Recently several journalists who worked in the
mainstream media (MSM) exposed its corrupt nature, weighing in on the
growing mistrust it inspires. We hope the following will inspire you to support independent media like Global Research!
Former chief political commentator of the Telegraph, Peter
Oborne, resigned from the newspaper because it would not publish
articles on HSBC for fear of losing advertising revenues. The bank is
well-known for its money-laundering for Mexican drug cartels as well as its involvement in tax evasion schemes.
In an opinion piece called “Why I resigned from the Telegraph” he wrote:
“The coverage of HSBC in Britain’s Telegraph is a fraud
on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence
their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself
is in peril…From the start of 2013 onwards stories critical of HSBC were
discouraged. HSBC suspended its advertising with the Telegraph… HSBC,
as one former Telegraph executive told me, is “the advertiser you
literally cannot afford to offend” (Peter Oborne, Why I have resigned from the Telegraph, Open Democracy, February 17, 2015)
When it comes to powerful lobbies’ influence on media content, the
Zionist lobby is very well known for accusing journalists and editors of
anti-Semitism and imposing its own propaganda. Even so-called
progressive newspapers such as The Guardian are subject to Zionist propaganda. David Cronin writes:
I submitted an exposé of how the pro-Israel lobby operates in Brussels. While waiting to find out if the piece would be used, I phoned Matt Seaton,
who had taken over as comment editor. We had a pleasant conversation
but Seaton stressed that he regarded the subject as sensitive.
I, then, modified the piece to make its tone less polemical. Still, it was not published…
Cronin decided to write about his experience when he realized that The Guardian was much less reluctant to offer platforms to Israeli politicians and their Zionist propaganda:
“Daniel Taub, Israel’s ambassador to the UK … uses a quote attributed to Golda Meir,
Israel’s prime minister from 1969 to 1974, to hit back at aid agencies
who accuse Israel of impeding Gaza’s reconstruction: “We will only have
peace when our enemies love their children more than they hate ours.”
The inference that Palestinians hate Israelis more than they love their
children is a racist caricature… In February, the paper gave Yair Lapid, until recently Israel’s finance minister, a platform to describe calls for a cultural boycott of Israel as “shallow and lacking in coherence. (David Cronin How The Guardian Told Me to Steer Clear of Palestine, Electronic Intifada, 11 March 2015)
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung‘s former editor Udo Ulfkotte
recently published a book called “Bought Journalists. How Politicians,
Secret Services and High Finance Control the Mass Media” (Gekaufte Journalisten), in which he explains how journalists manipulate the masses for powerful interests:
Saying he believes a medical condition gives him only a
few years to live, and that he is filled with remorse, Dr. Udo Ulfkotte,
the editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany’s largest
newspapers, said in an interview that he accepted news stories written
and given to him by the CIA and published them under his own name.
Ulfkotte said the aim of much of the deception was to drive nations
toward war. (Ralph Lopez, Editor of Major German Newspaper Says He Planted Stories for the CIA, Reader Supported News, February 04, 2015)
Another book stirred some controversy lately, Au service de la République,
(Serving the Republic) Roger Auque’s memoirs published posthumously.
Auque, a well-known journalist who worked for major French magazines as
well as the French Canadian public network Radio-Canada, admitted: “I
was paid by the Israeli secret services to lead operations in Syria,
using reporting as a cover.” Le Figaro, one of France’s leading magazines for which he worked, writes that “he also offered his services to the DGSE, (the French CIA) before becoming an object of interest for the CIA.”
Contrary to Ulfkotte, who’s filled with remorse, the French reporter was “not at all ashamed of this revelation”.
These few examples show once again the importance of
independent media and how the corporate mainstream media is nothing but a
mouthpiece for powerful interests who do not want you to be informed
but rather want to manufacture consent and keep you in the dark about
important issues.
To maintain our independence, Global Research does not
seek financial support from private and public foundations. We have been
able to develop our activities thanks to contributions from our
readers. Please consider making a (one time) donation and/or becoming a
Global Research Member. Any amount large or small will contribute to
supporting Global Research.
“Understanding culture is essential in conducting irregular warfare.”
That is the opening sentence in the introduction to a new U.S. Army publication on Cultural and Situational Understanding.
“Irregular warfare requires a deliberate application of an
understanding of culture due to the need to understand a populated
operational environment, what specifically is causing instability, the
nature of the threat, and the ability to work with host-nation
governments and security forces.”
The new Army doctrine on cultural understanding emerges from and
builds upon existing Army counterinsurgency doctrine. It is “outward
looking” and does not pause to contemplate the cultural foundations of
the Army itself. See Cultural and Situational Understanding, Army Techniques Publication (ATP) 3-24.3, April 2015.
The
original idea of the CIA was to have independent-minded experts
assessing both short- and longer-term threats to U.S. national security.
Mixing with operations and politics was always a danger, which is now
highlighted by CIA Director Brennan’s reorganization, opposed by a group
of U.S. intelligence veterans.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity SUBJECT: John Brennan’s Restructuring Plan for CIA
Mr.
President, the CIA reorganization plan announced by Director John
Brennan on Friday is a potentially deadly blow to the objective,
fact-based intelligence needed to support fully informed decisions on
foreign policy. We suggest turning this danger into an opportunity to
create an independent entity for CIA intelligence analysis immune from
the operational demands of the “war on terror.”
On Feb. 5, 2003,
immediately after Colin Powell’s address to the UN, members of VIPS sent
our first VIPS memorandum, urging President George W. Bush to widen the
policy debate “beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a
war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the
unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”
CIA seal in lobby of the spy agency’s headquarters. (U.S. government photo)
The
“former senior officers” whom Brennan asked for input on the
restructuring plan are a similar closed, blinkered circle, as is the
“outstanding group of officers from across the Agency” picked by Brennan
to look at the Agency’s mission and future. He did not include any of
the intelligence community dissidents and alumni who fought against the
disastrous politicization of intelligence before the attack on Iraq. Nor
does Brennan’s plan reflect the lessons learned from that debacle.
You
have continued to express confidence in Brennan despite the CIA’s
mediocre record under his leadership. We urge you to weigh Brennan’s
plan against the backdrop of Harry Truman’s prophetic vision for the
CIA. We need to stop wasting time and energy trying to prevent the baby
Truman never wanted from being thrown out with the bathwater. Let the
bathwater run off, with the baby high and dry.
