by Bob Finch
On January 12, 2009, the leader of the Jews-only state in Palestine Ehud olmert revealed to a Jewish audience in Ashkelon that he had insisted George Bush should tell Condoleezza Rice to vote against a United Nations’ resolution calling for a ceasefire to the Israeli attack on Gaza. Olmert did not inadvertently humiliate the president of the United States of America; the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice; congress; and the American people, by divulging this information. On the contrary. He was boasting about his power to humiliate the president and thus the American people.
The global Jewish Empire: a global Zionist conspiracy
There are a handful of commentators in the Western world who have been compiling the evidence that America, the world’s greatest democracy and military hyper-power, has been taken over by a Jewish elite which acts on behalf of the Jews-only state in Palestine. America’s ruling Jewish elite’s most well known operatives are the Jewish lobby and the Jewish neocons. These Israel-firsters have been corrupting the Bush regime into implementing policies which promote the interests of the racist state even though they have become increasing catastrophic, economically, militarily, politically, and morally, for America and the American people. After the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, Zionists imported Israel’s decades-old war against terrorism into America and ever since the Bush regime has been implementing this disastrous Zionist doctrine.
Hardline warmongering Zionists in the Jews-only state, America, and the rest of the Western world, (including most recently, India) have been setting the global political agenda: an invasion of Afghanistan, an invasion of Iraq, an invasion of Lebanon, continued ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and an attack on Iran to trigger a regional, perhaps even a global, war to boost the Jews-only state’s military dominance of the greater middle east.
The mainstream media in the Western world is dominated by Zionists who use their paper publications, tv, and films, to issue the most blatant Zionist propaganda which many Westerners welcome because of the disgusting Islamophobia in which it is wrapped. Jewish power in America is now so blatant that Jewish extremists are commissioned to publish articles in the country’s most prestigious newspapers advocating world war three. It has to be asked: what normal, sane, decent person around the world wants another world war? The only people insane enough to demand world war three are hysterical, paranoid, warmongering, Jewish supremacists.
The irony of the politically kosher worldview which pervades the Western world is that the Jewish propagandists who go out of their way to ridicule the idea of a global Jewish conspiracy are themselves advocates of a global Islamic conspiracy. In this hollywood concoction Al Qaeda, Osma bin Laden, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, etc, etc, have all been secretly working together to exterminate the Jews and overthrow Western civilization. Such fantastic drivel is being spewed out solely to cover up the global Jewish conspiracy.
Any decent, open-minded, person observing geopolitics since the foundation of the Jews-only state in Palestine, would have been all too well aware of the way that America has been colonized by Jewish neocons. What is so remarkable about this feat is not so much that a tiny minority could colonize a global hyperpower but that this minority could keep the colonization out of the public realm for so long even though the facts themselves have been screaming out to anyone who could be bothered to listen.
In the politically kosher Western world, anti-Zionist propositions are usually ostracized but mostly ridiculed or denounced in passing. However, when one of the Jewish leaders at the centre of this global Zionist conspiracy gives a clear cut example of his treatment of the president of the United States as a whipping boy, the deniers are put in an embarrassing position. This is especially so since Olmert’s order to Bush was in the best interests of the Jews-only state but was in the president’s (and America’s) worst possible interests because it provoked the rest of the world to despise him, and America, even more for his continued warmongering. So, the question arises, how are mainstream commentators going to confront such a shocking and indisputable revelation? Here’s a spectacular firework display of the truth about Jewish control over America so are they now going to pretend they can’t see the fireworks? In the recent past Western politicians wholeheartedly supported the Jewish fantasy that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weapons. Is the world just going to continue upholding the latest Jewish fantasy that Iran is close to getting closer to acquiring nukes while, at the same time, pretending that the Jews don’t have them? This article looks at commentators’ response to Olmert’s sudden revelation.
Many mainstream American publications covered the story of Olmert’s abusive and humiliating treatment of Bush. Although they quoted from his speech the vast majority used only a few selective quotes and often quoted from different parts of his speech. It is only when the entire speech is heard that the intensity of Olmert’s taunting of Bush becomes clear. The American media thus seemed to limit the quotes it used partly in order to avoid undermining the authority of the president of the United States but also to protect the racist state by preventing Americans from appreciating just how vicious Olmert’s attack on Bush had been.
