This War Was for Israel's Benefit and No Other: Consider the Following 17 Lies, A Response to the Response by Rich Maurice

Opinion, July 2003, www.aljazeerah.info

7/28/03

Note from the Editor:

Mark Franklin started by writing his above titled article, which triggered a response from Rich Maurice. Mark Franklin then responded to Rich Maurice's response. Today Rich Maurice responds to Mark Franklin's response.

Al-Jazeerah.info Editor thanks Mark Franklin and Rich Maurice for this civilized exchange. Readers should have enjoyed and benefited from it. This is the last about this subject.

A Response to Rich Maurice's Rebuttal to the 17 Lies Given by the Bush Administration

By Mark Franklin

7/26/03

On July 23, I wrote an article that cited the numerous LIES given by George Bush and by Colin Powell. In fact, I showed that it was not merely 16-words with which all Americans were spoon-fed. It was well over 16 LIES. While I stopped at 17, I could have added many, many more. You can see my article, which is called,

Your article lacked supporting evidence to validate your arguments. I have no qualms with anyone calling President Bush, Colin Powell, Dick Chaney… a liar. I do however feel it incumbent upon the author to provide evidence when doing so. If the standard is that evidence is not required I suspect the only limiting factor in detailing lies is your time. I think your time could be better spent.

"This War Was for Israel's Benefit and No Other: Consider the Following 17 Lies."

On July 24, Mr. Rich Maurice tried to counter the quotes and well-founded logic behind them with a rebuttal. His article was called, "A response to Mark Franklin's, 'This war was for Israel's benefit.'" I now offer a rebuttal to his comments.

Mr. Maurice begins by saying that the essence of my statement was simply a "ranting." However, this actually better describes his own response rather than my well-reasoned citing of the numerous quotes that were in fact LIES that were given by the Bush administration. Yes, I point out that the Bush administration told America 17 lies. In fact, I proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt, citing them one by one. But, in all actuality, there were much more than 17; I only stopped there because I was getting tired--sick and tired, actually--of looking at all the lies.

You provided no proof at all. I will not rehash all 17 of the “lies” as they all were justified in the same manner-

1.) "The Iraqi dictator must be disarmed."--President George W. Bush, Sept. 28, 2002

LIE. Iraq was disarmed. Bush is making the assertion, so the burden of proof is on him. You can't prove something that doesn't exist, does not exist.

Where is your evidence? I think you were referring to WMD, which have not been found. There is a burden of proof on the administration to prove that they existed but lets give him some time. If they weren’t found within a year or two then I would say your statement makes some sense. At this point we haven’t even found Hussein. Ideally the weapons would have been found immediately. The fact that they weren’t does not make this statement a lie. I’m not sure what your standard is for calling someone a liar but I hope I’m not subject to this level analysis. I doubt that you would like to be held to this standard as well. The bottom line is that government officials rely on intelligence information to justify their actions. When evidence is provided that Bush knew WMDs did not exist I’ll be the first to condemn him. Until that time he deserves the benefit of doubt.

He says that it is somehow unfair to associate my claims with the Palestinian cause. In fact, the Iraq war was strongly promoted by Israel and its activists who work covertly in America's government to serve Israel's interests. If you've bothered to take the time to read such books as former Congressman Paul Findley's book "They Dare to Speak Out" or, perhaps, "Stealth PACs," you begin to recognize Israel's strong influence over America's politics. It is fair for me to say that Israel's influence, if not Israel's control, over America is staggering. As I pointed out in another article, when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff George S. Brown spoke to Duke University on October 10, 1975, he was asked a question by a student: "How can we stop Israel from obtaining from the Congress more foreign aid than any other nation in the world?" General Brown responded:

"When they get tough-minded enough to set down the (Israeli) influence in this country and break that lobby. It is so strong, you wouldn't believe it. Now, we have the Israelis coming to us for equipment. We say we can't probably get the Congress to support a program like this. And they say, 'Don't worry about the Congress. We will take care of the Congress.' This is somebody from another country. But they can do it. They own--you know--the banks in this country, the newspapers."

