The same two Senators who insisted that the U.S. invade Iraq on false intelligence are now marketing Pakistan as the next in a series of “plausible” Evil Doers.
Their complicity runs deep. The consistency of their conduct confirms that what we see again unfolding is treason—ongoing in plain sight and, to date, with legal impunity.
With transparency, that impunity will end. With exposure, accountability will follow. The Founders made treason a capital crime for good reason.
Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, an outspoken Jewish Zionist, have long been political partners and fellow travelers. Along with Senator Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from Arizona, they co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
That bill embodied the agenda described in A Clean Break, a strategy paper crafted for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. Lead author Richard Perle, also an outspoken Jewish Zionist, took over as chairman of the Defense Policy Advisory Board in 2001.
Reflecting Israeli themes, the “Clean Break Bill” began to prepare the American public for a military agenda that required only the murderous provocation of 911 to appear reasonable.
The relationship between McCain and Perle dates to the 1970s when McCain served as a U.S. Navy liaison to the Senate. That’s when Perle & Company profiled him as an attractive asset—someone with a reliably pliable personality.
McCain has since proven himself one of the best assets ever. It’s no mystery why he’s routinely welcomed in Tel Aviv along with Lieberman, his loyal companion and handler.
Featuring a pretty face, an electable CV and a presentable (second) wife, McCain was moved from Washington to Arizona to fill a House seat four years before the anticipated retirement of Barry Goldwater.
Known for a violent temper, a weak character and an even weaker intellect, in 1982 he was “elected” to Congress as part of a fast-growing stable of pro-Israeli assets.
Beating the Rap
Branded a true-blue American as a former prisoner of war, McCain quickly proved his mettle by assisting organized crime with a $150 billion fraud that ravaged the savings and loan industry.
That fraud was a warm-up for even larger frauds in which he, Lieberman and Kyl either played an active part or aided the fraud by their failure to act.
McCain’s career is replete with serial frauds designed to cover-up his real history. Few Americans know that he made several dozen broadcasts for the North Vietnamese while in captivity. No wonder he returned tan, fit and rested while other POWs look like, well….POWs.
If McCain could be candid with the American public, he would insist on the declassification of those broadcasts. A master of misdirection, he aided the S&L fraud while in the House and then in the Senate. When each chamber deferred to the other, McCain escaped accountability.
His history reflects a lifetime with no accountability. The brat son and grandson of four-star Navy admirals, he finished at the bottom of his class at Annapolis and went downhill from there.
McCain the War Maker
A key asset in a sprawling network of Zionist operatives, McCain laid a mental thread in the public consciousness when the Clean Break Bill called for the removal of Saddam Hussein three years before 911 and appropriated $97 million for that purpose.
Distracted by mid-term elections, Bill Clinton signed the bill into law October 31, 1998. Lost in the shuffle of contributing factors was an impeachment proceeding stemming from lies about his sexual liaisons with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
When staging such sophisticated operations, timing is everything.
After 911, McCain and Lieberman became inseparable travel companions and irrepressible advocates for the invasion of Iraq. Looking “presidential” aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in January 2002, McCain waved an admiral’s cap while proclaiming, alongside Lieberman, “On to Baghdad.”
That was three months after 911—with Al Qaeda hiding in Afghanistan and their leader likely already dead from U.S. air attacks.
Why was McCain parroting Perle in calling for an invasion of Iraq? Whose agenda was he advancing? Whose interest was he serving? Not ours.
Was he once again advancing the Zionist agenda of Perle & Co.?
When treason charges are (belatedly) filed against John McCain, what will be his defense?
Given the consequences of his conduct, a plea of ignorance will meet with little favor by an informed jury. Incompetence would be the more prudent course of action for defense counsel.
With McCain’s help, we were conned—again. Did he know what he was doing? Or was he just acting out his profiled personal dysfunctions, allowing himself to be used as an asset by others?
If he was so pathetic that he could be persuaded to behave like a traitor, then treason is the correct charge. Should he choose not to resign, the federal sanction should apply.
You can tell a lot about a Senator by how he treats his staff. McCain is a serial abuser.
During my seven years as counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, I heard lots of scuttlebutt about how staffers are treated.