The three following quotes provide a sufficient account of Olmert’s speech. “According to Olmert, he called the White House upon hearing of the upcoming UN Security Council resolution. “I said, ‘Get me President Bush on the phone.’ They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care: ‘I need to talk to him now.’ He got off the podium and spoke to me,” Olmert said, according to multiple media reports. As a result of his conversation with President Bush, Olmert claimed, the president called Rice and forced her to abstain from voting on the measure, which she herself had helped author. “He gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favor of it, a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organized, and maneuvered for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged,” Olmert said.” (Daniel Luban ‘Olmert’s Claims Revive Israel Lobby Controversy’ January 14, 2009); “According to Olmert, he told Bush that the US should not vote for the resolution, and Bush then directed Rice to abstain. “She was left pretty embarrassed,” Olmert said. Like Olmert’s aides, an official in the Prime Minister’s Office said “the Prime Minister’s comments on Monday were a correct account of what took place.”" (Herb Keinon, Allison Hoffman ‘’PM stands by his version in diplo spat’’ January 14, 2009); “So, here, in Olmert’s words, is what happened next. “In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a cease-fire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favor. I said, ‘Get me President Bush on the phone.’ They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care. ‘I need to talk to him now.’ He got off the podium and spoke to me.” According to Olmert, Bush was clueless. “He said: ‘Listen. I don’t know about it. I didn’t see it. I’m not familiar with the phrasing.’ I told him the United States could not vote in favor. It cannot vote in favor of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favor.”" (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Is Ehud’s Poodle Acting Up?’ ).
U.S. State Department response
America’s state department was angry with Olmert but whether this was because it didn’t like the president being humiliated or because they were furious he’d given the game away is not clear. “The U.S. State Department fiercely denied claims made by Ehud Olmert about his influence over President George W. Bush, in an incident that has stirred up old debates about the role of the Israeli government and the so-called “Israel lobby” in formulating Middle East policy in Washington.” (Daniel Luban ‘Olmert’s Claims Revive Israel Lobby Controversy’ ).
Olmert not backing down
“The State Department immediately contradicted Olmert’s claims, insisting that “the government of Israel does not make US policy.” Spokesman Sean McCormack also suggested that Israel might want to “clarify or correct the record” with respect to the comments. Rice has dismissed Olmert’s claims as “fiction.” The comments have sparked no small concern in Israel, where the fear is that Olmert’s claims to be able to order the President of the United States around will only increase public opposition in America to Israel’s influence on its foreign policy. Yet spokesmen for Olmert say that the prime minister stands behind his version of events.” (‘Olmert Stands Behind Rice-Shaming Claim: Rice Calls Prime Minister’s Comments “Fiction”’ January 14, 2009).
Haaretz suggests Olmert closer to the truth than Rice
“Inquiries with people uninvolved in the spat between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reveal that his version of the lead-up to America’s vote on last week’s Security Council resolution is closer to the truth than hers. The whole story would have ended well had Olmert behaved like a responsible adult and restrained his own impulses. Even his close associates admit that he would have done better to skip the public boasting about how he persuaded Bush to overrule Rice. Quite aside from the fact that this embarrassed the U.S. administration, Olmert’s associates understand all too well that this story merely provides fresh ammunition to those who claim the Jews are the ones who really control America.” (Akiva Eldar ‘Inquiries show Olmert version of UN Gaza vote spat closer to truth than Rice’s’ January 01, 2009).
How have America’s commentators reacted to Olmert confession?
In the past, American commentators have adamantly refused to discuss Jewish economic, cultural, or political, power in America. Indeed, their silence is yet another piece of evidence as to the existence of such power. So, will Olmert’s confession set them free to challenge the Jewish supremacist colonization of America and its calamitous consequences for the country (and many other countries around the world)? Or will they just go on living comfortably in the Zionist fantasy world created for them by America’s Jewish ruling elite?
Juan Cole proposes that Zionists are exercising power not just by Bribery but Blackmail
Cole covered the outburst in detail and speculated that Zionist power in America might derive from Mossad’s acquisition of material with which it could blackmail Bush. For a political commentator such as Cole, a high profile member of America’s defunct wasp establishment, to have to resort to such a wacky, fringe, idea is unusual to say the least. But then again what alternative does he have since he won’t talk about America’s ruling Jewish elite, the colossal economic power acquired by the Jewish elite, nor the zionists near total domination of congress and the American media.