An independent
group for intelligence analysis would be free to produce for you and
your National Security Council the medium- and long-term strategic
intelligence analysis that can help our country steer clear of future
strategic disasters. And we offer ourselves as advisers as to how this
might be accomplished.
Our concern over what we see as the likely
consequences stemming from what Brennan intends, together with our many
years of experience in intelligence work, have prompted this memo, which
we believe can profit from some historical perspective.
—
President
Harry Truman wanted an agency structure able to meet a president’s need
for “the most accurate … information on what’s going on everywhere in
the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the
danger spots.” In an op-ed appearing in the Washington Post exactly
one month after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Truman
added, “I have been disturbed by … the way CIA has been diverted from
its original assignment … and has become an operational and at times
policy-making arm of the Government.”
Truman added that the “most
important thing” was to guard against the chance of intelligence being
used to influence or lead the President into unwise decisions. His
warning is equally relevant now – 52 years later.
Bay of Pigs
Truman
was referring to how CIA Director Allen Dulles tried to mousetrap
President Kennedy into committing U.S. armed forces to finish what a
rag-tag band of CIA-trained invaders of Cuba began by landing at the Bay
of Pigs in April 1961, a few months before you were born. Kennedy had
repeatedly warned the CIA brass and covert action planners that under no
circumstances would he commit U.S. forces. But they were old hands;
they knew better; they thought the young President could be had.
Allen
Dulles’s handwritten notes discovered after his death show how he drew
Kennedy into a plan that was virtually certain to require the support of
U.S. forces. Dulles wrote that Kennedy would be compelled by “the
realities of the situation” to give whatever military support was
necessary “rather than permit the enterprise to fail.”
Kennedy
fired Dulles, a quintessential Washington Establishment figure –
something one does only at one’s own peril. As young CIA officers at the
time, some of us experienced first-hand the deep reservoir of hate in
which many a CIA covert action operator swam. Many could not resist
venting their spleen, calling Kennedy a “coward” and even “traitor.”
Analysis Also Corrupted
You
are fully aware, we trust, that our analysts’ vaunted ethos of speaking
unvarnished truth to power was corrupted by Director George Tenet and
Deputy Director John McLaughlin, who outdid themselves in carrying out
the instructions of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The
new ethos boiled down to this: If the President wants to paint Iraq as a
strategic threat, it is our job to come up with the “evidence” – even
if it needs to be manufactured out of whole cloth (or forged, as in
“yellowcake uranium from Africa” caper).
Honest analysts were
admonished not to rock the boat. A concrete example might help to show
this in all its ugliness. When the only U.S. intelligence officer to
interview “Curve Ball” before the war saw a draft of Powell’s Feb. 5,
2003 speech citing “first-hand descriptions” by an Iraqi defector of a
fleet of mobile bioweapons laboratories, he strongly questioned the
“validity of the information.” The interviewer had, from the outset,
expressed deep reservations about Curveball’s reliability.
Here’s
what the interviewer’s supervisor, the Deputy Chief of the CIA’s Iraqi
Task Force, wrote in an email responding to his misgivings:
“Let’s
keep in mind the fact that this war’s going to happen regardless of
what Curve Ball said or didn’t say, and that the Powers That Be probably
aren’t terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he’s
talking about. However, in the interest of Truth, we owe somebody a
sentence or two of warning, if you honestly have reservations.”
This
was not an isolated occurrence. Commenting on the results of a
bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee five-year study of pre-Iraq-war
intelligence, Chairman Jay Rockefeller described it as
“unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even nonexistent.” He was alluding to
information (in)famously described as a “slam dunk” by then-CIA
Director George Tenet who was singularly responsible for advancing the
career of John Brennan.
In a departure from customary diplomatic
parlance, then-Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence Carl Ford,
speaking to the authors of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War,
had harsh words for Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin. Ford said
that the evidence and analysis they gave policy makers was “not just
wrong, they lied … they should have been shot.”
It is
unfortunately true that – short of quitting and blowing the whistle –
there is little one can do to prevent the skewing of “intelligence” when
it is directed from the top – whether by the Bush-Tenet-McLaughlin
consequential deceit on the threat from Iraq, or the
ideological/careerist conceit of William Casey-Robert Gates in insisting
up until the very end of the Soviet regime that the Soviet Communist
Party would never relinquish power and that Soviet leader Mikhail
Gorbachev was merely cleverer than his predecessors.
Thankfully, Not All Gave Up
There
is hope to be drawn from those occasions where senior intelligence
officials with integrity can step in, show courageous example, and –
despite multiple indignities and pitfalls in the system – can force the
truth to the surface. We hope that you have been made aware that, after
the no-WMD-anywhere debacle on Iraq, Assistant Secretary of State for
Intelligence Thomas Fingar did precisely that during 2007, supervising a
watershed National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that concluded
unanimously, “with high confidence,” that Iran had stopped working on a
nuclear weapon in 2003.
President Bush concedes in his memoir that
this put the kibosh on his and Dick Cheney’s earlier plan to attack
Iran during their last year in office. So, character (as in Fingar)
counts, and people of integrity can make a difference – and even help
thwart plans for war – even in the most politicized of circumstances.
Restructuring
Accordingly,
the primary objective in any restructuring should be to make it easier
for people of integrity, like Thomas Fingar, to create an atmosphere in
which analysts feel free to tell it like it is without worry about
possible harm to their careers, should they come up with a politically
“incorrect” conclusion – as the one on Iran clearly was.
The
problem is that the Brennan restructuring effort does just the opposite.
It puts the politicization on steroids. Placing intelligence analysts
and operations officers together fosters a quite different kind of
atmosphere – the kind that increases the likelihood of what Truman
called the “most important thing” to guard against – leading “the
President into unwise decisions.”
Truman saw the general problem
and went even further, saying he “would like to see the CIA restored to
its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President … and
its operational duties terminated or properly used elsewhere.” We think
Truman was right then; and he is right now.
Decades of experience
show that Truman’s fears were well founded. Indeed, from the outset,
putting analysis and covert action operations together in the same
agency was the first structural fault, so to speak, when it was created
in 1947.
It was occasioned primarily by insistence that WWII OSS
operatives who could match the KGB in what is now called “regime change”
remain in government, and then a myopic choice to place them with the
analysts in the newly created CIA. As Melvin Goodman points out in his The Failure of Intelligence: the Decline and Fall of the CIA,
the early “CIA leadership itself was opposed to having responsibility
for covert action, believing that the clandestine function would
ultimately taint the intelligence product, a prescient observation.”