I had no direct contact with McCain until June 2010 at a Town Hall meeting in Tempe for us constituents. His office was here in 1982 when organized crime first put him in Congress.
He moved to the Senate in 1987, just as I was leaving. I know his type by the consistency of his conduct.
Though he’s clearly abusive as a person, he’s also indictable as an asset for performing as the reliably pliable pawn of a foreign nation.
Yet no grand jury has been convened. Nor is there yet any sign of a pending indictment. That speaks volumes for the current condition of the rule of law.
A Quick Exit
Then again, he may resign. He could try to retire into obscurity rather than endure his pending notoriety. At present, resignation seems unlikely.
Then again, we’ve seen how quickly public perceptions can shift.
As praise emerged for The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson’s 2004 blockbuster film, Hollywood operatives began to sharpen their swords. Like Gibson, McCain could be transformed into a “controversial figure.”
He too could become mired in scandal, shredding his image and imploding his career. If it can happen to Mel, why not McCain? The parallels are striking yet strikingly different.
John McCain is a political star: a pop-culture political icon. Like Mel, people recognize him.
Gibson’s star is fading fast as he’s morphed into a “has been.” His fans don’t get a vote on that.
McCain barely escaped a “honey pot” scandal with lobbyist Vickie Iseman. Mel’s honey pot was a Russian beauty. Watch his career go kaput.
Was this Gibson’s Monica Lewinsky moment? Was this akin to Lyndon Johnson having an affair with Israeli-Irgun operative Mathilde Krimthe night the Six-Day War began?
Timing is everything.
Controversy may yet engulf John McCain. But don’t hold your breath. Those who produced and protect the McCain brand are those destroying the Gibson image.
What is it about Israel that outrages Gibson and enthralls McCain? Why is this Arizona Senator so loyal to a nation so long disloyal to the U.S.?
But for his seven homes in Arizona, a local rumor suggests that McCain could relocate to Israel.
A favored retreat for Russian oligarchs, the Zionist enclave ranks first worldwide as organized crime’s non-extradition venue of choice.
Soon after the financial pillaging of Russia in the mid-1990s, six of the top seven oligarchs qualified for Israeli citizenship. Figure the odds on that.
McCain should feel right at home.
Cyprus is the tax haven of choice for this transnational syndicate. Its banks are welcoming and its officials are happy to issue Jewish birth certificates for $5,000.
Displacing an indigenous Greek syndicate, the Russian-Jewish mafia now vacations in Cyprus, an easy 55-minute flight from Tel Aviv.
Ask John McCain about this arrangement. He met abroad with Russian-Jewish oligarch Oleg Deripaska. They even dined together in Switzerland with Lord Rothschild V.
Deripaska was banned from the U.S. At age 40, he had amassed personal wealth estimated at $40 billion defrauded from the Russian people.
Will John McCain Retire to Israel?
As with McCain’s political career, Deripaska typifies how organized crime operates across time and distance. As a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain is well briefed. He’s also dined with the experts. Who could know better?
So why does McCain remain in Arizona? Perhaps it’s love for his dogs.
You can tell a lot about a Senator by how he treats his dogs. Mitt Romney’s presidential quest ended when he put his dog in a luggage rack on top of his car.
Does McCain keep dogs at each of his seven homes? Are there cats at some; dogs at others?
If it’s true that McCain’s marriage is on the rocks, has he negotiated pet visitation rights?
Will his challenge to their pre-nuptial agreement prevail after almost three decades of marriage? Or will Cindy succeed in excluding him entirely from her $200 million estate?
Could that explain why he’s courting senior operatives of trans-generational organized crime?
It that why he spends so little time on national security issues of interest to the armed services? Is his retirement planning distracting him from matters of concern to the military?
John McCain needs an intervention. Those who know him must persuade him to resign.
Or a U.S. attorney can determine whether he’s criminally complicit—or just profoundly incompetent.
His conduct suggests he should not be in a federal campaign. He should be in a federal prison.
Who has an even lower opinion of McCain than his staff, his dogs and his fellow Senators? Answer: our senior military leaders. What does that tell you?
It’s now well known that Israelis and pro-Israelis “fixed” the intelligence that induced the U.S. invasion of Iraq. What’s not yet widely known is how. If peace-seeking nations hope never again to see deceit operate on such a scale, those deceived must learn this lesson before these same operatives induce a war with Iran.