Steven C. Clemons
Clemons personalizes Olmert’s statement so that it is merely a kick in the face for the president and Condoleezza Rice rather than a statement of shame about the gross subservience of America’s much vaunted democratic system and the ignominious position of the American people whose political leaders care more about protecting the Jews-only state in Palestine than looking after their own citizens. “No matter what one may think of Condoleezza Rice’s diplomatic record, which I think is better than many liberal critics gauge, the fact that Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave her a kick in the teeth as she departs her office is obnoxious and harmful all around. Shaming a US President and Secretary of State may not change the course in policy and may not shift America’s general approach to the region, at least for the time being, but it does take the fizz out of the unique relationship.” (Steven C Clemons ‘Defending Condi: Olmert Shames Himself in Kick-in-the-Teeth Attack on Rice’ January 12, 2009). Clemons has no interest in questioning the political significance of America’s democracy, reputed by common opinion to be the best in the world, even though its president and members of congress are mere vassals to a rogue state, a hive of Jewish racists, in the Middle East.
“Clemons gets it right re Olmert and Condi, that it’s a disgraceful attack. I missed the humiliation in this. Israel often treats our executive like the help, because Israelis know they have power in Washington. It’s similar to Ehud Barak treating Bill Clinton like a peer in 2000, and Yitzhak Shamir lying to George Bush about not building more settlements, in ‘91. They always get away with it, because of the lobby.” (Philip Weiss ‘Where is Hillary on cease-fire?’ January 13, 2009). Here’s one Jewish writer making a determined effort to learn the truth about American politics.
Xymphora points out Kouchner’s Zionist Treachery
“Juan Cole, who seems to be letting his freak flag fly recently, has an excellent detailed posting on the automatic control that the Israeli government has over the American government, exemplified by Olmert picking up the phone and ordering Bush around to the extent that the United States changed its mind and abstained, rather than voted for, the latest UN cease-fire resolution. This was a public slap in the face for Rice, who actually helped draft the resolution, and Olmert is crowing about it. Note the behind-the-scenes trickery of the Jew Kouchner, who valiantly worked for his homeland, Israel, naturally, not France, to try to block the resolution. Cole concludes by raising the most important issue of all, the consideration of which is necessitated by the lack of any obvious motive for Bush to act as he did, the conspiracy theory that the mysterious hold of Zionism over American politicians is connected to blackmail. Israeli intelligence, with the aid of the secret cadre of dual-loyalty American Jews, gathers dossiers of information on characters like Bush, people who have a lot of embarrassments in their pasts, and holds it over them. Other than direct payments of cash, which probably explains Cheney, this is by far the most plausible theory for why American politicians consistently and blatantly act against American interests (sorry Noam). I wonder what the Israeli dossier on Obama looks like?” (Xymphora ‘The mysterious hold of Zionism over American politicians’ January 13, 2009).
“The State Department has some not-terribly-convincing denials out. But one way or another it seems both telling and unseemly that Olmert is going around bragging about this.” (Matthew Yglesias ‘Olmert Claims to Control US Foreign Policy’ January 13, 2009). Olmert should be applauded for telling the truth not criticized for bragging. Now that the truth is out why doesn’t Yglesias spend his time outlining its fundamental political implications and ramifications?
Paul Craig Roberts
The inimitable Paul Craig Roberts is a unique and fearless commentator: a former Treasury Official who speaks truth to power. “Israeli politicians have been bragging for decades about the control they exercise over the US government. In his final press conference, President Bush, deluded to the very end, said that the whole world respects America. In fact, when the world looks at America, what it sees is an Israeli colony. What is happening to the Palestinians herded into the Gaza Ghetto is happening because of American money and weapons. It is just as much an attack by the United States as an attack by Israel. The US government is complicit in the war crimes. “Our” president was a puppet for a cabal led by Dick Cheney and a handful of Jewish neoconservatives, who took control of the Pentagon, the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, and “Homeland Security.” From these power positions, the neocon cabal used lies and deception to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, pointless wars that have cost Americans $3 trillion, while millions of Americans lose their jobs, their pensions, and their access to health care.” (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The White House Moron Stumbles to the Finish: The Humiliation of America’ January 14, 2009).
“Middle East expert Steven Spiegel described the episode as “the worst faux pas by an Israeli prime minister in history. You really do wonder what the prime minister was thinking, if it’s true, you’d really want to keep it as quiet as possible, and if it’s not true, why would you want to make up a story that would embarrass both the Bush administration and the Israeli government and draw criticism from those who are antagonistic to Israel?” asked Spiegel, director of the Center for Middle East Development at UCLA. “No matter how you play it, exaggeration, falsehood, whole truth, the whole thing makes them all look bad,” Spiegel told The Jerusalem Post.” (Herb Keinon, Allison Hoffman ‘’PM stands by his version in diplo spat’’ January 14, 2009).
