it would also endanger regional dictatorships, Europe, and even the United States.

If these warnings are to be believed, Iran is only a few years away from unveiling a nuclear bomb…and has been for the past three decades. Fittingly, let’s begin in 1984.

An April 24, 1984 article entitled “‘Ayatollah’ Bomb in Production for Iran in United Press International referenced a Jane’s Intelligence Defense Weekly report warning that Iran was moving “very quickly” towards a nuclear weapon and could have one as early as 1986.

Two months later, on June 27, 1984, in an article entitled “Senator says Iran, Iraq seek N-Bomb,” Minority Whip of the U.S. Senate Alan Cranston was quoted as claiming Iran was a mere seven years away from being able to build its own nuclear weapon. In April 1987, the Washington Post published an article with the title “Atomic Ayatollahs: Just What the Mideast Needs – an Iranian Bomb,” in which reporter David Segal wrote of the imminent threat of such a weapon.

The next year, in 1988, Iraq issued warnings that Tehran was at the nuclear threshold.

By late 1991, Congressional reports and CIA assessments maintained a “high degree of certainty that the government of Iran has acquired all or virtually all of the components required for the construction of two to three nuclear weapons.” In January 1992, Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset that “within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb.”

Furthermore, a February 1992 report by the U.S. House of Representatives suggested that Iran would have two or three operational nuclear weapons by April 1992.

In March 1992, The Arms Control Reporter reported that Iran already had four nuclear weapons, which it had obtained from Russia. That same year, the CIA predicted an Iranian nuclear weapon by 2000, then later changed their estimate to 2003.

A May 1992 report in The European claims that “Iran has obtained at least two nuclear warheads out of a batch officially listed as ‘missing from the newly independent republic of Kazakhstan.’”

Speaking on French television in October 1992, then-Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres warned the international community that Iran would be armed with a nuclear bomb by 1999. The following month, the New York Times reported that Israel was confident Iran would “become a nuclear power in a few years unless stopped.”

The same year, Robert Gates, then-director of the CIA, addressed the imminent threat of Iranian nuclear weapons. “Is it a problem today?” he asked at the time, “probably not. But three, four, five years from now it could be a serious problem.”

On January 23, 1993, Gad Yaacobi, Israeli envoy to the UN, was quoted in the Boston Globe, claiming that Iran was devoting $800 million per year to the development of nuclear weapons. Then, on February 24, 1993, CIA director James Woolsey said that although Iran was “still eight to ten years away from being able to produce its own nuclear weapon” the United States was concerned that, with foreign assistance, it could become a nuclear power earlier.

That same year, international press went wild with speculation over Iranian nuclear weapons. In the Spring of 1993, U.S. News & World Report, the New York Times, the conservative French weekly Paris Match, and Foreign Report all claimed Iran had struck a deal with North Korea to develop nuclear weapons capability, while U.S. intelligence analysts alleged an Iranian nuclear alliance with Ukraine. Months later, the AFP reported Switzerland was supplying Iran with nuclear weapons technology, while the Intelligence Newsletter claimed that the French firm CKD was delivering nuclear materials to Iran and U.S. News and World Report accused Soviet scientists working in Kazakhstan of selling weapons-grade uranium to Iran. By the end of 1993, Theresa Hitchens and Brendan McNally of Defense News and National Defense University analyst W. Seth Carus had reaffirmed CIA director Woolsey’s prediction “that Iran could have nuclear weapons within eight to ten years.”

In January 1995, John Holum, director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, testified before Congress that “Iran could have the bomb by 2003,” while Defense Secretary William Perry unveiled a grimmer analysis, stating that “Iran may be less than five years from building an atomic bomb, although how soon…depends how they go about getting it.” Perry suggested that Iran could potentially buy or steal a nuclear bomb from one of the former Soviet states in “a week, a month, five years.”

