Taming Obama by Pruning Advisers

Van Jones, Lawrence Wright, and the Long Con

by Joachim Martillo

The real pattern in Obama's abandonment of Van Jones and Chas Freeman as well as numerous advisers or supporters during the presidential campaign has yet to be addressed. The Israel Lobby is targeting internal administration voices that diverge from AIPAC parameters as the following videoclip featuring David Sirota (progressive) David Frum (Israel Lobby) indirectly indicates.

By selectively pruning out non-Zionist senior Obama officials, Israel advocates are attempting to bring the Obama administration in line with those US post-Kennedy administrations, in which practically all internal senior voices advising the administration are pro-Israel. The AIPAC crowd is panicked at the possibility of another Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush.

Sirota calls attention to a small subset of the questionable members of the Obama economic team but fails to mention that that the whole group, who probably would have been executed by Chinese standards of dealing with corruption, belongs in its entirety to the finance industry's upper level Jewish-Zionist social network that has been looting the US and world economy for decades.

Frum's comparison of questions about the Zionist-approved 9/11 narrative to denial of Zionist Holocaust mythology shows the importance of the official 9/11 creed to Zionists, for 9/11 dogma represents the culmination of a longstanding Zionist effort.

Daniel Pipes and friends started working on the project to convince Americans that the USA is at war with Islamic fundamentalism in the early 80s.

Steven Emerson jumped the gun by attributing the Oklahoma City bombing to Islamic terrorists.

Once Jewish Zionist Neocons successfully shoe-horned 9/11 into longstanding Zionist propaganda, they then managed to manipulate the US government into expending so much blood and treasure into the War on Terror that at this point US government officials are in "Cover Their Ass Mode" and for the most part active participants in an evolving Long Con based on a false understanding of al-Qaida and its involvement in terrorism ([wvns] Myths & Facts about al-Qaeda, Collision: Jewish-Zionist, Arab-Islamic Transnational Politics).

Not only does the Obama Administration collaborate in hegemonic Neocon blocking on 9/11, but so far the most senior officials apparently refuse to engage in periodic checking of fundamental assumptions

• even though such an audit is essential to good policy-making and
• even though Obama's senior staff almost certainly knows that a lot of questions remain and are legitimately researched about previous events that brought the USA into wars including:

1. the sinking of the USS Maine (Spanish-American War),
2. the Zimmerman Note (World War I),
3. Pearl Harbor (World War II, see also [wvns] Did Hitler Want War?),
4. Dean Acheson's January 12, 1950 National Press Club Speech (Korean War),
5. the Gulf of Tonkin Incidents (Vietnam War), and
6. April Glaspie's July 25, 1990 meeting with Saddam Hussein (Gulf War).

Arch-Zionist and New Yorker editor-in-chief David Remnick commissioned screen writer Lawrence Wright (The Siege) to create the official 9/11 narrative to drown out such legitimate questions.

Today Wright's book entitled The Looming Tower serves as scripture for the War on Terror. The book fulfills the following Zionist goals.

(1) It ties a lot of disconnected information together to fabricate a compelling script defining a vast Islamic fundamentalist terrorist conspiracy, which UBL is supposed to head but really does not exist and which can only be fought by stripping Americans of their Constitutional rights.

(2) It transformed the Zionist genocidal war against Palestinians into the American War on Terror with the goal of forever hitching the USA to Zionist ideology and policy.

The Israeli Coin and Mint's Twin Towers Medal A Perfect Example of Zionist Opportunism

(3) It justified an Afghanistan and then an Iraq invasion as well as attacks on Somalia, Lebanon, Gaza, and Pakistan that made no sense whatsoever for the USA however much Zionists might welcome the incineration of Arabs and Muslims.

(4) It creates a framework to demonize the most mainstream currents of Islam in order to facilitate the marginalization of American Muslims and to make sure that they cannot participate in a meaningful way in the debate over American foreign policy.

(5) It provides a rationalization for a pointless continuation of the War against Terror in Afghanistan in order

• to forestall attempts to bring Bush administration criminals to justice,
• to discourage scrutiny of Zionists in the Obama administration,
• to keep Israel and Zionist plutocrats on the expanded military gravy train,
• to continue intimidation of American Muslims, and
• to prevent the American public from realizing that the US and Israel have no interests in common whatsoever.

Remnick made this achievement possible by providing Wright with full use of the fabled New Yorker resources for research and fact checking although in this case they were corrupted to provide distortion and fabrication conforming to the desires of wealthy Zionist advertisers, who brought the magazine back from the brink of bankruptcy.

With such talented support Wright's lies are sophisticated. They depend on subtle mistranslation or elipsis and calculated distortion of the timeline. They start from the beginning of the book with the discussion of Sayid Qutb and continue right through to the end.

The crowning example is Wright's explanation of the meaning of the book's title on pp. 394-395.

"The duties of this religion are magnificent and difficult," bin Laden said in a videotaped speech that was later discovered on the computer of a member of the Hamburg cell. "Some of them are abominable."