American Jewry demanded that Brown resign for telling the truth. Noticing this with deep concern, General M.B. Twining, a hero of WWII and the Korean War who was Commander of the U.S. Air Force, reportedly told the San Diego Union:

"A group of powerful U.S. (Zionists) have grotesquely distorted U.S. foreign policy in blind fanatic support of Israel, and Gen. Brown deserves praise, not criticism, for saying so. As head of our nation's armed forces, he sees us--a nation of 200 million people--being dragooned into a disastrous war . . . by a ruthless lobby of (Zionist)-American extremists single-mindedly bent on enforcing their rule or ruin policy in the Middle East."

This was said back in the 1970s; things have gotten much worse since then.

This year, America gave Israel $13 billion. (Some might argue that $10 billion of that was a "loan," but Israel has yet to ever pay one back.) And this is at a time when America's economy is falling apart at the seams. Why is this? Why is it that America gives Israel more than any other nation year after year? It's because Israel controls America's leaders. Sharon openly boasts about this control on the radio. To the point: Israel takes this $13 billion and funnels a small portion of it to its 300 or so PACs, which work in a coordinated effort under AIPAC, and essentially dictate America's Mid-East policy through its dual-citizenship Zionists. This is the truth, and only a fool or a liar would deny it.

I would be somewhere near the end of the line of those denying an unfair ability on the part of Zionists to influence our government. The fact is that Zionists’ abilities to sway congress in the 70s simply doesn’t equate to the president being a Zionist nor to his administration being in the pocket of Zionists. Several authors have written to Aljazeerah detailing with evidence why they believe this is true. I have no problem with them and I in fact enjoyed their articles. At the end of the day however one must find of course of action to remedy the situation. Your plan seems to be that you will wait until the next election for progress. Who do you think will be running for the DNC and RNC? I guarantee they will all be prior Congress or Senate members. This implies the situation is hopeless. I think otherwise. Whether we call Bush a Neo-CON, Zionist, liar… he created a situation that mandates peace at a minimum between Israel and Palestine. The U. S. simply doesn’t have the global goodwill to sustain its uneven approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and maintain forces in Iraq at the same. Good, bad or evil, Bush needs peace. As supporters of the Palestinian cause (I define as justice) let’s seize the moment. It may be decades before this opportunity presents itself again.

My point here is not to write a book about this, as this is what it would take to satisfy Mr. Rich Maurice. But let us get to the heart of the matter: Israel's reasoning for putting America at war with Iraq.

Why did Israel want Iraq destroyed? There were several reasons. I mentioned one, which Mr. Maurice, completely ignored in his rebuttal. Why did he fail to mention this? Because it made sense and it was easily enough proven: For example, I mentioned the oil pipeline to Israel, which is now in discussion. One can do a search with his favorite search engine now and find numerous articles that attest to this, most of which come from the Israel itself. Simply stated, Israel wants a piece of Iraq--that black stuff that goes through the veins of Israel's leaders.

Having a motive does not indicate guilt. Every country in the world except the oil rich ones would like a pipeline from Iraq.

Another reason that Israel wanted America to attack Iraq is the vengeance issue: Israel was upset with Iraq because of its attack during the first Gulf War (in 1991). While Israel has much more firepower than Iraq now--and did so at the time of Iraq's attack--it nevertheless viewed Iraq as a threat. Why? Because, if the truth be known, Iraq hated Israel (not without justification, I might add, despite the fact I felt Hussein to be a (derogatory words), whose totalitarian measures are only rivaled by Ariel Sharon). Israel also feared that Hussein might unite Arabs in the Mid-East against Israel itself, which would invariably be Israel's downfall.

Another reason that Israel wanted America to attack Iraq was because of Hussein's strong support of the Palestinians. While I'm certainly no fan of Hussein, let me just point out that he gave money to the Palestinian families. Many of these people to whom Hussein gave money were the families of the suicide bombers. Now, the American media made it out to appear that the suicide bombers' families received a "reward" by Hussein of $25,000 for the suicide bomber doing his "dirty work." However, this was not actually the case. Far from it. What actually occurred was this: A suicide bomber was created by Israel's ethnic cleansing policy and its incessant aggressions. The suicide bomber would blow himself up, as suicide bombers do. Since the Israeli government could not then capture the suicide bomber and torture him, as Israel regularly does to other militants, it then would take the suicide bombers' families and bulldoze their homes and often torture them. Many of their families were completely innocent of any crimes, and were being punished for simply being related to these fanatical nutcases who would blow themselves up.

