US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News :: Globalization
masters of puppet
24 Jul 2007
running the bush whore
Where lies thy allegiance?
*: partial list of members of bush admin with israeli passports
* *Paul Wolfowitz *
* *Richard Perle *
* *Douglas Feith *
* *Michael Chertoff *
* *Elliot Abrams *
* *Donald Kagan *
* *Richard Haas *
* *Kenneth Adelman *
* *Edward Luttwak *
* *Robert Satloff *
* *Dov Zakheim *
* *David Frum *
* *David Wurmser *
* *Steve Goldsmith *
* *Marc Grossman
How does one get Top Secret US security clearances while holding a
foreign passport?

Isn’t there an OBVIOUS conflict of interest?

One could argue these men were great patriots -- but for which country?

If you're planning criminal acts, there is one major benefit of carrying
an Israeli passport -- if you can make it to Israel before you're
arrested, Israel will not extradite its own citizens.


A Rose By Another Other Name
The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties
former CIA political analysts

Since the long-forgotten days when the State Department's Middle East policy
was run by a group of so-called Arabists, U.S. policy on Israel and the Arab
world has increasingly become the purview of officials well known for
tilting toward Israel. From the 1920s roughly to 1990, Arabists, who had a
personal history and an educational background in the Arab world and were
accused by supporters of Israel of being totally biased toward Arab
interests, held sway at the State Department and, despite having limited
power in the policymaking circles of any administration, helped maintain
some semblance of U.S. balance by keeping policy from tipping over totally
toward Israel. But Arabists have been steadily replaced by their exact
opposites, what some observers are calling Israelists, and policymaking
circles throughout government now no longer even make a pretense of
exhibiting balance between Israeli and Arab, particularly Palestinian,

In the Clinton administration, the three most senior State Department
officials dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli peace process were all
partisans of Israel to one degree or another. All had lived at least for
brief periods in Israel and maintained ties with Israel while in office,
occasionally vacationing there. One of these officials had worked both as a
pro-Israel lobbyist and as director of a pro-Israel think tank in Washington
before taking a position in the Clinton administration from which he helped
make policy on Palestinian-Israeli issues. Another has headed the pro-Israel
think tank since leaving government.

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

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

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

"Dual loyalties" has always been one of those red flags posted around the
subject of Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict, something that induces
horrified gasps and rapid heartbeats because of its implication of Jewish
disloyalty to the United States and the common assumption that anyone who
would speak such a canard is ipso facto an anti-Semite. (We have a Jewish
friend who is not bothered by the term in the least, who believes that U.S.
and Israeli interests should be identical and sees it as perfectly natural
for American Jews to feel as much loyalty to Israel as they do to the United
States. But this is clearly not the usual reaction when the subject of dual
loyalties arises.)

Although much has been written about the neo-cons who dot the Bush
administration, the treatment of the their ties to Israel has generally been
very gingerly. Although much has come to light recently about the fact that
ridding Iraq both of its leader and of its weapons inventory has been on the
neo-con agenda since long before there was a Bush administration, little has
been said about the link between this goal and the neo-cons' overriding
desire to provide greater security for Israel. But an examination of the
cast of characters in Bush administration policymaking circles reveals a
startlingly pervasive network of pro-Israel activists, and an examination of
the neo-cons' voluminous written record shows that Israel comes up
constantly as a neo-con reference point, always mentioned with the United
States as the beneficiary of a recommended policy, always linked with the
United States when national interests are at issue.

The Begats

First to the cast of characters. Beneath cabinet level, the list of
pro-Israel neo-cons who are either policy functionaries themselves or advise
policymakers from perches just on the edges of government reads like the old
biblical "begats." Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz leads the
pack. He was a protégé of Richard Perle, who heads the prominent Pentagon
advisory body, the Defense Policy Board. Many of today's neo-cons, including
Perle, are the intellectual progeny of the late Senator Henry "Scoop"
Jackson, a strong defense hawk and one of Israel's most strident
congressional supporters in the 1970s.

Wolfowitz in turn is the mentor of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, now Vice President
Cheney's chief of staff who was first a student of Wolfowitz and later a
subordinate during the 1980s in both the State and the Defense Departments.
Another Perle protégé is Douglas Feith, who is currently undersecretary of
defense for policy, the department's number-three man, and has worked
closely with Perle both as a lobbyist for Turkey and in co-authoring
strategy papers for right-wing Israeli governments. Assistant Secretaries
Peter Rodman and Dov Zachkeim, old hands from the Reagan administration when
the neo-cons first flourished, fill out the subcabinet ranks at Defense. At
lower levels, the Israel and the Syria/Lebanon desk officers at Defense are
imports from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank
spun off from the pro-Israel lobby organization, AIPAC.