The New York Times reported that “Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought, and could be less than five years away from having an atomic bomb, several senior American and Israeli officials say,” a claim repeated by Greg Gerardi in The Nonproliferation Review (Vol. 2, 1995).

Benjamin Netanyahu, in his 1995 book “Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat the International Terrorist Network,” wrote, “The best estimates at this time place Iran between three and five years away from possessing the prerequisites required for the independent production of nuclear weapons.”

At the same time, a senior Israeli official declared, “If Iran is not interrupted in this program by some foreign power, it will have the device in more or less five years.” After a meeting in Jerusalem between Defense Secretary Perry and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, they announced that Iran would have a nuclear bomb in seven to 15 years.

On February 15, 1996, then-Israeli Foreign Minister Ehud Barak told members of the UN Security Council that Iran would be producing nuclear weapons by 2004.

On April 29, 1996, Israel’s then-Prime Minister Shimon Peres claimed in an interview with ABC that “the Iranians are trying to perfect a nuclear option” and would “reach nuclear weapons” in four years. By 1997 the Israelis confidently predicted an active Iranian nuclear bomb by 2005.

In March 1997, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency director John Holum again attested to a House panel that Iran would develop a nuclear weapon sometime between 2005 and 2007.

The following month, according to a report in Hamburg’s Welt am Sonntag, the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) believed Iran had an active nuclear weapons development program and would be able to produce nuclear weapons by 2002, “although that timeframe could be accelerated if Iran acquires weapons-grade fissile material on the black market.” Eight days later, in early May 1997, a Los Angeles Times article quoted a senior Israeli intelligence official as stating that Iran would be able to make a nuclear bomb by “the middle of the next decade.”

On June 26, 1997, the U.S. military commander in the Persian Gulf, General Binford Peay, stated that, were Iran to acquire access to fissile material, it would obtain nuclear weapons “sometime at the turn of the century, the near-end of the turn of the century.”

In September 1997, Jane’s Intelligence Defense Review reported that former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher declared, “we know that since the mid-1980s, Iran has had an organized structure dedicated to acquiring and developing nuclear weapons,” as then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that the Iranian nuclear technology program “may be the most dangerous development in the 21st century.”

Writing in the Jerusalem Post on April 9, 1998, Steve Rodan claimed “Documents obtained by the Jerusalem Post show Iran has four nuclear bombs.” The next day, U.S. State Department spokesperson James Rubin addressed this allegation, stating, “There was no evidence to substantiate such claims.”

On October 21, 1998, General Anthony Zinni, head of U.S. Central Command, said Iran could have deliverable nuclear weapons by 2003. “If I were a betting man,” he said, “I would say they are on track within five years, they would have the capability.”

The next year, on November 21, 1999, a senior Israeli military official was quoted by AP reporter Ron Kampeas (who was later hired as Washington bureau chief for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency) saying, “Unless the United States pressures Russia to end its military assistance to Iran, the Islamic republic will possess a nuclear capability within five years.”

On December 9, 1999, General Zinni reiterated his assessment that Iran “will have nuclear capability in a few years.”

In a January 2000 New York Times article co-authored by Judith Miller, it was reported that the CIA suggested to the Clinton administration “that Iran might now be able to make a nuclear weapon,” even though this assessment was “apparently not based on evidence that Iran’s indigenous efforts to build a bomb have achieved a breakthrough,” but rather that “the United States cannot track with great certainty increased efforts by Iran to acquire nuclear materials and technology on the international black market.”

On March 9, 2000, the BBC stated that German intelligence once again believed Iran to be “working to develop missiles and nuclear weapons.” The Telegraph reported on September 27, 2000 that the CIA believes Iran’s nuclear weapons capability to be progressing rapidly and suggests Iran will develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching London or New York within the next decade. CIA Deputy Director Norman Schindler is quoted as saying, “Iran is attempting to develop the capability to produce both plutonium and highly enriched uranium, and it is actively pursuing the acquisition of fissile material and the expertise and technology necessary to form the material into nuclear weapons.”