In the past, Raimondo has been edging towards stating that the Jews-only state in Palestine, with the aid of its political agents in America, controls America’s foreign policies. It might have been thought he would have taken Olmert’s statement as a great opportunity to highlight this fundamental reality of American politics. At first it seems he would. “It (Olmert’s statement) tells us who is used to giving orders, and who is accustomed to obedience.” (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel versus America: Is the ’special relationship’ over? January 16, 2009). But he doesn’t. “What Gaza signals is a new turn for the Israelis, a clean break, if you will, with their status as an American puppet in the Middle East. They are clearly going off on their own, intent on waging a war of unmitigated aggression against all their neighbors.” When given the opportunity he ducks it. The apartheid state has always been an American puppet but is now going off on its own. Such an argument would make sense if America had stopped giving the racist state vast annual tribute payments and stopped providing it with endless quantities of weapons and munitions with which to slaughter innocent civilians. Oh well, seems like Raimondo’s back in the closet.
Patrick J. Buchanan
Over the last couple of decades, Buchanan has been one of the few mainstream American politicians who have criticized the Jews-only state and Jewish power in America. And yet he’s been quite restrained about Olmert’s confession. “With Bush and Rice leaving office in hours, and Olmert in weeks, the story may seem to lack significance. Yet, public gloating by an Israeli prime minister that he can order a U.S. president off a podium and instruct him to reverse and humiliate his secretary of state may cause even Ehud’s poodle to rise up on its hind legs one day and bite its master. Taking such liberties with a superpower that, for Israel’s benefit, has shoveled out $150 billion and subordinated its own interests in the Arab and Islamic world would seem a hubristic and stupid thing to do.” (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Is Ehud’s Poodle Acting Up?’ January 17, 2009).
Cloughley enters the fray, “And the President of the United States of America jumps to obey the Israeli prime minister.” (Brian Cloughley ‘The Power of AIPAC: Who Runs America?’ January 16-18, 2009). However, the reason that America’s ruling Jewish elite is nigh on impervious is because those on the left refuse to challenge it. Cloughley points out that members of congress are funded by Jews but doesn’t generalize beyond this to expose America’s ruling Jewish elite. “There is one thing certain: the US Congress is going to continue its unconditional support for Israel, no matter what war crimes are committed by its disgusting thugs-in-uniform. The Reps need the money, after all, which they get through political action committees which are generously funded by American Jews. And they are scared to political death by the threat that pro-Israel agencies will destroy them politically if they dare say a word against Israel. There are very few Representatives of the people of America who would dare challenge Israel, or who might possibly criticize Israel, or who have the courage to condemn atrocities committed by Israel.”
He criticizes the American media for not telling the truth. “Not many Americans know anything about the hideous barbarity in Gaza, because US cable networks and newspapers rarely carry pictures of disfigured blood-splashed children who have been killed, maimed or orphaned by the Israelis. But here in Europe we have access to some TV channels and newspapers that are very different from the pliant pro-Zion patsies of the major news outlets across the Atlantic.” But he fails to tell the truth by not denouncing the Zionist owned and controlled American media. The media in any country is a reflection of that society’s ruling class. No ruling class rules without the help of a cheerleading media. The reason that America’s mainstream media supports the Jews-only state is because it is owned and staffed primarily by members of
America’s ruling Jewish elite.
As far as is known Karon has made no comment about Olmert’s confession. However, the confession places Karon’s comments about Rice’s supervision of the Jewish war against Lebanon in 2006 in a different light. “It was clear, at the time, that the neophyte Olmert was outsourcing his decision-making to Condi Rice. I wrote at the time of the sense that Israel was waging a proxy war for the Bush Administration, a sense confirmed at the time by the hawkish dean of Israeli military correspondents, Ze’ev Schiff, who wrote at the height of the conflict: “U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the figure leading the strategy of changing the situation in Lebanon, not Prime Minister Ehud Olmert or Defense Minister Amir Peretz. She has so far managed to withstand international pressure in favor of a cease-fire, even though this will allow Hezbollah to retain its status as a militia armed by Iran and Syria.” (Tony Karon ‘Olmert: His Own Shlemiel, or Bush’s?’ January 31, 2008). If Olmert was capable of humiliating Rice over the United nations’ resolution over Gaza is it likely that, two years earlier, he’d allowed her to run the show slaughtering Lebanese civilians?