Neo-cons have not made many inroads at the State Department, except for John
Bolton, an American Enterprise Institute hawk and Israeli proponent who is
said to have been forced on a reluctant Colin Powell as undersecretary for
arms control. Bolton's special assistant is David Wurmser, who wrote and/or
co-authored with Perle and Feith at least two strategy papers for Israeli
Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996. Wurmser's wife, Meyrav Wurmser, is a
co-founder of the media-watch website MEMRI (Middle East Media Research
Institute), which is run by retired Israeli military and intelligence
officers and specializes in translating and widely circulating Arab media
and statements by Arab leaders. A recent investigation by the Guardian of
London found that MEMRI's translations are skewed by being highly selective.
Although it inevitably translates and circulates the most extreme of Arab
statements, it ignores moderate Arab commentary and extremist Hebrew

In the vice president's office, Cheney has established his own personal
national security staff, run by aides known to be very pro-Israel. The
deputy director of the staff, John Hannah, is a former fellow of the
Israeli-oriented Washington Institute. On the National Security Council
staff, the newly appointed director of Middle East affairs is Elliott
Abrams, who came to prominence after pleading guilty to withholding
information from Congress during the Iran-contra scandal (and was pardoned
by President Bush the elder) and who has long been a vocal proponent of
right-wing Israeli positions. Putting him in a key policymaking position on
the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is like entrusting the henhouse to a fox.

Pro-Israel activists with close links to the administration are also busy in
the information arena inside and outside government. The head of Radio
Liberty, a Cold War propaganda holdover now converted to service in the "war
on terror," is Thomas Dine, who was the very active head of AIPAC throughout
most of the Reagan and the Bush-41 administrations. Elsewhere on the
periphery, William Kristol, son of neo-con originals Irving Kristol and
Gertrude Himmelfarb, is closely linked to the administration's pro-Israel
coterie and serves as its cheerleader through the Rupert Murdoch-owned
magazine that he edits, The Weekly Standard. Some of Bush's speechwriters Â-
including David Frum, who coined the term "axis of evil" for Bush's
state-of-the-union address but was forced to resign when his wife publicly
bragged about his linguistic prowess Â- have come from The Weekly Standard.
Frank Gaffney, another Jackson and Perle protégé and Reagan administration
defense official, puts his pro-Israel oar in from his think tank, the Center
for Security Policy, and through frequent media appearances and regular
columns in the Washington Times.

The incestuous nature of the proliferating boards and think tanks, whose
membership lists are more or less identical and totally interchangeable, is
frighteningly insidious. Several scholars at the American Enterprise
Institute, including former Reagan UN ambassador and long-time supporter of
the Israeli right wing Jeane Kirkpatrick, make their pro-Israel views known
vocally from the sidelines and occupy positions on other boards. Probably
the most important organization, in terms of its influence on Bush
administration policy formulation, is the Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs (JINSA). Formed after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war
specifically to bring Israel's security concerns to the attention of U.S.
policymakers and concentrating also on broad defense issues, the extremely
hawkish, right-wing JINSA has always had a high-powered board able to place
its members inside conservative U.S. administrations. Cheney, Bolton, and
Feith were members until they entered the Bush administration. Several lower
level JINSA functionaries are now working in the Defense Department. Perle
is still a member, as are Kirkpatrick, former CIA director and leading
Iraq-war hawk James Woolsey, and old-time rabid pro-Israel types like Eugene
Rostow and Michael Ledeen. Both JINSA and Gaffney's Center for Security
Policy are heavily underwritten by Irving Moskowitz, a right-wing American
Zionist, California business magnate (his money comes from bingo parlors),
and JINSA board member who has lavishly financed the establishment of
several religious settlements in Arab East Jerusalem.

By Their Own Testimony

Most of the neo-cons now in government have left a long paper trail giving
clear evidence of their fervently right-wing pro-Israel, and fervently
anti-Palestinian, sentiments. Whether being pro-Israel, even pro right-wing
Israel, constitutes having dual loyalties Â- that is, a desire to further
Israel's interests that equals or exceeds the desire to further U.S.
interests Â- is obviously not easy to determine, but the record gives some

Wolfowitz himself has been circumspect in public, writing primarily about
broader strategic issues rather than about Israel specifically or even the
Middle East, but it is clear that at bottom Israel is a major interest and
may be the principal reason for his near obsession with the effort, of which
he is the primary spearhead, to dump Saddam Hussein, remake the Iraqi
government in an American image, and then further redraw the Middle East map
by accomplishing the same goals in Syria, Iran, and perhaps other countries.
Profiles of Wolfowitz paint him as having two distinct aspects: one
obessively bent on advancing U.S. dominance throughout the world, ruthless
and uncompromising, seriously prepared to "end states," as he once put it,
that support terrorism in any way, a velociraptor in the words of one former
colleague cited in the Economist; the other a softer aspect, which shows him
to be a soft-spoken political moralist, an ardent democrat, even a bleeding
heart on social issues, and desirous for purely moral and humanitarian
reasons of modernizing and democratizing the Islamic world.