By the summer of 2001, Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer was warning that Iran could have nuclear weapons by 2005 and that, sometime in the next decade, the Iranian nuclear program would reach a “point of no return,” from which time “it would be impossible to stop it from attaining a bomb.” By the end of the year, despite an inquiry into the questionable validity of Israeli intelligence regarding the Iranian nuclear program, Mossad head Efraim Halevy repeated the claim that Iran is developing nuclear and other non-conventional weapons.

In early 2002, the CIA again issued a report alleging that Iran “remains one of the most active countries seeking to acquire (weapons of mass destruction and advanced conventional weapons) technology from abroad…In doing so, Tehran is attempting to develop a domestic capability to produce various types of weapons — chemical, biological, nuclear — and their delivery systems.” Soon thereafter, CIA Director George Tenet testified before a Senate hearing that Iran may be able to “produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by the end of this decade…Obtaining material from outside could cut years from this estimate.”

During his “Axis-of-Evil” State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, George W. Bush declared that Iran was “aggressively” pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

On July 29, 2002, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Marshall Billingslea testified to the Senate that “Iran is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons.” Three days later, after a meeting with Russian officials on August 1, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham stated that Iran was “aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons as well as [other] weapons of mass destruction.” By the end of the year, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was reiterating U.S. concerns about, what he termed, Iran’s “across-the-board pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile capabilities.”

In an interview with CNBC on February 2003, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said that Iran is seeking technological assistance from North Korea and China to enhance its weapons of mass destruction programs. In April 2003, John Wolf, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, accused Iran of having an “alarming, clandestine program.”

That same month, the Los Angeles Times stated that “there is evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction,” in a polling question regarding American attitudes toward Iran. The question followed, “Do you think the U.S. should or should not take military action against Iran if they continue to develop these weapons?” Fifty percent of respondents thought the U.S. should attack Iran.

The Telegraph reported on June 1, 2003 that “Senior Pentagon officials are proposing widespread covert operations against the government in Iran, hoping that dissident groups will mount a coup before the regime acquires a nuclear weapon.” The report contained a quote from a U.S. “government official with close links to the White House” as saying “There are some who see the overthrow of the regime as the only way to deal with the danger of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon. But there’s not going to be another war. The idea is to destabilize from inside. No one’s talking about invading anywhere.”

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken in late June 2003 asked Americans, “How likely do you think it is that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction?” 46% of those surveyed said “very likely,” while another 38% said “somewhat likely.” Only 2% replied “not at all likely.”

An August 5, 2003 report in the Jerusalem Post stated that “Iran will have the materials needed to make a nuclear bomb by 2004 and will have an operative nuclear weapons program by 2005, a high-ranking military officer told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.”

On October 21, 2003, Major General Aharon Ze’evi, Israel’s Director of Military Intelligence, declared in Ha’aretz that “by the summer of 2004, Iran will have reached the point of no return in its attempts to develop nuclear weapons.” A few weeks later, the CIA released a semi-annual unclassified report to Congress which stated Iran had “vigorously” pursued production of weapons of mass destruction and that the “United States remains convinced that Tehran has been pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program.”

By mid-November 2003, Mossad intelligence service chief Meir Dagan testified for the first time before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and said that Iran was close to the “point of no return” in developing nuclear arms.

In early 2004, Ken Brill, U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA, reiterated the American position that Iran’s nuclear efforts are “clearly geared to the development of nuclear weapons.” One year later, on January 24, 2005, Mossad chief Meir Dagan again claimed that Iran’s nuclear program was almost at the “point of no return,” adding “the route to building a bomb is a short one” and that Iran could possess a nuclear weapon in less than three years. On January 28, the Guardian quoted Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz stating the same thing. He warned that Iran would reach “the point of no return” within the next twelve months in its covert attempt to secure a nuclear weapons capability. A week later, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on CNN that Iran was “on a path of seeking a nuclear weapon,” but admitted that Iran was “years away” from building a nuclear bomb.