George Bush, the expendable whipping Boy
What has not been pointed out by commentators on Olmert’s confession was that he was referencing a statement made by Ariel Sharon a few years earlier. In september 2001, Sharon had publicly humiliated Bush by calling him a Chamberlain. “Don’t repeat the terrible mistake of 1938 when the enlightened democracies of Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to placate the Arabs at our expense … Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terror.” (‘Israel consumed by victim culture’ Guardian 5.10.2001). A few days later, Sharon compounded the humiliation, “Every time we do something, you (Shimon Peres) tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear. Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel; we, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it.” (Zionist Prime Minister Ariel Sharon October 3, 2001 IAP News).
Olmert’s Jewish audience would have picked up on this reference and understood that Olmert was trying to cloak himself with Sharon’s mantle as one of the Jews’ most belligerent warmongers (although whether they believed Olmert deserved such a comparison is another matter).
Olmert’s humiliation of Bush could not be a more fitting finale to Bush’s presidency. His presidency began not so much on september 11, 2001 with the attacks on New York and the Pentagon but with Sharon’s success in forcing him to accept the Likudnik interpretation of this event. The Bush regime did not respond to this event by implementing policies to protect and promote American interests. On the contrary, Sharon, and the Jewish neocons/lobby in America, pushed the Bush regime into implementing policies that boosted the interests of the Jews-only state in Palestine even though these policies would have a catastrophic impact on America’s interests. In other words, the president of the United States failed to interpret this critical event, even though it happened in his own country, because he was overwhelmed by the narrative put forward by the leader of a little country on the other side of the planet and by Jewish neocons in America loyal to that country. Bush and America could have realized that such unconditional support was against America’s interests, but the rogue state and its Jewish agents in America pressured the president into adopting even more extreme Zionist policies which put America interests at even greater risk.
9/11 was a major turning point in American history but Americans had nothing to do with the direction in which their own country then moved. “Common wisdom has it that after 9/11, a new era of geo-politics was ushered in, defined by what is usually called the Bush doctrine: pre-emptive wars, attacks on terrorist infrastructure (read: entire countries), an insistence that all the enemy understands is force. In fact, it would be more accurate to call this rigid worldview the Likud doctrine. What happened on September 11, 2001 is that the Likud doctrine, previously targeted against Palestinians, was picked up by the most powerful nation on earth and applied on a global scale. Call it the Likudisation of the world: the real legacy of 9/11.” (Naomi Klein ‘The Likud doctrine’ The Guardian, September 10, 2004); “But the idea of a super-power behaving in a similar way, responding to terrorist threats or guerrilla incursions by flattening another country just to preserve its own deterrent credibility, is odd in the extreme. It is one thing for the US unconditionally to underwrite Israelis’ behaviour (though in neither country’s interest, as some Israeli commentators at least have remarked). But for the US to imitate Israel wholesale, to import that tiny country’s self-destructive, intemperate response to any hostility or opposition and to make it the leitmotif of American foreign policy: that is simply bizarre. Bush’s Middle Eastern policy now tracks so closely to the Israeli precedent that it is very difficult to see daylight between the two. It is this surreal turn of events that helps explain the confusion and silence of American liberal thinking on the subject … the United States now has an Israeli-style foreign policy and America’s liberal intellectuals overwhelmingly support it.” (Tony Judt ‘Bush’s Useful Idiots’ September 21 2006).
An American president who calls for a Palestinian state (the first to do so) but fails to deliver it, despite the successive, nonstop, diplomatic efforts of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, America’s massive funding of the apartheid state, and the widespread international support for such a goal, is clearly subservient to Zionist power and influence. Brent Scowcroft was one of the few to confront such fundamental realities of American political life when he stated that Ariel Sharon had Bush wrapped around his little finger. It is a remarkable testimony to Americans’ capability for living in their highly leveraged Zionist fantasy world that they ignored Scowcroft’s insider remark and continued their patriotic bleats about how America is the most powerful country in the world with the world’s sole military hyper-power.
For a number of other blatant examples of how Sharon continually beat up Bush and got him to support extreme Zionist policies which have had the most devastating economic, political, and military, consequences for America please see ‘America is a Jewish Colony: Bush is Sharon’s Muppet’ .
It is hardly surprising then that the Bush presidency should end so ignominiously when another hysterical, paranoid, warmonger from the Jewish supremacist state boasted to the whole world that, in effect, Bush was nothing but his whipping boy. Why should Olmert fear retribution for his gross humiliation of Bush and the American people when they can’t harm Jewish power in America?