But his interest in Israel always crops up. Even profiles that downplay his
attachment to Israel nonetheless always mention the influence the Holocaust,
in which several of his family perished, has had on his thinking. One source
inside the administration has described him frankly as "over-the-top crazy
when it comes to Israel." Although this probably accurately describes most
of the rest of the neo-con coterie, and Wolfowitz is guilty at least by
association, he is actually more complex and nuanced than this. A recent New
York Times Magazine profile by the Times' Bill Keller cites critics who say
that "Israel exercises a powerful gravitational pull on the man" and notes
that as a teenager Wolfowitz lived in Israel during his mathematician
father's sabbatical semester there. His sister is married to an Israeli.
Keller even somewhat reluctantly acknowledges the accuracy of one
characterization of Wolfowitz as "Israel-centric." But Keller goes through
considerable contortions to shun what he calls "the offensive suggestion of
dual loyalty" and in the process makes one wonder if he is protesting too
much. Keller concludes that Wolfowitz is less animated by the security of
Israel than by the promise of a more moderate Islam. He cites as evidence
Wolfowitz's admiration for Egyptian President Anwar Sadat for making peace
with Israel and also draws on a former Wolfowitz subordinate who says that
"as a moral man, he might have found Israel the heart of the Middle East
story. But as a policy maker, Turkey and the gulf and Egypt didn't loom any
less large for him."

These remarks are revealing. Anyone not so fearful of broaching the issue of
dual loyalties might at least have raised the suggestion that Wolfowitz's
real concern may indeed be to ensure Israel's security. Otherwise, why do
his overriding interests seem to be reinventing Anwar Sadats throughout the
Middle East by transforming the Arab and Muslim worlds and thereby making
life safer for Israel, and a passion for fighting a pre-emptive war against
Iraq Â- when there are critical areas totally apart from the Middle East and
myriad other broad strategic issues that any deputy secretary of defense
should be thinking about just as much? His current interest in Turkey, which
is shared by the other neo-cons, some of whom have served as lobbyists for
Turkey, seems also to be directed at securing Israel's place in the region;
there seems little reason for particular interest in this moderate Islamic,
non-Arab country, other than that it is a moderate Islamic but non-Arab
neighbor of Israel.

Furthermore, the notion suggested by the Wolfowitz subordinate that any
moral man would obviously look to Israel as the "heart of the Middle East
story" is itself an Israel-centered idea: the assumption that Israel is a
moral state, always pursuing moral policies, and that any moral person would
naturally attach himself to Israel automatically presumes that there is an
identity of interests between the United States and Israel; only those who
assume such a complete coincidence of interests accept the notion that
Israel is, across the board, a moral state.

Others among the neo-con policymakers have been more direct and open in
expressing their pro-Israel views. Douglas Feith has been the most prolific
of the group, with a two-decade-long record of policy papers, many
co-authored with Perle, propounding a strongly anti-Palestinian, pro-Likud
view. He views the Palestinians as not constituting a legitimate national
group, believes that the West Bank and Gaza belong to Israel by right, and
has long advocated that the U.S. abandon any mediating effort altogether and
particularly foreswear the land-for-peace formula.

In 1996, Feith, Perle, and both David and Meyrav Wurmser were among the
authors of a policy paper issued by an Israeli think tank and written for
newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that urged Israel to make a
"clean break" from pursuit of the peace process, particularly its
land-for-peace aspects, which the authors regarded as a prescription for
Israel's annihilation. Arabs must rather accept a "peace-for-peace" formula
through unconditional acceptance of Israel's rights, including its
territorial rights in the occupied territories. The paper advocated that
Israel "engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism" by disengaging
from economic and political dependence on the U.S. while maintaining a more
"mature," self-reliant partnership with the U.S. not focused "narrowly on
territorial disputes." Greater self-reliance would, these freelance
policymakers told Netanyahu, give Israel "greater freedom of action and
remove a significant lever of pressure [i.e., U.S. pressure] used against it
in the past."