By August 2005, a “high-ranking IDF officer” told the Jerusalem Post that Israel has revised its earlier estimate that Iran would have a nuclear bomb by 2008, now putting the estimate closer to 2012. The same day, a major U.S. intelligence review projected that Iran was approximately ten years away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, doubling its previous estimate.

Two weeks later, however, Israeli military chief General Aharon Zeevi contradicted both the new Israeli and U.S. estimates. “Barring an unexpected delay,” he said, “Iran is going to become nuclear capable in 2008 and not in 10 years.”

In November 2005, Mohammad Mohaddessin, chair of the so-called National Council of Resistance of Iran (otherwise known as the Islamist/Marxist terrorist cult Mojahadeen-e Khalq, or MEK, which is currently designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. government) addressed a European Parliament conference and proclaimed that the “Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is determined to pursue and complete Tehran’s nuclear weapons program full blast…[and] would have the bomb in two or three years time.”

On January 18, 2006, Donald Rumsfeld told Fox News that Iran was “acquiring nuclear weapons.”

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey conducted in late January 2006 asked, “Based on what you have heard or read, do you think that the government of Iran is or is not attempting to develop its own nuclear weapons?” 88% of those polled said Iran is.

82% of respondents to a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll taken around the same time believed “Iran wants to use the uranium for military purposes, such as to build a nuclear weapons program.” 68% thought “Iran currently has a nuclear weapons program,” an increase of 8% from the previous year.

CBS News reported on April 26, 2007 that “a new intelligence report says Iran has overcome technical difficulties in enriching uranium and could have enough bomb-grade material for a single nuclear weapon in less than three years.”

In late May 2007, IAEA head Mohammad El Baradei stated that, even if Iran wanted to build a nuclear weapon (despite all evidence to the contrary), it would not be able to “before the end of this decade or some time in the middle of the next decade. In other words three to eight years from now.” On July 11, 2007, Ha’aretz reported that “Iran will cross the ‘technological threshold’ enabling it to independently manufacture nuclear weapons within six months to a year and attain nuclear capability as early as mid-2009, according to Israel’s Military Intelligence.” The report also noted that “U.S. intelligence predicts that Iran will attain nuclear capability within three to six years.”

A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics opinion poll taken in late September 2007 found that 80% of Americans believed Iran’s nuclear program was for “military purposes.”

Israeli President Shimon Peres issued an official statement on October 18, 2007 that claimed “everyone knows [Iran's] true intentions, and many intelligence agencies throughout the world have proof that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons for the purpose of war and death.”

Less than two months later, the New York Times released “Key Judgments From a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s Nuclear Activity,” a consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. The analysis, entitled “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities,” concluded with “high confidence” that the Iranian government had “halted its nuclear weapons program” in 2003, “had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007,” and admitted that “we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.” The NIE also found that “Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon” and that “Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.” Also included in the report was the assessment that, if Iran actually had a nuclear weapons program, “the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely,” continuing, “Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame,” and adding that “All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.”

A report released on February 7, 2008 by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) asserted that Iran had tested a new, and more efficient, centrifuge design to enrich uranium. If 1,200 new centrifuges were operational, the report suggested, Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in one year.

Less than a week later, Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Olmert told reporters, “We are certain that the Iranians are engaged in a serious…clandestine operation to build up a non-conventional capacity.” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in a speech at West Point that Spring, claimed that Iran “is hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons.”

On June 28, 2008, Shabtai Shavit, a former Mossad deputy director and influential adviser to the Israeli Knesset’s Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee, told The Sunday Telegraph that “worst-case scenario,” Iran may have a nuclear weapon in “somewhere around a year.”