During
the 1980s, President Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz,
correctly accused CIA Director William Casey and his deputy, Robert
Gates, of slanting intelligence, charging that their operational
involvement “colored” the Agency’s analysis. Shultz openly charged
William Casey with giving President Reagan “faulty intelligence” to
bolster Casey’s own policy preferences, including the ill-conceived
arms-for-hostages-swap with Iran.
Shultz added that, because he
had a sense of this analysis-operations toxic mix, he harbored “grave
doubts about the objectivity and reliability of some of the intelligence
I was getting.” Shultz was a strong advocate of separating the analysis
from operations, likening the need to that of separating investment
from commercial banking.
“War on Terrorism” as Business Model
The
business model chosen by Brennan is fashioned to the “War on
Terrorism,” and he holds up the Counterterrorism Center (CTC) as a model
to emulate. There the analysts and operations officers sit side by side
charged primarily with hunting, targeting, and killing in that war.
But
truth, it has been pointed out, is the first casualty of war. This can
be seen right off the bat in the exaggerated way the supposed
“successes” of the Center are advertised. Some of us have worked in or
closely with these CIA Centers, after which ten new “Mission Centers”
are patterned. And we are taken aback by the hyperbolic plaudits being
given them – and especially to the CTC.
That a quintessential
politicizer, and big Curve Ball promoter, like former CIA Deputy
Director John McLaughlin is reported to have advised Brennan on the
restructuring, and lauds the benefits of “putting analysts and operators
together” adds to our concern.
Very much in step, former CIA
Deputy Director Michael Morell, for instance, claims that existing
Centers have “proven to be a very powerful combination” and that the
Counterterrorism Center is “the most successful agency component over
the last decade.”
Morell remains focused on the business model of
war. Just days ago he conceded that he did not think he would live to
see the end of al-Qaeda: “My children’s generation and my
grandchildren’s generation will still be fighting this fight,” said
Morell.
Does it occur to Morell or others who have played senior
intelligence roles that there ought to be a different kind of center,
like what used to exist in parts of the Directorate of Intelligence,
where analyst talent might be used not simply for targeting terrorists,
but for figuring out what their grievances are, and whether there may be
more promising ways to address them?
Do we really believe that
terrorists slip out of the womb screaming “I hate America”? And is
there a cost to drone-killing them as the preferred method of
eliminating terrorists (together with others who may be in the wrong
place at the wrong time)?
Brennan has announced that the new
Centers will “bring the full range of operational, analytic, support,
technical, and digital personnel and capabilities to bear on the
nation’s most pressing security issues and interests.”
We need to
learn more of the specifics, but the integrated Mission Centers sound
very much like fertile field for politicization and centralized control
under which subordinates will feel pressure to fall in line with
prosecuting the war de jour and to sign on to politically correct
solutions dictated from the 7th floor under guidance from your staff in the White House.
Is
this the kind of CIA we need — everyone marching in step, as major
parts of the Agency are transformed into a private army at your
disposal, with virtually no Congressional oversight? We don’t think so.
A Watershed
With
the present restructuring plan we see little promise for the kind of
agenda-free, substantive intelligence that you and other senior policy
makers need. But the train seems to have left the station headed toward
Brennan’s restructuring plan. The sweeping reorganization scheme is of
such importance that it should be the subject of hearings in the
intelligence committees of House and Senate, but there is no indication
that either committee intends to do so.
Let the analysts inclined
toward targeting terrorists and providing other direct operational
support to war sign up for these war-on-terror and like Centers. You and
your successors will still need an agency devoted to unfettered
intelligence analysis able to critique honestly the likely medium- and
long-term consequences of the methods used to wage the “war on terror”
and other wars.
We can assure you it is far better for
those analysts doing this demanding substantive work NOT to be
simultaneously “part of the team” implementing that policy.
It
is time to revert to what Truman envisaged for the CIA. We are ready to
make ourselves available to assist you and your staff in thinking
through how this might be done. That it needs to be done is clear to us,
and this would seem an opportune time.
In our view, we need to
stop wasting time and energy trying to prevent the baby from being
thrown out with the bathwater. Let the bathwater run off. Save the baby,
even if that means a separate institution in which analysts of the kind
that completed that NIE on Iran in 2007 can flourish. This just might
help stop a new unnecessary war, as the combat support officers try to
bring an end to old ones.
In sum, we are convinced that a separate
entity for intelligence analysis – the kind of agency Truman envisaged
for his CIA – would be an invaluable asset to you and your successors as
president.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
Fulton Armstrong, National Intelligence Officer for Latin America (ret.)
Larry Johnson, CIA analyst & State Department/counterterrorism, (ret.)
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer
David MacMichael, USMC & National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, Army Infantry/Intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Torin Nelson, former HUMINT Officer, Department of the Army
Coleen Rowley, retired FBI Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel
Peter Van Buren, former diplomat, Department of State (associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.)
Lawrence Wilkerson, Colonel (USA, ret.), Distinguished Visiting Professor, College of William and Mary
Ann Wright, retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former US diplomat (resigned in March 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967
That all changed in the 1960s.
Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote
a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and
recommended methods for discrediting such theories. The dispatch was
marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation
– and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.
The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.
The dispatch states:
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.
***
The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists,
so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.
Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a
number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy]
question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where
discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts
(especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official
investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation
as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious
foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the
hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy
talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them
to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible
speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of
the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly
appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to
this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to
assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are
(I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
***
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular
writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the
following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.
***
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …
***
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.
***
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.
***
f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it
emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the
degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was
largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation
already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who,
refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to
the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still
be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with
which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
Here are screenshots of part of the memo:
Summarizing the tactics which the CIA dispatch recommended:
Claim that it would be impossible for so many people would keep quiet about such a big conspiracy
Claim that this is all old news, as “no significant new evidence has emerged”
Ignore conspiracy claims unless discussion about them is already too active
Claim that it’s irresponsible to speculate
Accuse theorists of being wedded to and infatuated with their theories
Accuse theorists of being politically motivated
Accuse theorists of having financial interests in promoting conspiracy theories
In other words, the CIA’s clandestine services unit created the
arguments for attacking conspiracy theories as unreliable in the 1960s
as part of its psychological warfare operations.
But Aren’t Conspiracy Theories – In Fact – Nuts?
Forget Western history and CIA dispatches … aren’t conspiracy theorists nutty?