The paper advocated, even as far back as 1996, containment of the threat
against Israel by working closely with Â- guess who? Â- Turkey, as well as
with Jordan, apparently regarded as the only reliably moderate Arab regime.
Jordan had become attractive for these strategists because it was at the
time working with opposition elements in Iraq to reestablish a Hashemite
monarchy there that would have been allied by blood lines and political
leanings to the Hashemite throne in Jordan. The paper's authors saw the
principal threat to Israel coming, we should not be surprised to discover
now, from Iraq and Syria and advised that focusing on the removal of Saddam
Hussein would kill two birds with one stone by also thwarting Syria's
regional ambitions. In what amounts to a prelude to the neo-cons' principal
policy thrust in the Bush administration, the paper spoke frankly of
Israel's interest in overturning the Iraqi leadership and replacing it with
a malleable monarchy. Referring to Saddam Hussein's ouster as "an important
Israeli strategic objective," the paper observed that "Iraq's future could
affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly" Â- meaning give
Israel unquestioned predominance in the region. The authors urged therefore
that Israel support the Hashemites in their "efforts to redefine Iraq."

In a much longer policy document written at about the same time for the same
Israeli think tank, David Wurmser repeatedly linked the U.S. and Israel when
talking about national interests in the Middle East. The "battle to dominate
and define Iraq," he wrote "is, by extension, the battle to dominate the
balance of power in the Levant over the long run," and "the United States
and Israel" can fight this battle together. Repeated references to U.S. and
Israeli strategic policy, pitted against a "Saudi-Iraqi-Syrian-Iranian-PLO
axis," and to strategic moves that establish a balance of power in which the
United States and Israel are ascendant, in alliance with Turkey and Jordan,
betray a thought process that cannot separate U.S. from Israeli interests.

Perle gave further impetus to this thrust when six years later, in September
2002, he gave a briefing for Pentagon officials that included a slide
depicting a recommended strategic goal for the U.S. in the Middle East: all
of Palestine as Israel, Jordan as Palestine, and Iraq as the Hashemite
kingdom. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld seems to have taken this aboard,
since he spoke at about the same time of the West Bank and Gaza as the
"so-called occupied territories" Â- effectively turning all of Palestine
into Israel.

Elliott Abrams is another unabashed supporter of the Israeli right, now
bringing his links with Israel into the service of U.S. policymaking on
Palestinian-Israeli issues. The neo-con community is crowing about Abrams'
appointment as Middle East director on the NSC staff (where this Iran-contra
criminal has already been working since mid-2001, badly miscast as the
director for, of all things, democracy and human rights). The Weekly
Standard's Fred Barnes has hailed his appointment as a decisive move that
neatly cocks a snook at the pro-Palestinian wimps at the State Department.
Accurately characterizing Abrams as "more pro-Israel, less solicitous of
Palestinians" than the State Department and strongly opposed to the
Palestinian-Israeli peace process, Barnes gloats that the Abrams triumph
signals that the White House will not cede control of Middle East policy to
Colin Powell and the "foreign service bureaucrats." Abrams comes to the post
after a year in which it had effectively been left vacant. His predecessor,
Zalmay Khalilzad, has been serving concurrently as Bush's personal
representative to Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban and has devoted
little time to the NSC job, but several attempts to appoint a successor
early this year were vetoed by neo-con hawks who felt the appointees were
not devoted enough to Israel.

Although Abrams has no particular Middle East expertise, he has managed to
insert himself in the Middle East debate repeatedly over the years. He has a
family interest in propounding a pro-Israel view; he is the son-in-law of
Norman Podhoretz, one of the original neo-cons and a long-time strident
supporter of right-wing Israeli causes as editor of Commentary magazine, and
Midge Decter, a frequent right-wing commentator. Abrams has written a good
deal on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, opposing U.S. mediation and any
effort to press for Israeli concessions. In an article published in advance
of the 2000 elections, he propounded a rationale for a U.S. missile defense
system, and a foreign policy agenda in general, geared almost entirely
toward ensuring Israel's security. "It is a simple fact," he wrote, that the
possession of missiles and weapons of mass destruction by Iraq and Iran
vastly increases Israel's vulnerability, and this threat would be greatly
diminished if the U.S. provided a missile shield and brought about the
demise of Saddam Hussein. He concluded with a wholehearted assertion of the
identity of U.S. and Israeli interests: "The next decade will present
enormous opportunities to advance American interests in the Middle East [by]
boldly asserting our support of our friends" Â- that is, of course, Israel.
Many of the fundamental negotiating issues critical to Israel, he said, are
also critical to U.S. policy in the region and "require the United States to
defend its interests and allies" rather than giving in to Palestinian