So, if, say, Mr. Maurice's brother was a suicide bomber and killed himself, even if Mr. Maurice knew nothing about it, then it would be fair by Israel's standards to destroy Mr. Maurice's home, his brother's home, and his parent's home. Hussein would then give Mr. Maurice and the rest of his family, who were entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, money to compensate for Israel's insipid policy. This was another important factor that bothered Israelis, as they sought to punish everyone for crimes not committed by them on the basis of a family-relationship. Israel somehow feels that anyone related to anyone who has wronged Israel is somehow guilty of something. If this seems a bit confusing, it is only because Israel is run by people with brains that defy conventional logic and wisdom.

So, now we have some reasons. I admit that there are many more reasons that I can provide. However, if you've studied this issue yourself and have read what is being said in even the English editions of Israel's newspapers, you know what I say is true. Therefore, let us establish these three posits: 1.) Israel felt threatened by Iraq; 2.) Israel wanted (and still wants) some of Iraq's oil--to re-open the old pipeline directly to Israel; and, 3.) Israel did not like Iraq's policy of reimbursing innocent families for their losses sustained by Israel's family-guilty policy.

Now, to the next point, is it fair for me to say that Pro-Israel officials in the Bush administration were behind this whole charade? Yes, it is. It is commonly known that the OSP was irrefutably behind America's war effort and the vast propaganda that was disseminated prior to the war for its justification. Further, it is fair to say this about the OSP with respect to its policy-makers: Its end-all purpose served Israel's interest and not America's. Who were these these, who we find so prevalent among the Bush administration and who are leading it on a path to Hades? Before I answer this query, let me also point out perhaps Bush's main motive for allowing this war to occur.

Before we go into that let me point out that just because Israel wanted a war, does not mean that is the reason we went to war. While your theory is interesting it can’t be stated as fact. It lacks evidence that Bush’s decision was based on Israel’s desires. As an opinion I have no problem with it.

Certainly, Bush himself had his own motives: He spelled it out late last year: he said that Hussein had threatened his father. If someone threatened my father, I'd be pretty upset too. But I don't know if I would start a war over it and put others' lives at risk. Bush openly said this to a reporter, as shocking as it might be to some. This was Bush's motive at the back of his mind, and his Zionist cohorts were only too happy to take him down the path to Never-Never Land. So, in any event, who were these pro-Israeli officials who took Bush by the hand and guided him down the path to war?

Again, the fact that Bush made the comment does not indicate it was his cause for going to war. I am no more a fan of Bush than I was of Clinton. We should question leaders motives but lets not state our assumptions as fact.

If we are to give these Zionist activists names, we would be overwhelmed. Anyone who has a bit of intelligence must recognize who these people are. If we are to honestly point the finger at the manipulators who made the Iraq War possible, let's point fingers at the true activists behind the greatest fraud to visit mankind: Wolfowitz, Perle, Fleischer, Rove, Zekheim, Satloff, Feith, Abrams, Grossman, Haas, Kissinger, Schlesinger, Bolten, Gildenhorn, Gerden, Cohen, Davis, Lefkowitz, Sembler, Goldsmith, Goldman, Goldin and the numerous other Zionist activists in Bush's entourage who led him to do Israel's bidding. (For more about these characters, see Mohammed Alomari's article, "Bush's Pro-Israel Advisors: Who Are They? - http://mywebpages.comcast.net/salamradio/Bush-Israel.htm .) They wanted this war for Israel and no other, and they got their dream come true.

I visited the web page, which essentially uses guilt by association to justify its argument. This is fine in expressing an opinion but not in determining fact. If the same logic were used on me, I would be Buddhist because I read Sidhartha in school and then spent two years living in a primarily Buddhist nation. If anyone would like to waste their time making the argument that I am Buddhist so be it but I think our time could be better spent.

These people are Israelis first, and Americans second. The majority hold dual-citizenship with Israel, with whom they hold their true allegiance.

Speculation.

History shows us this through its poisonous lessons taught by Israel itself since its inception. What are these lessons? Recall the terrorism caused by Israel: Israel's assassination of Lord Moyne by Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir who later bragged about it, then Shamir's assassination of UN Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte; Prime Minister Menachem Begin's bombing of the King David Hotel; the LaVon Affair, in which America's interests in Egypt were bombed by Israel; the USS Liberty incident, in which 34 crewmembers of this US ship were murdered and 171 injured, and which former heads of the CIA and NSA have gone on record attesting to Israel's foreknowledge, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. We have learned that Israel is in fact a nation formed on terrorism, which it tries to blame on the hapless Palestinians who try to merely exist with Israel's perpetual ethnic cleansing policy. Israel can be trusted by no one, and this applies to America.

I agee.

So, now we know three things: (1) Israel had wanted America to attack Iraq for Israel's own selfish interests;

Agreed.

(2) Israel controls America's plutocrats;

Israel clearly has an unfair level of influence but the degree with which it controls our “plutocrats” is questionable.

and (3) Israel itself is a terrorist nation capable of doing anything, murdering anyone (myself included, but everyone has to go some time).

Agreed.

That have been said, I now have associated this war with Israel.

There is a difference in associating the war with Israel and determining that Israel was in fact the primary reason for going to war. That evidence is lacking.

Now, let me just say that I agree with one thing that Mr. Maurice said:

"The Palestinian cause is too great to be trivialized by routine Republican (or Democrat) bashing..."

Good.

However, I did not engage in Republican- or Democrat-bashing. So, I don't know from where Mr. Maurice's argument in this matter is derived. In fact, what I said--which Mr. Maurice quoted but obviously failed to read--was, "DO NOT VOTE FOR A ZIONIST-SYMPATHIZER." I said nothing about voting--or not voting--for a Democrat or a Republican. In the case of the upcoming election, I think Bush can pretty much write off any Arab votes. (One can be assured that this would've made the difference in Florida, to be certain.) As to Bush, if he is not elected, all I have to say is "good riddance." However, if another Republican who did not hold his pro-Zionist views (while pretending to be impartial--a far cry from reality if there ever was one) were to run for office, I myself might actually support him.

I made an assumption in reading through your article that you were a Democrat. I apologize for making the assumption. Your article reminded me of the Clinton bashing and several other politically motivated bashings I’ve heard over the years. They tend to follow a pattern similar to that which I saw in your article: 1. XXXX worked for YYYY and therefore assumes their views. 2. YYYY did ZZZZ and therefore XXXX is guilty as YYYY of ZZZZ. Give me facts. I used to live in Missouri, show me.

While my former article said nothing at all about Republican or Democrat, let me tell Mr. Maurice a little something since he brought up the subject: As embarrassing as it is for me to (now) say this, I actually voted for Bush. (There was no way I was voting for Gore, whose Zionist cohort would then be one step away from the presidency.) So, I'm certainly not anti-Republican; however, after Bush's failed attempts at peace, after the prospect of more wars around the corner under his leadership, and after the bias in Bush's Mid-East policies, let me just say that by no step of the imagination am I any longer pro-Republican. (My membership has since ceased, my card torn to shreds, with no plans of making another donation in the immediate future.)

I’m sorry. I personally do not see a difference between Democrats and Republicans on policies. I have voted every election since leaving the military and have never voted for a presidential candidate who won.

Now, as to the rest of Mr. Maurice's argument, he says,

"As a spokesperson on Middle Eastern affairs pointed out on NPR this evening...."

Who was this person? Does Mr. Maurice even know? And why should we believe that this person was telling the truth?

I attempted to remember their name but was driving in my car at the time they were on. I didn’t have a pen handy. My point was that there exists views different than yours and people believe them to be as true as you believe yours to be. We cannot and will not ever know everything the intelligence community knows. To divulge some information is to divulge the method used to obtain it and to divulge other information is to prevent further monitoring of the situation.

Bush lied. Powell lied.

Evidence! Provide evidence.

Couldn't this "person" (if in fact this gender-neutral "person" did in fact say this) have been lying like Bush and Powell? In any event, Mr. Maurice makes an attempt to make it sound that this argument is somehow to be accepted at face value and is inherently true as a result. I have to ask myself, "What kind of a moron does Mr. Maurice think people are--that they'd buy his attempt at an argument?" For all I know, this gender-neutral person was Ariel Sharon himself. Alas, if Mr. Maurice pointed out whom this "person" was, we might just see how biased he was as well.

I got a good laugh out of that one.

In fact, he then goes on to say that, according to the gender-neutral "person," France, Russia, and China all believed that Iraq had WMD. Nothing could be far from the truth. Does anyone besides me recall Putin, just a few months ago, publicly ridiculing Blair, asking Blair where the WMD were?

Putin asking where the weapons are does not equate to Russian intelligence not knowing of their existence.

France and China have never said that they believed this nonsense either.

Again, this does not mean their intelligence offices were unaware.

If Bush had allowed the UN to vote on the war, France and Russia would have vetoed it BECAUSE THERE WERE NO WMD TO BE FOUND. China probably would not have voted in favor of it as well.

Not voting to go to war does not equate to no WMD. If the U. N. voted on a was against the U. S. many members would not vote in favor of going to war. This does not indicate a presence or lack of WMD in the U. S.(while it is public knowledge we have them).

As for Mr. Maurice's other points, they fly in the face of logic. He says that Iraq was not disarmed, as demonstrated by the guns they still have. Yes, this is true, but also as Al-Jazeerah Editor points out in his footnote and any intelligent person reading this might discern from the topic matter (that being WMD), I was indeed referring to WMD, not handguns, rifles, and grenades, which were all allowed under the UN's rules.

Covered this at the beginning of my response.

Mr. Maurice then goes on to assert that "missiles" were discovered in January or something to that effect. Yes, Hussein had missiles. They went something like 5 miles over the limit, according to UN provisions. However, this was without the guidance equipment that was normally attached to it, with which it would have been within the UN's provisions. Further, Hussein did in fact DESTROY them to satisfy the UN and America. There have not been any chemical or biological weapons found in Iraq.

Yet. The jury is still is out.

As for the claims of Iraq gassing its own people, as I have pointed out, this was simply not true. In fact, it has been clearly demonstrated that these people died from Iran's cyanide-gas, not Iraq's mustard-gas. Do a search on your favorite search engine, using some key words-- "report" "mustard gas" "cyanide" "Iran" "Iraq" "War"--and you'll discover what I'm talking about, if you spend a little time. I have no idea what "NPT" is, and I'm seldom watching TV.

NPT-Public Television.

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

One of many web sites providing information on Iraq’s use of WMD on its people.

I am somehow expected to be impressed that Mr. Maurice met "Colin Powell in person, as has [his] wife"? Whoop-tee-do! By Mr. Maurice meeting Colin Powell, he then assures me Powell is not a liar. Well, then, what do you call what Powell said? He certainly didn't tell the truth? Collin Powell is a bald-faced LIAR.

I worked for him.

Remember Bush and his support for Zionism at the next election. You CAN make a difference, particularly in Florida. It only takes a few votes to make the difference, as we've seen last election! Stop him before he declares war on N. Korea, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia--and the whole world--while lying to us point blank.

Is this a political site?

What I found almost amusing is that when people first began to ask what happened to the WMD, Bush's Team Zion said, "Well, that no-good Iran, which our buddy Israel also coincidentally wants us to get next, probably took them." Yeah, right.

No votes for LIARS and Zionist-sympathizers!

If you voted for Bush and you found him to be a Zionist, what prevents you from making the mistake again? It seems like a rather hopeless state your in. I would suggest to you that we have an opportunity brought about by September 11^{th and} the Iraq war. Bush simply needs peace between Israel and Palestine to maintain power. Like all politicians I believe this to be his motivating force. He can’t get out of Iraq quickly or it will be seen as abandonment. He can’t sustain both issues unresolved and maintain U. S. goodwill. It’s a free country. You can speak what you wish to speak but I would like to see us work on a resolution for Palestinians while we have the opportunity. I believe the roadmap will fail because it doesn’t acknowledge that sustainable peace in the region is not possible without justice for Palestinians. I would rather spend my time creating and pushing a solution that provides real justice to Palestinians (and Jews) than discussing the latest conspiracy theory. Seize the moment.

Earth, a planet hungry for peace

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).