In November 2008, David Sanger and William Broad of The New York Times reported that “Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts.” The article quoted nuclar physicist Richard L. Garwin, who helped invent the hydrogen bomb, as saying “They clearly have enough material for a bomb.” Siegfried S. Hecker of Stanford University and a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory said in the report that the growing size of the Iranian stockpile “underscored that they are marching down the path to developing the nuclear weapons option,” while Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council declared, “They have a weapon’s worth.” Peter D. Zimmerman, a physicist and former United States government arms scientist, cautioned that Iran was “very close” to nuclear weapons capability. “If it isn’t tomorrow, it’s soon,” he said, indicating the threshold could be reached in a matter of months.

David Blair, writing in The Telegraph on January 27, 2009, reported that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) “has said Iran is months away from crossing a vital threshold which could put it on course to build a weapon,” continuing that “Mark Fitzpatrick, the senior fellow for non-proliferation at the IISS, said: ‘This year, it’s very likely that Iran will have produced enough low-enriched uranium which, if further enriched, could constitute enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon, if that is the route Iran so desires.’”

On February 12, 2009, CIA Director-to-be Leon Panetta, told a Capitol Hill hearing, “From all the information I’ve seen, I think there is no question that [Iran is] seeking [nuclear weapons] capability.” Later that month, Benjamin Netanyahu, then a candidate for Israeli Prime Minister, told a Congressional delegation led by Maryland Senator Ben Cardin that “he did not know for certain how close Iran was to developing a nuclear weapons capability, but that ‘our experts’ say Iran was probably only one or two years away and that was why they wanted open ended negotiations.” Soon after that, Israel’s top intelligence official Amos Yadlin said Iran had “crossed the technological threshold” and was now capable of making a weapon.

In contrast to these allegations, National Intelligence director Dennis Blair told a Senate hearing in early March 2009 that Iran had only low-enriched uranium, which would need further processing to be used for weapons, and continued to explain that Iran had “not yet made that decision” to convert it. “We assess now that Iran does not have any highly enriched uranium,” Blair said.

Speaking in private with U.S. Congressmembers in late Spring 2009, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak “estimated a window between 6 and 18 months from now in which stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might still be viable.” In mid-June 2009, Mossad chief Meir Dagan said, “the Iranians will have by 2014 a bomb ready to be used, which would represent a concrete threat for Israel.”

On July 8, 2009, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, warned that the “window is closing” for preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Mullen claimed that Iran was only one to three years away from successfully building a nuclear weapon and “is very focused on developing this capability.” A week later, Germany’s BND foreign intelligence agency declared Iran was capable of producing and testing an atomic bomb within six months.

The following month, on August 3, The Times (UK) reported that Iran had “perfected the technology to create and detonate a nuclear warhead” and “could feasibly make a bomb within a year” if given the order by head of state Ali Khamenei.

Meanwhile, a Newsweek report from September 16, 2009, indicated that the National Intelligence Estimate stood by its 2007 assessment and that “U.S. intelligence agencies have informed policymakers at the White House and other agencies that the status of Iranian work on development and production of a nuclear bomb has not changed.”

Nevertheless, both ABC News/Washington Post and CNN/Opinion Research Corporation polls taken in mid-October 2009 found that, “Based on what [they]‘ve heard or read,” between 87% and 88% of respondents believed Iran to be developing nuclear weapons.

In November 2009, during a private meeting between U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Alexander Vershbow, and a number of senior Israeli defense officials in Israel, the head of Israel’s Defense Ministry Intelligence Analysis Production, Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, “argued that it would take Iran one year to obtain a nuclear weapon and two and a half years to build an arsenal of three weapons.”

The Times (UK) reported on January 10, 2010 that retired Israeli brigadier-general and former director-general of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission Uzi Eilam “believes it will probably take Iran seven years to make nuclear weapons,” despite the dire warnings from Major-General Amos Yadlin, head of Israeli military intelligence, who had recently told the Knesset defense committee that Iran would most likely be able to build a single nuclear device within the year.