Neo-cons in the Henhouse

The neo-con strategy papers half a dozen years ago were dotted with concepts
like "redefining Iraq," "redrawing the map of the Middle East," "nurturing
alternatives to Arafat," all of which have in recent months become familiar
parts of the Bush administration's diplomatic lingo. Objectives laid out in
these papers as important strategic goals for Israel Â- including the ouster
of Saddam Hussein, the strategic transformation of the entire Middle East,
the death of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, regime change wherever
the U.S. and Israel don't happen to like the existing government, the
abandonment of any effort to forge a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace or
even a narrower Palestinian-Israeli peace Â- have now become, under the
guidance of this group of pro-Israel neo-cons, important strategic goals for
the United States. The enthusiasm with which senior administration officials
like Bush himself, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have adopted strategic themes
originally defined for Israel's guidance Â-and did so in many cases well
before September 11 and the so-called war on terror Â- testifies to the
persuasiveness of a neo-con philosophy focused narrowly on Israel and the
pervasiveness of the network throughout policymaking councils.

Does all this add up to dual loyalties to Israel and the United States? Many
would still contend indignantly that it does not, and that it is
anti-Semitic to suggest such a thing. In fact, zealous advocacy of Israel's
causes may be just that Â- zealotry, an emotional connection to Israel that
still leaves room for primary loyalty to the United States Â- and affection
for Israel is not in any case a sentiment limited to Jews. But passion and
emotion Â- and, as George Washington wisely advised, a passionate attachment
to any country Â- have no place in foreign policy formulation, and it is
mere hair-splitting to suggest that a passionate attachment to another
country is not loyalty to that country. Zealotry clouds judgment, and
emotion should never be the basis for policymaking.

Zealotry can lead to extreme actions to sustain policies, as is apparently
occurring in the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith Defense Department. People
knowledgeable of the intelligence community have said, according to a recent
article in The American Prospect, that the CIA is under tremendous pressure
to produce intelligence more supportive of war with Iraq Â- as one former
CIA official put it, "to support policies that have already been adopted."
Key Defense Department officials, including Feith, are said to be attempting
to make the case for pre-emptive war by producing their own unverified
intelligence. Wolfowitz betrayed his lack of concern for real evidence when,
in answer to a recent question about where the evidence is for Iraq's
possession of weapons of mass destruction, he replied, "It's like the judge
said about pornography. I can't define it, but I will know it when I see

Zealotry can also lead to a myopic focus on the wrong issues in a conflict
or crisis, as is occurring among all Bush policymakers with regard to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The administration's obsessive focus on
deposing Yasir Arafat, a policy suggested by the neo-cons years before Bush
came to office, is a dodge and a diversion that merely perpetuates the
conflict by failing to address its real roots. Advocates of this policy fail
or refuse to see that, however unappealing the Palestinian leadership, it is
not the cause of the conflict, and "regime change" among the Palestinians
will do nothing to end the violence. The administration's utter refusal to
engage in any mediation process that might produce a stable, equitable
peace, also a neo-con strategy based on the paranoid belief that any peace
involving territorial compromise will spell the annihilation of Israel, will
also merely prolong the violence. Zealotry produces blindness: the zealous
effort to pursue Israel's right-wing agenda has blinded the dual loyalists
in the administration to the true face of Israel as occupier, to any concern
for justice or equity and any consideration that interests other than
Israel's are involved, and indeed to any pragmatic consideration that
continued unquestioning accommodation of Israel, far from bringing an end to
violence, will actually lead to its tragic escalation and to increased
terrorism against both the United States and Israel.

What does it matter, in the end, if these men split their loyalties between
the United States and Israel? Apart from the evidence of the policy
distortions that arise from zealotry, one need only ask whether it can be
mere coincidence that those in the Bush administration who most strongly
promote "regime change" in Iraq are also those who most strongly support the
policies of the Israeli right wing. And would it bother most Americans to
know that the United States is planning a war against Iraq for the benefit
of Israel? Can it be mere coincidence, for example, that Vice President
Cheney, now the leading senior-level proponent of war with Iraq, repudiated
just this option for all the right reasons in the immediate aftermath of the
Gulf War in 1991? He was defense secretary at the time, and in an interview
with the New York Times on April 13, 1991, he said:

"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go
to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you will do with
it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one
that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime
or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Ba'athists, or one that
tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists. How much credibility is that
government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when
it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect
the people that sign on for the government, and what happens to it once we

Since Cheney clearly changed his mind between 1991 and today, is it not
legitimate to ask why, and whether Israel might have a greater influence
over U.S. foreign policy now than it had in 1991? After all, notwithstanding
his wisdom in rejecting an expansion of the war on Iraq a decade ago, Cheney
was just as interested in promoting U.S. imperialism and was at that same
moment in the early 1990s outlining a plan for world domination by the
United States, one that did not include conquering Iraq at any point along
the way. The only new ingredient in the mix today that is inducing Cheney to
begin the march to U.S. world domination by conquering Iraq is the presence
in the Bush-Cheney administration of a bevy of aggressive right-wing neo-con
hawks who have long backed the Jewish fundamentalists of Israel's own right
wing and who have been advocating some move on Iraq for at least the last
half dozen years?