In fact, conspiracies are so common that judges are trained to look at conspiracy allegations as just another legal claim to be disproven or proven based on the specific evidence:
Federal and all 50 state’scodes include specific statutes addressing conspiracy, and providing the punishment for people who commit conspiracies.
But let’s examine what the people trained to weigh evidence and reach
conclusions think about “conspiracies”. Let’s look at what American judges think.
Searching Westlaw,
one of the 2 primary legal research networks which attorneys and judges
use to research the law, I searched for court decisions including the
word “Conspiracy”. This is such a common term in lawsuits that it
overwhelmed Westlaw.
Specifically, I got the following message:
“Your query has been intercepted because it may retrieve a large number of documents.”
From experience, I know that this means that there were potentially
millions or many hundreds of thousands of cases which use the term.
There were so many cases, that Westlaw could not even start processing
the request.
So I searched again, using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy”. I hoped
that this would not only narrow my search sufficiently that Westlaw
could handle it, but would give me cases where the judge actually found
the defendant guilty of a conspiracy. This pulled up exactly 10,000
cases — which is the maximum number of results which Westlaw can give at
one time. In other words, there were more than 10,000 cases using the
phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy” (maybe there’s a way to change my settings
to get more than 10,000 results, but I haven’t found it yet).
Moreover, as any attorney can confirm, usually only appeal court
decisions are published in the Westlaw database. In other words, trial
court decisions are rarely published; the only decisions normally
published are those of the courts which hear appeals of the trial.
Because only a very small fraction of the cases which go to trial are
appealed, this logically means that the number of guilty verdicts in
conspiracy cases at trial must be much, much larger than 10,000.
Moreover, “Guilty of Conspiracy” is only one of many possible search
phrases to use to find cases where the defendant was found guilty of a
lawsuit for conspiracy. Searching on Google, I got 3,170,000 results (as of yesterday) under the term “Guilty of Conspiracy”, 669,000 results for the search term “Convictions for Conspiracy”, and 743,000 results for “Convicted for Conspiracy”.
Of course, many types of conspiracies are called other things
altogether. For example, a long-accepted legal doctrine makes it illegal
for two or more companies to conspire to fix prices, which is called
“Price Fixing” (1,180,000 results).
Given the above, I would extrapolate that there have been hundreds of
thousands of convictions for criminal or civil conspiracy in the United
States.
Finally, many crimes go unreported or unsolved, and the perpetrators
are never caught. Therefore, the actual number of conspiracies committed
in the U.S. must be even higher.
In other words, conspiracies are committed all the time in the U.S.,
and many of the conspirators are caught and found guilty by American
courts. Remember, Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was a conspiracy theory.
Indeed, conspiracy is a very well-recognized crime in American law,
taught to every first-year law school student as part of their basic
curriculum. Telling a judge that someone has a “conspiracy
theory” would be like telling him that someone is claiming that he
trespassed on their property, or committed assault, or stole his car. It
is a fundamental legal concept.
Obviously, many conspiracy allegations are false (if you see a judge
at a dinner party, ask him to tell you some of the crazy conspiracy
allegations which were made in his court). Obviously, people will either
win or lose in court depending on whether or not they can prove their
claim with the available evidence. But not all allegations of trespass,
assault, or theft are true, either.
Proving a claim of conspiracy is no different from proving any other
legal claim, and the mere label “conspiracy” is taken no less seriously
by judges.
It’s not only Madoff. The heads of Enron were found guilty of conspiracy, as was the head of Adelphia. Numerous lower-level government officials have been found guilty of conspiracy. See this, this, this, this and this.
Time Magazine’s financial columnist Justin Fox writes:
Some financial market conspiracies are real …
Most good investigative reporters are conspiracy theorists, by the way.
And what about the NSA and the tech companies that have cooperated with them?
But Our Leaders Wouldn’t Do That
While people might admit that corporate executives and low-level
government officials might have engaged in conspiracies – they may be
strongly opposed to considering that the wealthiest or most powerful
might possibly have done so.
But powerful insiders have long admitted to conspiracies. For
example, Obama’s Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, wrote:
Of
course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out
to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National
Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the
behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence
Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project
MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.”
Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to
simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was
proposed by high-level officials ….
But Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans
A common defense to people trying sidetrack investigations into
potential conspiracies is to say that “someone would have spilled the
beans” if there were really a conspiracy.
But famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg explains:
It
is a commonplace that “you can’t keep secrets in Washington” or “in a
democracy, no matter how sensitive the secret, you’re likely to read it
the next day in the New York Times.” These truisms are flatly false.
They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading
journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets
well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn’t in a
fully totalitarian society. But the fact is that the overwhelming
majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true
even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it
is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power
and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality
unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is
that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be
kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even
though they are known to thousands of insiders.
There was “a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing
American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President
Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The
plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families
in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse &
George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should
adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression”
The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this.) But the public didn’t learn about it until many years later. Indeed, the the New York Times delayed the story so that it would not affect the outcome of the 2004 presidential election
The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And top British officials say
that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change one month after Bush took
office. Dick Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national
security priority before 9/11. And it has now been shown that a handful of people
were responsible for willfully ignoring the evidence that Iraq lacked
weapons of mass destruction. These facts have only been publicly
disclosed recently. Indeed, Tom Brokaw said, “All wars are based on propaganda.” A concerted effort to produce propaganda is a conspiracy
Moreover, high-level government officials and insiders have admitted to dramatic conspiracies after the fact, including:
The admissions did not occur until many decades after the events.
These examples show that it is possible to keep conspiracies secret for a long time, without anyone “spilling the beans”.
In addition, to anyone who knows how covert military operations work,
it is obvious that segmentation on a “need-to-know basis”, along with
deference to command hierarchy, means that a couple of top dogs can call
the shots and most people helping won’t even know the big picture at the time they are participating.
Moreover, those who think that co-conspirators will brag about their
deeds forget that people in the military or intelligence or who have
huge sums of money on the line can be very disciplined. They are not
likely to go to the bar and spill the beans like a down-on-their-luck,
second-rate alcoholic robber might do.
Finally, people who carry out covert operations may do so for
ideological reasons — believing that the “ends justify the means”. Never
underestimate the conviction of an ideologue.
Conclusion
The bottom line is that some conspiracy claims are nutty and some are true. Each has to be judged on its own facts.
Humans have a tendency to try to explain random events through seeing
patterns … that’s how our brains our wired. Therefore, we have to test
our theories of connection and causality against the cold, hard facts.
On the other hand, the old saying by Lord Acton is true:
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
Those who operate without checks and balances – and without the
disinfectant sunlight of public scrutiny and accountability – tend to
act in their own best interests … and the little guy gets hurt.
The early Greeks knew it, as did those who forced the king to sign
the Magna Carta, the Founding Fathers and the father of modern
economics. We should remember this important tradition of Western
civilization. Postscript: The ridicule of all conspiracy theories is really just an attempt to diffuse criticism of the powerful. The wealthy are not worse than other people … but they are not necessarily better either. Powerful leaders may not be bad people … or they could be sociopaths. We must judge each by his or her actions, and not by preconceived
stereotypes that they are all saints acting in our best interest or all
scheming criminals.
And see ...
PERES AND THE YEMENITES OF LONG MEMORIES by Barry Chamish
Just before the February visit of former Israeli President
Shimon Peres to the US, the Yemenites revitalized his crimes against
them. Please read the latest posts well, posted in consecutive years
leading
to this year:
In 1995, my revelations about the Rabin murder had made
headlines in Israel and the leaders of the Yemenite Children's movement
asked me to investigate their cause. Their movement's leader, Rabbi Uzi
Meshulum was arrested and they feared for his life.
Who could blame them? Meshulum's arrest had already caused
one murder. To get the rabbi into prison, the Israeli authorities
surrounded his home and placed him and several dozen of his congregants
under siege. Nearly 2000 police and Shabak officers arrived at his home
in Yehud and they were backed up by helicopters and dogs. But it was
the snipers who were assigned to wipe out the rabbi, his family and his
congregation.
One unarmed congregant, Shlomi Asoulin was shot by a
sniper. He was taken to police lines where he was allowed to bleed to
death. Then Rabbi Meshulum's house was shot up. I counted fifty bullet
holes in his living room walls and then stopped. I got the message. The
state tried to mass-execute him, his wife, children and young followers.
In 1996, Rabbi Meshulum asked to meet me. I traveled with
his wife to Sharon Prison, walked through a maze of sinking corridors
until I reached his compound. We shook hands, and he had a powerful
grip. We spoke of many things but I wanted to know the big truth from
the source: why hadn't he united the kidnapped children with their
biological parents? He then blasted the music on his portable tape
machine and explained that he didn't have the heart to tell the parents
that the majority of their children were dead, murdered in atomic
experiments, most shipped first to America in cages. Then he revealed
the reason for his repression: the founder of the Israeli atomic
research program was Shimon Peres and if the truth came out, he would
be exposed for his role in the atrocities.
He told me why he wanted this meeting. The Shifris family
had assumed control of his movement and he was now certain that they
were Shabak infiltrators destroying his movement from within. He wanted
me to take over as spokesman.
I accepted, but Ora Shifris would have nothing to do with
it. The Yemenite people are innately modest and mild-mannered. I had my
advocates but none could find the wherewithal to stand up to the feisty
Ashkenazi lady who had shanghaied their fight for justice.
Before he arrived, I was asked by the American Jewish Right
to help protest Peres on my radio show and, if possible, in person. The
Rightists responded with disinformation, shoddy research, and
amateurism that fell right into the hands of anyone who called them
extremists. Like chickens in a barrel, they lived up to their
reputation. They were, in fact, infiltrated, controlled extremists.
But then, who can you trust? The ignorant low-lifes who use
any excuse to vilify Jews and Israel? The Jews who keep their traps
shut to "protect security.?" Or how about the Christians who have
created a myth of their "prophetic" Holy Land nation?
I want blot them all out of my mind, and relate only to my
Jewish victims. We could care less about myth-making Christians, dummy
anti-semites, and mute Jews. We want justice and we insist that the
monster Peres be indicted for his crime against the Yemenites.
Like that can happen. It would require everyone facing
truth. Here's my previous coverage of Peres and one unfortunate
Yemenite, Ofra Haza:
THE MURDER OF OFRA HAZA by Barry Chamish
The missing Yemenite children claimed another victim. Before we begin,
please open:
http://chipwich.tripod.com/ofrahaza/videos/Tzedek.html Journalist (Ofra Haza) decides to
investigate the "kidnapped Yemen children" case & even to find her
twin brother after he was missing after his birth. She is meeting Gidi
Vaxman (Arnon Tzadok), a detective in the homicide department who is in
the climax of solving a very complicated murder case. With her
determination, she succeeds in breaking his stubbornness to prove to
him that he is her lost brother & to lead him to meeting with his
biological parents & meeting his past.
Now we begin with some deep political background. Under
dire threat, Ariel Sharon has begun the process of the forced removal
of 8000 Jews from their homes. The pressure from within the country
comes from the top of Labor Zionism. Their goal is to stop the
religious revival taking place within Yesha, beginning with Gaza. With
the transfer of the Gazan Jews will come a split in the country so
profound that over half its citizens will stop accepting the government
as their legal authority. This will spell the end of Israel.
The Gazan Jews represent the finest ideals of the Zionism of
national liberation. Labor Zionism is a foreign transplant on the body
of the Jews and only its removal can spell the salvation of Israel.
In my previous two articles I spelled out the depths of
criminality which is Labor Zionism. With ample proof we learned that
the Ben Gurion government sanctioned the mass irradiation of Sephardic
children and youths in the 1950s, while kidnapping some 4500 Yemenite
infants for use as guinea pigs in American atomic experiments. For
this, Israel was paid today's equivalent of 50 billion dollars.
The expose of the Yemenite kidnappings led readers to insist I
explore the murder of the Yemenite-Israeli singer Ofra Haza. I had just
begun when, divinely, a member of Haza's family asked to meet with me.
What he imparted is going to sound fantastic, but what doesn't anymore?
You judge, but I believed him.
Let's start with the motive. Ofra Haza had a cousin kidnapped
from a transit camp in the 1950s. In 1985, she released an album of
Yemenite Songs which turned her into an international disco star, in
fact, the most popular Israeli entertainer ever. She was a hero to the
Israeli Yemenite community.
In the early 1990s, Rabbi Uzi Meshulum, leader of the movement
on behalf of the missing Yemenite children, ignited a demand for the
truth that was spreading throughout the country. His house was
surrounded by police and army, shot up, killing an eighteen year old
follower, and he was finally imprisoned. He returned home in 1999
lobotomized.
The Yemenite community was enraged but felt powerless. Ofra Haza
had power, lots of it within the country and throughout the world. Look
at a typical testimony to her influence pulled off the internet:
I have to admit that I was ignorant to the proud history
of my own ancestors ( OFRA and I are Yemenite ).
After being exposed to OFRA's music I found myself researching
my ethnic history, asking my mother and grand mother to tell
me all they knew of the Yemenite people.
In 1997, Ofra Haza decided to dedicate herself to the
missing Yemenite children. She financed and starred in a movie about
the issue:
Liat Collins
Jerusalem Post
02-28-1997
"Who kidnapped Ofra Haza?" Under this intriguing title, Ma'ariv writer
Michal Kafra interviewed the superstar singer who is starring in an
Israeli film examining the disappearances of Yemenite immigrant
children in the early years of the state. For Haza it marks a return to
the big screen, a return from recording studios in Germany and, above
all, a return to her roots.
The film, called Absolute Justice, is directed by Doron Eran and Arnon
Zadok, who is also the producer.
Arnon Zadok is no minor director. Yemenite himself, he
has directed award winning films like White Night, and Beyond The
Walls. In fact, he was the last Israeli director to be nominated for an
Oscar. But Absolute Justice was shown once at the Tel Aviv
Cinemateque and disappeared.
I was heartbroken when she died. I was never sure that a woman this
beautiful would be content to be solely a recording artist; I thought
that she had been aspiring to a career in film. I believed that her
disappearance from the scene was a result of her film career not taking
off;
-Tom Schnabel
Producer, KCRW Radio
Any movie starring Ofra Haza would have been
a hit in Israel but never more than after her death, they told us, of
AIDS. So where did the movie go?
It was also in 1997, while making her movie, that Ofra Haza
was pursued by a suitor named Doron Ashkenazi. Not just pursued,
hounded. She wanted nothing to do with him but profound family pressure
was put on her to give him a chance. After her death, it was revealed
that Ashkenazi, supposedly a building contractor, paid off Ofra's
cousin to be his matchmaker. When her persuasion led to his marriage to
Ofra, the yente was paid off with a $20,000 kitchen.
In the wake of Haza's unexpected death, both Ha'ir and
Haaretz published pretty deep exposes of Haza's life with Ashkenazi.
With the cooperation of her family and her longtime agent, both
articles agreed on most major points. Of Ashkenazi, we learned that:
Though she wanted to live near her family in Yehud, Ashkenazi
forced Haza to move to an expensive home in Herzlia. Once separated
from her roots, he forbade her from visiting family and friends, and
had her fire her longtime manager/producer, Bezalel Aloni. While she
was dying, Ashkenazi had her sign the deed to her Yehud home over to
him, and on the day of her death, he emptied her bank account. Ofra had
informed her family that in her will, she bequeathed her home and
worldly domain to them. The family challenged Ashkenazi's claim to her
property in court. Note that the lawyer chosen was Rami Tsuberi, author
of a stinging book about the kidnapped Yemenite children. This URL is
in Hebrew.
Ofra Haza was a traditional Yemenite woman, who was modest
by nature and not by any means promiscuous. Yet, Ashkenazi convinced
her to abort their baby. URL also in Hebrew:
Because of her known modesty, combined with
the abortion, the public accused Ashkenazi of passing the AIDS virus on
to her. He denied it and promised to take an AIDS test and reveal the
results to the public. This was apparently threatening to someone. He
never had a chance to take the test...
Itim
Jerusalem Post
04-09-2001
Headline: Ofra Haza's widower dies, drugs found
Byline: Itim
Edition; Daily
Section: News
Page: 01
Monday, April 9, 2001 -- The attorney of the family of singer Ofra
Haza, who died last February of AIDS, said yesterday the family awaits
the results of the autopsy to be performed on her husband, Doron
Ashkenazi, who died Saturday night, to determine whether he was an HIV
carrier.
Ashkenazi was found unconscious Saturday night in his Herzliya home,
evidently by friends, who called Magen David Adom around 9 p.m.
...because he was snuffed out 14 months after Haza. But look
who promised to do the HIV test post mortem? Why it's Yehuda Hiss, the
coroner who falsified the autopsy of Yitzhak Rabin, and the coroner who
was caught counterfeiting a DNA test between a surviving Yemenite child
and her biological mother.
In English, how Ashkenazi died:
By Amit Ben-Aroya
Ha'aretz Correspondent and wires
Doron Ashkenazi - widower of Israel's most successful international
singer, Ofra Haza, who died of AIDS in February 2000 - died Saturday
night of an overdose of crystallized cocaine, police said.
His autopsy today may shed a light on Haza's death as well.
"We are expecting an answer as to whether Doron was HIV positive, and
the one who infected Ofra," attorney Arie Sharabi, who represents the
Haza family, said yesterday.
Several complaints were filed with the police, accusing Ashkenazi of
not informing Haza that he was HIV positive. Ashkenazi, who has an
eight-year-old girl and a 15-year-old boy, was never arrested in
connection with Haza's death. The Tel Aviv prosecutor is still working
on the Haza file. His death is to terminate the investigation, unless
the family allows it to be continued, which is very unlikely, Sharabi
explained.
On Saturday night, the night of the Seder, Ashkenazi would not
celebrate with his family. He said he was still in mourning. A
preliminary police investigation indicates he spent the evening with
friends, doing "crystal meth" at Ashkenazi's home in Herzliya.
When Ashkenazi suddenly collapsed at 8 P.M., one of the friends called
an ambulance, and told Ashkenazi's family. Ashkenazi was rushed to
Beilinson Hospital in Petah Tikva, where, after attempts at
resuscitation, he was pronounced dead.
Police were only informed at 10:30 PM. Chief Superintendent Avi Sasson,
deputy commander of the Gelilot station, which is investigating the
case, told Ha'aretz he still did not know why Ashkenazi's car was found
parked in south Tel Aviv.
Ashkenazi family lawyer Shmuel Zang said Ashkenazi was focused on the
legal proceeding that were to begin in a few weeks regarding the
validity of Haza's will, a copy of which could not be found.
The medical panel that investigated Haza's death published its findings
three months ago. Its report said that, if Haza had admitted herself to
hospital earlier, her life might have been saved. But Haza, fearful
that her condition would become public knowledge, refused to go to the
hospital, even when her situation had become very serious.
Ashkenazi was first exposed to the public eye when, in July 1997, he
married Haza, a popular singer. She was discovered at age 12 at the
underprivileged Hatikva neighborhood in Tel Aviv, by Bezalel Aloni, who
was her personal manager for years - until her marriage to Ashkenazi,
when she severed her ties with him.
Just weeks before her death, she telephoned Aloni and told him of her
condition. "I said a year ago that this man [Ashkenazi] was to blame.
He covered himself with a battery of lawyers. His death only serves to
emphasize how tragic and futile Ofra's death was. Doron was the first
and last man in her life, and that's terrible," Aloni said.
With Ashkenazi out of the way, he would talk no more, nor take an
HIV test. Dr. Hiss' post mortem test was never released, so Haaretz was
used to put final closure on the issue, publishing a report that Haza
had an affair with a bi-sexual German film producer. The disinformation
apparently did its job and the Haza death withered away with the
elimination of Ashkenazi.
Now, with great trepidation, I introduce Shimon Peres. It was
Peres who invited Haza to sing at the signing of the Oslo Accord and at
the Nobel Prize ceremony, during which he won a prize for "peace."
Recalling that Peres was in charge of the Israeli atomic program during
the days when the Yemenite children were kidnapped and turned into
guinea pigs for atomic experiments, her appearance beside him was more
than a little disconcerting.
When Haza entered the hospital, 13 days before she finally
succumbed to her poisoning, Peres called her mother to see how she was
doing. http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/02/25/News/News.3176.html
At the funeral, Peres called Haza "a singer of hope for the nation
and the world" and thanked her for "making Israel a nation of song."
What was Peres' great interest in promoting the
career of Ofra Haza? I met the Haza family member at a cafe near the
Shalom Tower in Tel Aviv. Everything he told me came from within Ofra
Haza's closest circles.
FM - She was murdered because of the film. I was there when it was
shown at the Cinemateque. It was chopped up. She told us that she named
names in the movie. I recall she blamed Yisrael Kessar and Yisrael
Yeshiahu for being the capos of the kidnappings. That wasn't in the
final edit of the film. The film was never shown again but copies of
the original are floating around. They got Arnon to bury it and they
got Ofra buried.
BC - How did they do it?
FM - We all believe she was deliberately infected with AIDS. Now there
was no reason for her to die of it. She was feeling weak for a year and
had seen her doctor to complain. But she wasn't given the HIV cocktail.
BC - Why not?
FM - We found out later that her doctor, Mimi Hatman, was a
friend/lover of Doron Ashkenazi's.
They were in on the murder together. Do you remember the nonsense the
media spread that Ofra kept her AIDS a secret so her fans wouldn't be
disappointed? In other words, she preferred to die rather than treat
her disease? What a story, but the public bought it. The twist given
was that she died of shame.
BC - So Ashkenazi married her to murder her?
FM - Yeah. He was the hitman.
BC - For who, Shabak, Mossad?
FM - No, he was Peres' boy. He was on assignment from him. Peres was
about the last survivor of the gang that arranged the kidnappings. He
would do anything to keep the lid on the affair. When he found out that
Ofra was on the Yemenite children bandwagon, he panicked. She was
bigger than he was. She was more popular and, of course, way more
trusted. She was the biggest threat the scandal ever faced. She was too
naive to realize the danger she placed herself in by making that movie.
After they got Ofra out of the way, they decided to finish the job.
Ashkenazi was getting unpredictable after everyone thought he gave her
AIDS because he had it. He didn't and hated everyone thinking he did.
He was going to blow the operation so they had him ODing on a needle.
That was perfect because it explained how this heterosexual got the
disease in the first place. A couple in their 30s injected him and the
woman was murdered too. It's very deadly to get too close to Peres, and
Ofra should have known better. She knew him better than anyone ever
found out.
BC - Because of Oslo and the Nobel Prize ceremony?
FM - He took her everywhere. If Margaret Thatcher was in town, he'd
bring her along to serenade her. I have a picture of that event. His
affair with her began way before the 'peace' process. He saw her
firstrole as Ha Frekha, (The Tart), and he took a shine to
her.That's how he decided to meet Ofra. Peres is a serial cad, but at
least he rewards his conquests with great careers. However, he really
took advantage of her.
BC - Are you really saying that Peres had an affair with Ofra Haza?
FM - Oh, for years. There are people in the family who say he raped
her, but I call it mind-screwing. She's a young naive singer who comes
from the slums. Now she's invited to Stockholm to perform for famous
diplomats. How could she refuse him later in the hotel? He was using
her to satisfy himself and sell peace. He had it made. And she was
getting a big career boost by playing along. But she made a bigger
mistake.
BC - Being what?
FM - She wanted to do something for her people. The issue of the
Yemenite children took hold. I'm almost positive it had nothing to do
with getting even with Peres. I don't think she made the connection to
his role. But there is that chance that she wanted revenge for the
shame he caused her, at least subconsciously. Whatever the truth, Peres
felt betrayed and threatened. So Ofra got the Rabin treatment.
That was NOT what I was expecting to hear when I
arranged the interview.
If any of this tawdry tale is true, and I'm inclined to believe
that ALL of it may be, then we know just how much wickedness
resides in the heart of the leader of the Labor Party, of Labor
Zionism, and of the peacemaker who brought us the Oslo nightmare which
led to ISIS at our doorsteps in Gaza and the Sinai.
end
Dear readers, I need you more than ever to keep my work going. Don't
put off your contribution:
I have a series of DVDs and CDs that I normally sell for
a set price.
You can have any one for just $10 in the US,
signed and dedicated to you personally. Or take all 8
for just $50. Outside the US, add $3.
each or $60. for all of them.But please write me at chamishba@gmail.com
or chamish@netvision.net.il
to order.
DVDs:
Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin; The Vatican's Crusade Against
Jerusalem; Shabtai Tzvi, Labor Zionism And The Holocaust;
The Dirty War Against The Settlers; Take Back Israel;
Return Of The Giants; Vatican Update;
120 Radio Shows; Stopping The Next Holocaust; Interview for Italian TV:
And in Hebrew, Who Murdered Rabin + Save Israel
Essential contributions, if you want me to continue, at Paypal: chamishba@gmail.com
The race is on and Israelis prepare to elect a new government. A longtime
reader of mine, David Tregerman, called me in an un-sanguine mood over the
elections.
His candidate, and possibly the only representative of the Israeli
Right in governing circles, Likud Knesset member Moshe Feiglin, had
inexplicably quit
the Likud and scampered into the dark, frightening, unknown wilderness.
David, and if the mail I've received is any indication, pretty well all of
Feiglin's supporters, were stunned by his betrayal. He was their only hope of
giving voice to their beliefs and now he was gone.