In an interview with the U.S. military’s Voice of America on January 12, 2010, the director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, said there was no evidence that Iran has made a final decision to build nuclear weapons and confirmed that the key NIE finding that Iran has not yet committed itself to nuclear weapons was still valid. “The bottom line assessments of the NIE still hold true,” he said. “We have not seen indication that the government has made the decision to move ahead with the program.”

Barack Obama, in his first State of the Union speech on January 27, 2010 claimed that Iran was “violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

Speaking in Doha, Qatar on February 14, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed, what she called, “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.” Although Clinton said that the United States was attempting to “influence the Iranian decision regarding whether or not to pursue a nuclear weapon,” she added that “the evidence is accumulating that that’s exactly what they are trying to do, which is deeply concerning, because it doesn’t directly threaten the United States, but it directly threatens a lot of our friends, allies, and partners here in this region and beyond.”

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, taken at the same time as Clinton’s Doha visit, revealed that 71% of Americans believed Iran already had nuclear weapons. Of those remaining respondents who didn’t think Iran already possessed a nuclear bomb, over 72% thought it either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that “Iran will have nuclear weapons in the next few years.”

At an April 14, 2010 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lieutenant General Burgess, stated that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon within a year and in three years build one that could be deployed, despite having judged that Iran didn’t even have an active nuclear weapons program a mere four months earlier.

Perennial warmongers David Sanger and William Broad of the New York Times reported on May 31, 2010 that “Iran has now produced a stockpile of nuclear fuel that experts say would be enough, with further enrichment, to make two nuclear weapons.”

On June 11, 2010, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that “Most people believe that the Iranians could not really have any nuclear weapons for at least another year or two. I would say the intelligence estimates range from one to three years.”

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on June 24, 2010, introduced by Democratic Congressman Jim Costa of California, that “condemn[ed] the Government of Iran’s continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability and unconventional weapons and ballistic missile capabilities.”

CIA Director Leon Panetta said on June 27, 2010, Iran would need two years to prepare two tested and operational nuclear weapons. “We think they have enough low-enriched uranium for two weapons,” Panetta told Jake Tapper of ABC News, continuing to explain that Iran would require one year to enrich the material to weapon-grade levels and “another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable.”

On July 22, 2010, nearly a third of House Republicans signed onto a resolution which stated that “Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons” and “express[ed] support for the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.”

On August 19, 2010, the New York Times quoted Gary Samore, President Obama’s top adviser on nuclear issues, as saying that the U.S. believes Iran has “roughly a year dash time” before it could convert nuclear material into a working weapon.

Following the release of the latest IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Telegraph declared that Iran was “on [the] brink of [a] nuclear weapon,” had “passed a crucial nuclear threshold,” and “could now go on to arm an atomic missile with relative ease.”

In his attention-grabbing September 2009 cover story for The Atlantic, entitled “The Point of No Return,” Israeli establishment mouthpiece Jeffrey Goldberg wrote that, according to Israeli intelligence estimates, “Iran is, at most, one to three years away from having a breakout nuclear capability (often understood to be the capacity to assemble more than one missile-ready nuclear device within about three months of deciding to do so).”

Joint Chiefs chairman Mullen, speaking in Bahrain on December 18, 2010, said, “From my perspective I see Iran continuing on this path to develop nuclear weapons, and I believe that that development and achieving that goal would be very destabilizing to the region.”

A week ago, on December 22, 2010, the great prognosticator Sarah Palin wrote in USA Today that “Iran continues to defy the international community in its drive to acquire nuclear weapons.”

Just today, December 29, 2010, Reuters quotes Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon as claiming Iran would soon have a nuclear weapon. “I don’t know if it will happen in 2011 or in 2012, but we are talking in terms of the next three years,” he said, adding that in terms of Iran’s nuclear time-line, “we cannot talk about a ‘point of no return.’ Iran does not currently have the ability to make a nuclear bomb on its own.”