The suggestion that the war with Iraq is being planned at Israel's behest,
or at the instigation of policymakers whose main motivation is trying to
create a secure environment for Israel, is strong. Many Israeli analysts
believe this. The Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar recently observed frankly
in a Ha'aretz column that Perle, Feith, and their fellow strategists "are
walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and
Israeli interests." The suggestion of dual loyalties is not a verboten
subject in the Israeli press, as it is in the United States. Peace activist
Uri Avnery, who knows Israeli Prime Minister Sharon well, has written that
Sharon has long planned grandiose schemes for restructuring the Middle East
and that "the winds blowing now in Washington remind me of Sharon. I have
absolutely no proof that the Bushies got their ideas from him . But the
style is the same."

The dual loyalists in the Bush administration have given added impetus to
the growth of a messianic strain of Christian fundamentalism that has allied
itself with Israel in preparation for the so-called End of Days. These
crazed fundamentalists see Israel's domination over all of Palestine as a
necessary step toward fulfillment of the biblical Millennium, consider any
Israeli relinquishment of territory in Palestine as a sacrilege, and view
warfare between Jews and Arabs as a divinely ordained prelude to Armageddon.
These right-wing Christian extremists have a profound influence on Bush and
his administration, with the result that the Jewish fundamentalists working
for the perpetuation of Israel's domination in Palestine and the Christian
fundamentalists working for the Millennium strengthen and reinforce each
other's policies in administration councils. The Armageddon that Christian
Zionists seem to be actively promoting and that Israeli loyalists inside the
administration have tactically allied themselves with raises the horrifying
but very real prospect of an apocalyptic Christian-Islamic war. The neo-cons
seem unconcerned, and Bush's occasional pro forma remonstrations against
blaming all Islam for the sins of Islamic extremists do nothing to make this
prospect less likely.

These two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed
into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East,
all further reinforced by the happy coincidence of great oil resources up
for grabs and a president and vice president heavily invested in oil. All of
these factors Â- the dual loyalties of an extensive network of policymakers
allied with Israel, the influence of a fanatical wing of Christian
fundamentalists, and oil Â- probably factor in more or less equally to the
administration's calculations on the Palestinian-Israeli situation and on
war with Iraq. But the most critical factor directing U.S. policymaking is
the group of Israeli loyalists: neither Christian fundamentalist support for
Israel nor oil calculations would carry the weight in administration
councils that they do without the pivotal input of those loyalists, who
clearly know how to play to the Christian fanatics and undoubtedly also know
that their own and Israel's bread is buttered by the oil interests of people
like Bush and Cheney. This is where loyalty to Israel by government
officials colors and influences U.S. policymaking in ways that are extremely


Israel was Created in 1948 as a Democractic National Socialist State
(same as Nazi Germany)..Sieg Heil

chertoffs dual citizenship

zakheims dual citizenship

Dov Zakheim, System Planning Corp, and 911

Coincidence or conspiracy? Former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim was CEO
of Systems Planning Corp., which markets the technology to take over the
controls of an airborne vehicle already in flight. For example, the Flight
Termination System technology could hijack hijackers and bring the plane
down safely.
With regard to Blueridge's reference to remote control of 9/11 flights,
please check out System Planning Corporation of Alexandria, Virginia.
System Planning Corporation designs, manufactures and distributes highly
sophisticated technology that enables an operator to fly by remote control
as many as eight different airborne vehicles at the same time from one
position either on the ground or airborne.
For those looking for an extraordinarily interesting hobby, please see
photos and specs of this hardware (about the size of a small refrigerator)at
Also, System Planning Corporation markets the technology to take over the
controls of an airborne vehicle already in flight.
For example, the Flight Termination System technology could hijack hijackers
and bring the plane down safely.
The Flight Termination System can be used in conjunction with the CTS
technology that can control up to 8 airborne vehicles simultaneously.
Unfortunately, these systems as of yet are not able to prevent lyrics such
as "When you get caught between the moon and New York City"!
The possibility of nefarious use of these brilliant technologies developed
and deployed by Systems Planning Corporation certainly deserves careful
consideration in any full and impartial investigation of what actually took
place on 9/11.
In the context of 9/11, it also needs to be pointed out that Rabbi Dov
Zakheim was Chief Executive Officer of System Planning Corporation's
International Division, until President George W. Bush appointed him
Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon.
Not long before Rabbi Zakheim rose to power over the Pentagon's
labyrinthine, bottomless accounts, he co-authored an article entitled
"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New
Century" which was published by The Project for a New American Century in
September 2000, exactly a year before 9/11.
On page 51 of this article, it is stated that "the process of
transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a
long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl
Voila! 9/11!
Well, there you have it! Motive, means and opportunity all rolled into one
and existing between Rabbi Dov Zakheim's ears.
The motive was that a false flag intelligence operation would trigger a
response by the USA that would be good for the Zionist state.
The means consisted of the aforementioned remote control of airborne vehicle
technologies as well as the nurturing, creative accounting at the Pentagon
to pay for such an operation.
The opportunity was Zakheim's closeness to the Command/ Control/
Communications in our nation's capital and its interwoven cousin network of
psychopathic Zionist Neo-Cons all hell-bent on provoking a war with Saddam


Synopsis: Zionist Jew Rabbi Dov Zakheim and Rumsfeld not held accountable
Source: DoD
Published: July 16, 2001 Author: Donald H. Rumsfeld
For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use.
Testimony before the House Appropriations Committee: Fiscal Year 2002
Defense Budget Request
As Given by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton, and Comptroller Dov Zakheim,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Monday, July 16, 2001.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Mr. Congressman, thank you very much. Your question is, of
course, right at the heart of an enormously important issue for the
Department of Defense. We have a panel in the Quadrennial Defense Review on
this subject. We have met with it twice in the last two weeks. We're
obviously going to have to meet with it again. It is a big, broad,
complicated subject.

As you know, the Department of Defense really is not in charge of its
civilian workforce, in a certain sense. It's the OPM, or Office of Personnel
management, I guess. There are all kinds of long- standing rules and
regulations about what you can do and what you can't do. I know Dr.
Zakheim's been trying to hire CPAs because the financial systems of the
department are so snarled up that we can't account for some $2.6 trillion in
transactions that exist, if that's believable. And yet we're told that we
can't hire CPAs to help untangle it in many respects.

This Israeli citizen is responsible for the "misplacement" of 2.6 Trillion
dollars of taxpayer's money--without any public disclosure! Where did this
enormous sum of money go....prior to 9/11, under the Pentagon comptroller
Dr. (and Rabbi) Dov Zakheim?


Ironically, he resigned quietly on April 15, 2004 (Federal Reserve Zionist
Confiscation Day), and has joined another Zionist "outsourced" Pentagon firm
called Booz Hamilton, where ex-CIA chief Woolsey also resides, living on
taxpayer's blood and sweat, that specializes in "war game" consulting and
scenarios--i.e. 9/11 Act II soon to come."

Israel was Created in 1948 as a Democractic National Socialist State
(same as Nazi Germany)..Sieg Heil


In a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and
Resources for a New Century" published by The American Enterprise's "Project
for a New American Century"(1), System Planning Corporation (SPC)
International executive, Dov Zakheim, called for "some catastrophic and
catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" being necessary to foster the
frame of mind needed for the American public to support a war in the Middle
East that would politically and culturally reshape the region. A respected
and established voice in the intelligence community, his views were eagerly
accepted, and Dov went from his position at Systems Planning Corporation to
become the Comptroller of the Pentagon in May 2001. (2) Perhaps not so
coincidentally, it was an SPC subsidiary, TRIDATA CORPORATION, that oversaw
the investigation after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in

SPC, according to their official website, specializes in many areas of
defense technology production and manufacture, including a system developed
by their Radar Physics Group called the Flight Termination System, or
FTS.(3) This is a system used to destroy target drones (craft that would be
fired on by test aircraft or weaponry) in the event of malfunction or
"misses". This highly sophisticated war-game technology allows the control
of several 'drones' from a remote location, on varying frequencies, and has
a range of several hundred miles. This technology can be used on many
different types of aircraft, including large passenger jets.

According to the SPC website (4), a recent customer at that time was Eglin
AFB, located in Florida. Eglin is very near another Air Force base in
Florida-MacDill AFB, where Dov Zakheim contracted to send at least 32 Boeing
767 aircraft, as part of the Boeing /Pentagon tanker lease agreement.(5)

As the events of September 11, 2001 occurred, little was mentioned about
these strange connections, and the possible motives and proximity of Dov
Zakheim and his group. Since there was little physical evidence remaining
after the events, investigators were left only with photographic and
anecdotal evidence.

This is a photograph of the Flight Termination System module, from their
site.(5). Note it has a cylindrical shape, and is consistent with the size
and shape of the object observed under the fuselage of flight 175.

The Boeing lease deal involved the replacement of the aging KC-135 tanker
fleet with these smaller, more efficient Boeing 767s that were to be leased
by Dov Zakheim's group. The planes were to be refitted with refueling
equipment, including lines and nozzle assemblies.

In this enlargement of flight 175, we can clearly see a cylindrical object
under the fuselage, and a structure that appears to be attached to the right
underside of the rear fuselage section.

When seen in comparison, it is obvious that the plane approaching the Trade
Center has both of these structures-the FTS module and the midair refueling
equipment, as configured on the modified Boeing 767 tankers. Of particular
interest is the long tube-like anomalous structure under the rear fuselage
area of flight 175-this structure runs along the right rear bottom of the
plane, as it also does on the Boeing 767 refueling tanker pictured.

After considering this information, I am convinced that flight 175, as
pictured on the news media and official reports, was in fact a refitted
Boeing 767 tanker, with a Flight Termination System attached. Use of this
system would also explain the expert handling of aircraft observed in both
New York and Washington investigations, which has been officially credited
to inexperienced flight school students.

Since the refitted 767s were able to carry both passengers and a fuel load,
as shown in this photo, it is likely that the plane designated Flight 175
was in fact a refitted 767 tanker, disguised as a conventional civilian
passenger plane.

As shown in this photo of a 767 being serviced, the FTS unit, when in
position, would be small and unobtrusive enough to be fairly innocuous (at
least to casual observers, such as passengers). The smallest circle
indicates the size and position of the anomaly depicted in the photos of
Flight 175. The larger circle, which is the size of the engine housing,
shows the size of the anomaly in relation to the engine. Note the size and
position of the open hatches on the engine housing, which would tend to
discredit the widely held theory that the anomaly is an open hatch or cargo

As the above diagram shows, all flights involved in the events traveled very
near many military installations, and appear to have traveled in a manner
suggesting guidance and possible transfer of the control of the planes among
the bases.

Since the evidence from the World Trade Center site was quickly removed,
there is little concrete evidence of the involvement of Dov Zakheim, who has
since left his position at the Pentagon. However, the proximity of Eglin AFB
to MacDill AFB in Florida and Dov Zakheim's work via SPC contracts and the
Pentagon leasing agreement on both of these installations, combined with
SPC's access to World Trade Center structural and security information from
their Tridata investigation in 1993, is highly suspicious. Considering his
access to Boeing 767 tankers, remote control flight systems, and his
published views in the PNAC document, it seems very likely he is in fact a
key figure in the alleged terrorist attacks in New York City on September
11, 2001.

Send comments to: Shadow (at)

4. www.sysplan.comRadar/Downloads/FTS.pdf


In response to some of our readers who have questioned our premise that it
was Rabbi Dov Zakheim who 'called for' the Pearl Harbor type of incident, we
here at Conspiracy News Net acknowledge that the PNAC document was written
by the likes of William Kristol and Donald Kagan, and therefore as the real
brains behind the agenda they are the ones calling for it in a literal
sense. However, we do stand by our assertion that the Rabbi called for it as
well, insofar that he signed his name onto this document. If he signed it he
agrees with it and therefore he is calling for it.

Some of you have argued that we are singling out Rabbi Zakheim because he is
Jewish, implying that we are pushing some sort of twisted anti-semetic
agenda while noting that he is not the only one who signed the PNAC document
and therefore wondering why our article is about him and not the others. We
do not mean to imply that the Rabbi acted alone, our article simply points
out that Rabbi Zakheim had access to things like structural integrity,
blueprints and any number of important facets of information about the WTC
through his work with TRIDATA CORPORATION in the investgation of the bombing
of the WTC in 1993. That he had access to REMOTE CONTROL Technology through
his work at System Planning Corporation (SPC). That he had access to BOEING
AIRCRAFT through a lease deal HE BROKERED while working at the Pentagon. And
finally that he was part of a group of politically radical Straussian
Neo-Conservatives, who, through their association with PNAC, called for
restructuring of the Middle East, noting that a Pearl Harbor type of event
MAY BE NEEDED to foster the frame of mind required for the American public
to accept such a radical foreign policy agenda. In light of all this
information we here at Conspiracy News Net stand by our statement that Mr.
Zakheim not only called for the slamming of the WTC Towers on 9-11, but he
activily took part in their demolition by providing the logistics necessary
for such an attack to occur.

Also see:
The Mastermind Behind 911?

Talmudic Rabbi's Hidden Role

Electronically Hijacking the WTC Attack Aircraft

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.