To “wage war by way of deception” (the motto of the Israeli intelligence service) requires the capacity to operate in plain sight yet without detection. To detect this duplicity in real time requires a grasp of how Israeli strategists rely on three key categories of operatives: agents, assets and sayanim (Hebrew for helpers or volunteers).
Agents are fully conscious of the intended goal of an operation. Intent is what distinguishes premeditated murder from involuntary manslaughter. Culpability is gauged by the state of mind. Agents operate with what the law calls extreme malice and an “evil mind.” Thus the severity of the sanctions for premeditated capital crimes.
From 1981-1985, Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard stole 360 cubic feet of classified U.S. intelligence documents on Soviet arms shipments, Pakistani nuclear weapons, Libyan air defense systems and other data sought by Tel Aviv. With oversight by only a few case officers (katsas), Israeli agents routinely manage sophisticated operations with the help of pre-staged assets and a network of sayanim.
Assets are people profiled such that—within an acceptable range of probabilities—they can be relied upon to behave consistent with their personality profile. Assets lack the state of mind required for traditional culpability due to their lack of intent. Assets contribute to an operation simply by pursuing their subconscious personal needs. Typically those needs are for recognition, influence, money, sex, drugs or the greatest drug of all: ideology.
Put a profiled asset in a pre-staged time, place and circumstance and Israeli psy-ops specialists can be confident that—within an acceptable range of probabilities—that person will perform consistent with their profile, much as Bill Clinton behaved with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Israelis are indifferent to political parties. Pro-Israeli assets include Christian Zionist presidents Harry Truman, a Democrat, and George W. Bush, a Republican. Both were reliable and pliable advocates for a geopolitical agenda pursued by an enclave of Zionist extremists. Truman granted them nation-state recognition while Bush dispatched the U.S. military to help pursue their expansionist goals for Greater Israel.
Granting Aid and Comfort
Sayanim play a role akin to military reservists who can be activated on short notice to support Israeli operations. These helpers are shielded from criminal culpability by being told only enough to perform their narrow role. Because recruiters ensure these volunteers are kept ignorant of the broader goals of an operation, they could easily pass a polygraph test. Their narrow intent: to respond promptly to requests to assist Israel.
That assistance could be logistics, medical care or intelligence gathering. Sayanim routinely staff the “in between” positions in political offices. Morris Amitay, a former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), described the strategic role played by sayanim in U.S. policy-making:
There are a lot of guys at the working level up here [on Capitol Hill]…who happen to be Jewish, who are willing…to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness…These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in those areas for those senators…You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.
Author Victor Ostrovsky, formerly a katsa, conceded in 1990 that the Mossad had 7,000 sayanim in London alone. What this vast volunteer corps is not told is that an operation may endanger not only Israel but also the broader Jewish community when Tel Aviv is linked to extremism, terrorism, extortion, organized crime, espionage and treason. Ostrovsky explains in By Way of Deception:
…the Mossad does not seem to care how devastating it could be to the status of the Jewish people in the Diaspora if it was known. The answer you get if you ask is: “So what’s the worst that could happen to those Jews? They’d all come to Israel. Great!”
The signaling system for pro-Israeli operatives remains opaque. Yet to be explained by this U.S. ally is why, for instance, ten days before the mass murder of 911, Tel Aviv announced a $1 million grant to super-spy Jonathan Pollard.
As the duplicitous how of this Information Age warfare becomes transparent, the consistency of this treachery will become apparent as will its common source. Jurisprudence will need to adjust to ensure that those aiding such “evil mind” operations are held accountable consistent with the gravity of the crimes. Those crimes include ongoing treason, a capital offense.
In combination, agents, assets and sayanim provide a powerful force multiplier that enables an extremist few-within-the-few to wage war non-transparently yet in plain sight. Thus their key role in the “in between” domains—media, pop culture, think tanks and politics—where duplicity can be deployed to displace facts with what “the mark” can be deceived to believe.
President Obama’s decision to release top-secret torture memos was reached in the office of Rahm Emanuel over protests from the Director of Central Intelligence. Former Vice President Dick Cheney defended the practice, claiming America is safer for it. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi then sought to defend her criticism despite early knowledge of it.