With his Feiglin delusion shattered, David told me he was reduced to
reciting a shiva, a funeral dirge, for Israel. It seems Feiglin's backers did not
accept his super-dumb excuses for abandoning them and sure did not want
to scamper with him into the wild.
I simply told David, to ask what the real reason was for Feiglin's departure.
You don't remain faithful with a knife under your throat.
Look at Feiglin's cowardly reaction to another candidate throwing himself
into the campaign to determine the next government. The conspirator in the
murder of Yitzhak Rabin in '95 and the frame-up of Dr. Baruch Goldstein, the
Hebron "mass-murderer," in '94, Carmi Gillon, was leading a protest against
the prime minister. Read on:
Former Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) chief Carmi Gillon on
Saturday night launched a scathing attack on Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu and the Israeli government."Israel is headed today by a bunch of pyromaniacs and is being led by
an egomaniac to its final destruction," said Gillon, who spoke at a
demonstration by leftists protesting against the Jewish State Law outside the Prime Minister’s residence in Jerusalem.“The Jewish State Law will eat the body of the entire nation like a cancer. The continuation of the radical
and messianist policy on the Temple Mount will bring about a Gog and
Magog war against the Jewish people," he added.Gillon, who headed the
Shin Bet at the time
of the assassination of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, resigned
from his position in 1996, after the Shamgar Commission, which
investigated the assassination, was critical of Gillon’s conduct in the
period leading up to the assassination. The Commission’s official report
stated that Gillon carried responsibility for the security failures
that led to the murder. Gillon, who has been identified with the Israeli left for years,
served as director-general of the Peres Center for Peace between 2000
and 2001. Recallhow Ifought Gillon:
Carmi Gillon was forced to resign because, darn him, he didn't protect
Prime Minister Rabin from assassination. His relieved co-conspirator in
the murder, now President Shimon Peres, then a mere Prime Minister, was
so indebted to the shamed ex-internal security head, that he named him
the new Ambassador to Denmark in 1997. The Jerusalem Post arranged a
public talk with the diplomatic rookie, with its then-editor David
Horovitz as moderator. By then, I had partially researched my book Who
Murdered Yitzhak Rabin and had the goods on Gillon. I had to sabotage
this talk.
So, I wrote the founder of Women In Green, Nadia Matar and
requested that she tell her followers to come to the talk and ambush
Gillon over his murder of Rabin. She agreed and about a hundred of her
people appeared, I thought, to expose the twisted felons who are ruining
us. I stood at the door all alone to greet Gillon as he entered. He
arrived, the ex-chief of the Shin Bet, unaccompanied. Not even one
bodyguard. I stared at him intently and he reacted in stunned
recognition. This could be the night he was exposed as an accomplice to
cold-blooded murder.
He began the evening with low-life philosophy but amazingly,
Matar's disciples reacted with idiotic questions that assumed Gillon
was a real diplomat. This had to end but Horovitz ignored my hands-up
pleas to question the guest. In the fortieth minute, I lifted my hand
and shouted, "WHO MURDERED RABIN, GILLON? YOU KNOW, DON'T YOU GILLON?"
Gillon sat stupified and then ran for the exit. As he
two-stepped out, I exclaimed in full voice,"YOU'RE GOING TO BE
INVESTIGATED, GILLON." Now
look at Feiglin's reaction to Gillon. Does he mention that a proven
murderer has a lot of nerve showing himself in public for any reason,
let alone to call his government inciters? Of course not. He takes the
dishonest route blaming Gillon for a milder, politically safer,
decision to support the pullout from Gaza: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/188034#.VHtIv4Z6R-c.emailDeputy Speaker of the Knesset, MK Moshe Feiglin (Likud) responded to
the comments former Shin Bet Chief, Carmi Gillon made against Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his government."Israel is headed today by a bunch of pyromaniacs and is being led by an egomaniac to its final destruction," Gillon said, at a leftist demonstration against the Jewish State Law outside the Prime Minister’s residence in Jerusalem. The demonstration, organized by Peace Now, was attended by thousands,
and included speakers from the left-wing Meretz and Labor parties as
well as the outspoken Gillon. “The Jewish State Law will eat the body of the entire
nation like a cancer. The continuation of the radical and messianist
policy on the Temple Mount will bring about a Gog and Magog war against
the Jewish people," he continued. Feiglin, speaking on the program "Orly and Guy," said that Gillon was
"one of the people who signed to have Tel Aviv bombed for two months [during Operation Protective Edge].""He helped to remove IDF soldiers from out of the Strip, and from there [Gaza] fired on Tel Aviv," Feiglin added. "People need to learn to shut up
a bit," the MK continued. "You made a colossal mistake, and inserted
Israel into a disaster we've never gotten out of," Feiglin said,
referring to the disengagement from Gaza in 2005. "It is a little strange that these people never say sorry, but I
expected them to ask for forgiveness instead of giving us marks."
Feiglin called Gillon "one of the pillars of the Oslo Accords" which resulted in Israel "being taken out of Gaza" and "Hamas promptly shelling us." Getting angry, Feiglin exclaimed, "At least sit quietly at home, you
who have led us to this disaster. But instead you're leading
demonstrations and calling us pyromaniacs? After all, he set the entire
country on fire!" Gillon, who headed the Shin Bet at the time of the assassination of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, resigned from his position in 1996, after the Shamgar Commission, who investigated the assassination, criticized his conduct in their official report.
Too many people criticize me for being anti-Israel because I believe in
honesty and fear we will inevitably drown in the lies of our leaders.
To them I
reply, "Are you nuts? You're guaranteeing our demise by allowing murderers the run of Israel."
For his supporters, a hint of why Feiglin deserted you lies in the open
attack on the leader of his former party, Netanyahu, by a vicious
psychopath, who in a just world would be rotting behind bars, Carmi Gillon.
I have a series of DVDs and CDs that I normally sell for
a set price.
You can have any one for just $10 in the US,
signed and dedicated to you personally. Or take all 8
for just $50. Outside the US, add $3.
each or $60. for all of them.But please write me at chamishba@gmail.com or chamish@netvision.net.il to order.
DVDs:
Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin; The Vatican's Crusade Against
Jerusalem; Shabtai Tzvi, Labor Zionism And The Holocaust;
The Dirty War Against The Settlers; Take Back Israel;
Return Of The Giants; Vatican Update;
120 Radio Shows; Stopping The Next Holocaust; Interview for Italian TV:
And in Hebrew, Who Murdered Rabin + Save Israel