Despite all of these hysterical warnings, no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program has ever been revealed. The IAEA has repeatedly found, through intensive, round-the-clock monitoring and inspection of Iran’s nuclear facilities – including numerous surprise visits to Iranian enrichment plants – that all of Iran’s centrifuges operate under IAEA safeguards and “continue to be operated as declared.”

As far back as 1991, then-Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Hans Blix, made it clear that there was “no cause for concern” regarding Iran’s attempts to acquire nuclear technology. Twelve years later, in an IAEA report from November 2003, the agency affirmed that “to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons programme.” Furthermore, after extensive inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities, the IAEA again concluded in its November 2004 report that “all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities.”

During a press conference in Washington D.C. on October 27, 2007, IAEA Director-General El Baradei confirmed, “I have not received any information that there is a concrete active nuclear weapons program going on right now.” He continued, “Have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weapons program? No.”

By May 2008, the IAEA still reported that it had found “no indication” that Iran has or ever did have a nuclear weapons program and affirmed that “The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material [to weaponization] in Iran.” On February 22, 2009, IAEA spokesperson Melissa Fleming even issued a statement clarifying the IAEA’s position regarding the flurry of deliberately misleading articles in the US and European press claiming that Iran had enriched enough uranium “to build a nuclear bomb.” The statement, among other things, declared that “No nuclear material could have been removed from the [Nantanz] facility without the Agency’s knowledge since the facility is subject to video surveillance and the nuclear material has been kept under seal.”

This assessment was reaffirmed in September 2009, in response to various media reports over the past few years claiming that Iran’s intent to build a nuclear bomb can be proven by information provided from a mysterious stolen laptop and a dubious, undated – and forgedtwo-page document. The IAEA stated, “With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran.”

In his Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, delivered on February 2, 2010, National Intelligence director Dennis Blair stated, “We continue to assess [that] Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

In a Spring 2010 Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Related to Weapons of Mass Destruction, Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis Peter Lavoy affirmed that “we do not know whether Iran will eventually decide to produce nuclear weapons.”

Speaking with Charlie Rose in November 2010, Blair once again reiterated that “Iran hasn’t made up its mind” whether or not to pursue nuclear weaponry. On November 28, 2010, a diplomatic cable made available by Wikileaks revealed that, in December 2009, senior Israeli Defense Ministry official Amos Gilad told Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher that “he was not sure Tehran had decided it wants a nuclear weapon.”

Back in October 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle quoted former IAEA weapons inspector David Albright as saying, with regard to new reports about a possible Iranian nuclear weapons program revealed by the MEK, “We should be very suspicious about what our leaders or the exile groups say about Iran’s nuclear capacity.”

Albright continued, “There is a drumbeat of allegations, but there’s not a whole lot of solid information. It may be that Iran has not made the decision to build nuclear weapons. We have to be very careful not to overstate the intelligence.”

It appears that nothing much has changed in the past seven years, let alone the previous three decades.

Whereas the new year will surely bring more lies and deception about Iran and its nuclear energy program, more doublespeak and duplicity regarding the threat Iran poses to the United States, to Israel and to U.S.-backed Arab dictatorships, and more warmongering and demonization from Zionist think tanks, right-wing and progressive pundits alike, the 112th Congress and the Obama administration, the truth is not on their side.

“Facts are stubborn things,” John Adams said in 1770. “And whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Here’s hoping that, in 2011, the facts will begin to matter.

Happy New Year.

*****

UPDATE:

Just hours after this article was posted, United Press International published the findings of a new public opinion poll conducted by Angus-Reid. The poll found that 70% of respondents believe “the Government of Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Only 11 per cent of Americans do not believe that Iran is pursuing a nuclear program, while one-in-five (19%) are not sure.”

Originally posted AT

.

December 30, 2010 Posted by | Disinformation | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment