The Jew's domination in the state seems so assured that now not only can he call himself a Jew again, but he ruthlessly admits his ultimate national and political designs. A section of his race openly owns itself to be a foreign people, yet even here they lie. For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim [Yiddish for Gentiles]. It doesn't even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1971)--Translated by Ralph Manheim--Introduction by Abraham Foxman.
AMERICA ALONE WITH THE NEOCONS SECURING THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT
Stefan Halper & Jonathan Clarke write about how the U.S. was all but taken-over by the Neoconservatives in America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives And the global Order (2004). Halper and Clarke that America's most effective weapon was/is its moral authority. Specifically this is the sense that America is a force for good in the world--and the other side implicitly acknowledge the truth of this reality. Thus, while military and economic power were indispensable, for victory to be durable, there was no substitute for moral authority.
Neo-conservatives lost no sleep in placing the United States in a state of constant tension with the outside world and inclines to a climate of intolerance and conformity at home. Neoconservative advocates speak of World War IV, enthusiastically embrace the notion of "neo-war," and question the patriotism of those who dare to raise questions. Although premised on a formidable internal logic, the neo-conservatives and their cheerleaders in the media are not above reinterpreting or downright falsifying history (they accuse Richard Nixon of being soft on communism) and jumping on passing bandwagons to accomplish their purposes. So long as a state of war or state of crisis endures or can be argued to endure, debate (let alone dissent) is chilled; the alternatives go unexamined. Halper & Clarke as if writing in 2017 insist that we are at an unusual juncture in American history.
The character of our society is in play. The combination of unprecedented technological capability in the U.S. military and a formidable set of highly dynamic, carefully articulated ideas advocated by the neo-conservatives has created a treacherous situation. Given their access to military power and the instruments of domestic authority, this relatively small group has the ability to put its ideas of a force-based, war-oriented America into practical effect.
Halper & Clarke issue a jeremiad that Trump voters should have heeded when Trump swore to Sheldon Adelson that "Israel will have no better friend than me." We believe that the neo-conservatives propose an untenable model for our nation's future. Their recent writings indicate that, as Talleyrand observed about the Bourbons, they remember everything but have learned nothing from the nation's experiences in 2003 in Afghanistan and Iraq, [both of which are war-zones nearly two decades after invasion]. We embrace an alternative based on the interest-focused centrist policies that have guided both Republican and Democratic administrations from 1945 to 2000. At stake is the continuing capacity for the United States to advance democratic ideals and the principles of liberal government on which the United States was founded without unleashing a backlash that will render any short-term gains null and void. This is an ambitious agenda, a worth fit with America's Noblest aspirations. Writing with hopes of helping Americans to understand the changes around them, to assess the new structures being put in place, and to stimulate them to action before the ugly hallmarks of our new society become part of our permanent condition, well after the neo-conservatives themselves have left the scene, they had not accounted for the election of Donald J. Trump to the Office of the President of the United States.
Halper & Clarke charge that the neo-conservatives are a political interest group that have taken American international relations on an unfortunate detour, veering away from the balanced, consensus-building, and resource-husbanding approach that characterized traditional Republican internationalism, and act more as a special interest focused on its particular agenda. One agenda being "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm."
Halper & Clarke declare that from the 1990s various neo-conservative so-called think tanks including PNAC, president by William Kristol as an arm of the AEI headquarter in Washington. The AEI briefed George W. Bush who related on February 2003 of how they "do such good work that my administration has borrowed twenty such minds." On particular group of interest is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
Since the 1970s, JINSA transformed from an obscure group to a highly connected and well-funded $1.4-million-a-year operation. A large section of JINSA's annual budget goes toward facilitating contact between Israeli officials and retired U.S. generals and admirals who retain influence in Washington, [and may help explain Trump's fascination with retired generals and admirals]. Some of American's leading figures in military contracting are well represented in JINSA. Advisory board members have worked for Northrop Grumman or its subsidiaries as consultants or broad members. JINSA's Flag and General Officers Trips between Israel and the United States have involved more than 250 American officers over twenty years, one of whom was Jay Garner, the bush administration's first choice for the reconstruction of post-bellum Iraq. Garner also joined a host of retired senior military officials in signing the U.S. Admirals' Statement on Palestinian Violence, which stated: "We are appalled by the Palestinian political military leadership that teaches children the mechanics of war while filling their heads with hate."
JINSA overlaps with the Center for Security Policy (CSP) in Bush administration members. JINSA and CSP are both underwritten to a large extent by Irving Moskowitz, a California entrepreneur. Their membership lists are interchangeable, and these two organizations provided an important point of neo-conservative focus over the Clinton years, as the history of their rosters demonstrates.
Perhaps the most prominent event to come out of the nexus of neo-conservative activity in conjunction with like-minded conservatives within the Israeli body politics was the 1996 research paper published by the Israeli think tank the Institute for Advanced strategic and Political studies. Under the title "A Clean Break: A New strategy for Securing the Realm," it was a policy guideline for the newly elected Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. The document argued that Netanyahu's "new set of ideas" provided an opportunity "to make a clean break" with the beleaguered Oslo process. The highlights of this break suggested that Israel "cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent." The paper berated the "land for peace" initiative and emphasized: "Our claim to the land--to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble." Netanyahu's clean break also meant reestablishing "the principle of preemption." the study group that contributed to the report included James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Jr., David Wurmser, and his wife Meyrav Wurmser.
THE ARCHITECTS WHO ENGINEERED THE WAR ON TERROR
James Moore and Wayne Slater give the backstory of the Right-wing Christian and Neocons (American Zionists) alliance The Architect: Karl Rove and The Master Plan For Absolute Power (2006). Karl Christian Rove knew that in order to secure the vote for George W. Bush he needed the Jewish vote, the Jewish money and organization. Moore and Slater posit the distance between Jews and Christians was a problem for Karl Rove. Crucial to the success of his effort to build an enduring Republican political machine was the ability to manage the support of Christian conservatives while making entreaties to the Jewish vote. Marrying conservative Christians and Jews in a political alliance was a critical element in Rove's long-range planning. And key to that alliance was a mutual interest in the security of Israel. For Christian evangelicals, the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 was hugely significant, since it was viewed as a manifestation of Biblical prophesies. The relationship between American evangelicals and Israel deepened considerably with the success of popular broadcast ministries that preached an "end-times" theology and prompted conservative Protestant leaders to take a new found interest in Middle East politics.
If, however, their interest in the establishment of a secure Israel was the same, their belief in the eventual outcome was not. For Christian evangelicals through much of the twentieth century, the guiding principle was pre-millennialism, the belief that reforming the world was impossible until Christ returned in the Second Coming. Although the details differ among evangelical groups, the essential story line is that Jesus' return will inaugurate a one thousand-year rule on earth and that all the saved Christians, both dead and alive, will be swept up into the clouds with Christ prior to , during, or after (depending on the school of theology) in an event known as the Rapture. Both Jews and Christian evangelicals saw the creation of Israel as an essential moment in the divine narrative, but each anticipated a different end. One side predicted the restoration of Jewish influence and power on earth, and the other anticipated the end of the world.
Max Blumenthal, an author and a researcher who has closely studied both the interrelationships and the conflicts between Judaism and Christianity, became convinced that evangelical Christians are determined to create the dominion necessary for Christ's return, and they are helping to elect leaders who will, in turn, assist them with implementing the Bible's plan. All Karl Rove want[ed] to do [was] win elections.
"I think what we are seeing is a subculture that is producing America's political hierarchy," he said. "And it is coming out of the Dominominist [Christian-sect] Right. And they believe that America is a Christian nation and everybody else is going to have to step aside and be silent, and if they try and speak up for themselves, then they are persecuting Christians."
In Chapter 13: Rove's Brain: A secret Chef Cooks Up the Case for War, Moore and Slater expose the influence that Neocons, i.e., American Zionists placed within the Bush administration had in the ramping-up the War on Terror which has metastasized into two decade un-winnable war, and for me at least explains the election of Barack Obama and his failure to punish greedy banking executives.
Moore and Slater introduce Michael Ledeen (who "ghost-wrote"--claiming to co-write Michael Flynn's Field of Fight) as a neoconservative who holds the Freedom Chair at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, and the consultant for Douglas Feith undersecretary of defense for policy in the Bush administration, the third most powerful position in the Pentagon. Ledeen's prolific writings advocated "creative destruction of much of the Middle East."
Before he had even launched George W. Bush's first Texas gubernatorial
campaign, Karl Rove was determined to change the political dynamics of Jewish voters and donors. Historically, they they'd been a Democratic Party resource, and both their theology and progressive politics had been at odds with the Christian and conservative Republican Party.
Moore and Slater posit that irrespective of any eventuality beyond immediate political concerns, Roe had Bush send letters to American Jewish leadership, conduct meetings and phone calls, and deliver the consistent message that Israel would have no better friend than George W. Bush. This pre-presidential campaign rose to broader public awareness when Bush took a trip to Israel as governor and visited a number of holy sites.
George Bush kept his promise to Israel, and to Jews in the United States responded with an increase in votes and Republican campaign contributions. Private White House dinners with Karl Rove and about twenty of the country's prominent Jewish leaders prior to the reelection campaign secured a deep commitment to Israel by Bush. The president had already filled his administration with appointees whose political convictions regarding Israel were so strong that they were, as a minimum, accused of having "dual loyalties" and, in the worst case, were described as "Israel-firsters."
The most influential of the Bush choices were Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith, while Vice President Dick Cheney turned to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, John Hannah, and David Wurmser, all of whom had exhibited a predisposition to favor Israel in policy and decision-making processes.
Wurmser, who became Mideast adviser to the vice president as the war was unfolding in 2003, might be the most ideologically aggressive in the group. Along with his wife, Meyrav, and Perle and Feith, Wurmser had coauthored a 1996 paper for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" called upon Israel to attack Syria and Lebanon and overthrow Saddam Hussein as critical steps for redrawing the political power structure of the Mideast. The document appears to have served as a kind of template for the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and, in almost every aspect, seems to inform Bush administration policy.
Nearly every one of the people we would identify as Neocons had problems with their security clearances," said seventeen-year Mideast CIA veteran Philip Giraldi, "because they've been giving information to Israel or they are suspected thereof."
In addition to their unflagging commitment to Israel, most of the neoconservatives promoting the Iraq invasion had a common connection to Michael Ledeen. a founding member of the board of advisers for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) (Vice President Dick Cheney was also an adviser before taking office) in Washington and the creator of the Center for Democracy in Iran (CDI), Ledeen has been considered by the CIA and the Italian government to be "an agent of influence for Israel." Ledeen insists he has never done any political work for Israel, "nor any other kind of work."
Moore and Slater in Chapter 4: "Devilish Details: It's the Israelis, Stupid" write that when George W. Bush took office as president, he was already unabashedly pro-Israel and only marginally concerned about the Palestinian and Arab perspective on the Middle East. Prior to 9/11, Karl Rove had kept the president at a measured distance from the intractable conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. After a fractious campaign in which he was awarded the white house in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Bush needed to comfort the electorate and not generate further unease with geopolitical moves. He was, however, however, decidedly more comfortable with Israel's issues and politics than he was with those of Arab interests across the Middle East. Bush knew the role Jewish money had played in getting him elected, and as a result of Rove's ministrations and relationships and Jewish political leaders in the United States, he'd also grown to see Israel's destiny as inevitably connected to America's. His bible, he believed, also told him as much. The attacks of 9/11 seemed to confirm for Bush that he'd chosen the right side in an ancient conflict.
During his initial meeting with Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, the president clarified whose side he was on during the first five minutes of their conversation. Sharon had come to the White House to speak with the new president about Israel's challenges. While they talked, the subject quickly turned to Yasser Arafat, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization. One of the first guest president Bush asked the Israeli prime minister was astonishing.
"Are you going to kill him?" The President gave the Israeli a level stare indicating the question was intended to be serious.
Ariel Sharon was unquestionably surprised. The leader of the free world, a man whose election had spread discontent across his own country and uncertainty around the globe, was suddenly suggesting a dramatic move that promised a dangerous political outcome.
"Mr. President?" Sharon said pausing, uncertain he had heard the question correctly. "We're ready--"
Bush did not let Sharon complete his thought.
"No, you can't do that," the president interjected. "If you do, you make an enemy of the United States, immediately, for the rest of your life. I'm tell you, you can't do that."
Sharon waited, uncertain how to respond to a president who's just suggested an idea rarely spoken aloud in Israel.
"No," Bush continued. "If he needs killing, I'll do it."
The wisecracking fraternity boy was now president of the United States of America. His intemperate remarks about the leader of the PLO, however, offered a glimpse of something beyond Bush's discomfort sense of humor. A president who'd famously bragged that he didn't read newspapers or deeply study policy had surrounded himself with advisers whose interest in Israel's sovereignty and safety might have outweighed their concern for the United States. The president and the vice president took daily briefings, analysis, and advice from senior staffers and think tank analysts whose perspective had long been influenced by assumptions about is Israel's importance. Many of these administration counselors had been involved in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a proposal drafted by neoconservatives who'd been arguing for more than a decade for a U.S. military presence in the Middle East and an invasion of Iraq. The White House sought little input from those articulating the Arab point of view. The vice president's office acquired even less.
The default position for all of President Bush's Middle East decisions was always to favor Israel. This was what Karl rove had planned. He wanted the president to be aggressively pro-Israel to prompt money and votes to flow from American Jewish voters and to show his solidarity with the beliefs of the Christian right. This fit nicely with the broader policies outlined by the PNAC to project American force into the Mideast with the unspoken goal of protecting Israel which also promoting democracies in the Arab world. It was a dangerous, provocative approach to shore-up domestic political support for the president.
[And now we shall relive it via the Trump administration.]