Caught lying, Pelosi attacked the CIA. Director Leon Panetta defended Agency briefers and their detailed records of what Pelosi was told. Needing the Speaker’s help to spearhead his ambitious legislative agenda, Obama’s team brokered a peace between Democrats Pelosi and Panetta.
Why did both Republican Cheney and Democrat Pelosi support the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on one particular “high value” detainee? Answer: the case for war required a plausible “high-level link” between the secular Saddam—who hated religious fundamentalists—and the religious fundamentalists of Al Qaeda—who hated him. After 83 waterboardings, the link emerged in a confession.
Akin to the Inquisition, this detainee was “put to the question.” When proposing to wage a global crusade on false pretenses (The Clash of Civilizations), war-planners required One True Faith in that linkage. As in the Dark Ages, the confession was later recanted and the case collapsed—but only after the war in Iraq was well underway.
Even now that link remains an article of faith—alongside weapons of mass destruction, meetings in Prague and mobile biological weapons laboratories. All were bogus. But without this key link, the case would have been exposed as phony, even treasonous. However, the worst was yet to come—a November 18 White House meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In a two-hour Oval Office encounter with this hawkish right-winger, an untested U.S. commander in chief met his Monica Lewinsky. Distracted by a promiscuous White House intern, Bill Clinton found himself embroiled in impeachment proceedings when he should have been keeping a closer eye on Al Qaeda. The allure of Netanyahu differs in kind but not in its impact on national security—and potentially on the Obama presidency.
The day before their meeting, Netanyahu met with an ebullient American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee. Obama’s Justice Department had not only withdrawn its espionage case against two AIPAC spies, the lobby had also silenced Obama while they savaged Charles Freeman, forcing him to withdraw his acceptance as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. A known skeptic of Israeli designs on the region, Freeman would have overseen the National Intelligence Estimate, coordinating the views of all 16 intelligence agencies.
By the time Netanyahu appeared alongside Obama, a U.S. president looked like he was a visitor in the office of the Israeli Prime Minister. Rather than issue photographs of their meeting as he did days earlier with Israeli president Shimon Peres, Obama granted Netanyahu a widely reported press conference in which he failed to press Israel’s new prime minister to end the four-decade occupation of Palestine as the top priority for achieving peace in the region.
Instead, he allowed the Israeli leader to use the White House as a pulpit to announce that peace with the Palestinians was a distant second to the risks posed by Iran. Romanced by Netanyahu and the pro-Israelis who populate his presidency, Obama once again fulfilled AIPAC’s wish list. By allowing pro-Israelis to control the White House agenda and Israelis to control the message, Obama signaled a go-ahead to those long determined to expand to Iran the war in Iraq.
While Netanyahu met with Obama, Israelis were pouring the foundations for settlement expansion, that conduct sent a clear signal to those waiting to see who controls foreign policy in the Obama administration. Only the next day did Secretary of State Clinton call for a halt to the settlements.
When Israeli jets bombed Gaza the next day, that conduct reconfirmed who controls U.S. policy. Only after their meeting did CIA Director Panetta urge that Israel not attack Iran. By then it was too late. America’s commander-in-chief had tipped his hand: what AIPAC wants, Israel gets.
Within 24 hours of their meeting, a letter was delivered to Obama by 76 Senators warning, “We must take into account the risks (Israel) will face in any peace agreement.” Within 48 hours, a 90-6 Senate vote denied Obama the funds required to close detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay. In a resounding rebuke, both Democrats and Republicans decried his inexperience in national security—making the militaristic Netanyahu look “presidential” by comparison.
The vote tally was known well beforehand by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, Obama’s top political strategist. Both played key roles in producing this presidency. Both Obama and national security were victims of this sophisticated operation.
In stage-managing this series of back-to-back political debacles, Obama’s pro-Israeli advisers worked hand-in-glove with the Israel lobby to ensure he was left with few options but to support Israel’s designs on the region. Forced to prove his mettle, the commander-in-chief will find he has no hope of managing his way through the crises now awaiting him—except to back Israel’s expansionist agenda for the Middle East, ensuring more hatred for the U.S. while fueling The Clash. In the pursuit of Israel’s agenda, the Obama presidency is proving itself the missing link.