Bin Laden spoke about the Prophet, who warned the Arabs that they would become weak because of their love of lif and their fear of fighting. "This sense of loss, this misery that has befallen us: all these are proof that we have abandoned God and his jihad," bin Laden said. "God has imposed inferiority on you and will not remove it from you until you return to your religion."

Recalling the Prophet's injunction on his deathbed that Islam should be the only religion in Arabia, bin Laden asked, "What answer do we have for God on the day of reckoning? ... The ummah in this time have become lost and have gone astray. Now, ten years have passed sine the Americans entered the land of the two holy places. ... It becomes clear to us that shying away from the fight, combined with the love of earthly existence that fills the hearts of many of us, is the source of this misery, this humiliation, and this contempt."

These words reached into the hearts of nineteen young men, many of whom had skills, talent, and education, and were living comfortably in the West; and yet they still resonated with the sense of shame that bin Laden sang to them.

What do we want? What do we want?

Don't we want to please God?

Don't we want Paradise?

He urged them to become martyrs, to give up their promising lives for the greater glory that awaited them. "Look, we have found ourselves in the mouth of the lion for over twenty years now," he said, "thanks to the mercy and favor of God: the Russian Scud missiles hunted us for over ten years, and the American Cruise missiles have hunted us for another ten years. The believer knows that the hour of death can be neigher hastened nor postponed." Then he quoted a passage from the fourth sura of the Quran, which he repeated three times in the speech -- obvious signal to the hijackers who were on their way:

Wherever you are, death will find you,

even in the looming tower.

No English translation of the Quranic verse 4:78 renders بروج مشىدة as in the looming tower.

Muhammad Asad interprets the verse as:

Wherever you may be, death will overtake you -- even though you be in towers raised high.

The mistranslation of mushayyadat meaning lofty may be a confusion of the Hebrew word shed meaning demon with the colloquial Arabic pronunciation musheyyda.

The faulty rendering is only a small piece of the Wright's big lie. He states in his "Notes" (p.485) that he took "Speech of Sheikh Osama Bin Laden on the occasion of the Fitr celebration of the first schawal 1420"/"Rede des Scheich usamma Bin LADEN anlasslich des Fitr-Festes erster schawal 1420" from the "Motassadeq Document which Chester Rosson translated.

Ramadan 1420 took place in Dec-Jan 1999-2000. Eidu-l-fitri was Jan. 7, 2000.

The Quranic passage 4:78 is a hardly inappropriate reminder to people in the midst of a celebration that they should still think about the time when they will be called to final accounting after death.

Probably many Eidu-l-fitri sermons with which UBL grew up contained such recommendations.

The speech had absolutely no connection to the 9/11 attack as is almost certainly true for UBL himself.

Because the entire mythology of the War on Terror is filled with the sort of misrepresentations littering the Pulitzer Prize winning Looming Tower, Zionists like Frum (and Judea Pearl) are absolutely unwilling to countenance any critical reevaluations of the case for the war from which they and the State of Israel have benefitted so much.

Never has there been a greater need for government officials, who like Van Jones are willing to challenge Jewish Zionist shysters about the crap, which Israel advocates have dumped on the American people.

For the Record

Nowadays, the US government appears to believe that the Pakistani Khalid Shaikh Muhammad (KSM), captured by Pakistan in Pakistan, was the planner of 9/11, but he had one or at most two brief meetings with Osama bin Ladin (UBL) while religiously and ethnically he simply was not the sort of person with whom UBL would collaborate.

Afghanistan and UBL almost certainly had as little connection to 9/11 as Iraq did, and there is no reason to take seriously KSM's confession obtained under torture.

In the 90s martyrdom operations were only common in the Palestinian-Israeli, the Russian-Chechen, and the Tamil-Sinhala conflicts while there were occasional armed suicide attacks associated with the Kashmir conflict.

Zionists had already had a lot of success in creating disdain for Palestinian martyrdom attacks, and there was a growing Muslim population becoming every angrier at the USA for its hypocritical support of the State of Israel.

American and Israeli Zionists feeling threatened by the growing and ever more vocal American Muslim population were desperately looking for ways to extend that anti-Palestinian animosity to all Muslims and primarily to American Muslims, Muslim investors (who could compete with Jewish investors), and Muslim philanthropists (who could compete with Jewish philanthropists).

Applying well-developed Zionist mobilizing and organizing skills to provoking angry Muslims into attacking the USA fits in well with historic Zionist opportunism and the record of Zionist false flag operations that go back at least as far as the Special Night Squads of the 1930s.

One can almost visualize Zionist intelligence agents trying to find a way to add the icing to the cake by creating an Ann Frank for the war they were trying to foment between the US and the Islamic world when some asset reported the presence of Danny Pearl (DP) in Pakistan on a quest to gather information on the shoe bomber. It was probably a simple matter for an agent provocateur to pass along some information little known beyond DP's family and the Israeli government in order to enrage DP'S captors into beheading him. (For other musings on DP, see Robert Lindsay: Daniel Pearl’s Dad Takes On Anti-Zionism.)

If any US government officials were involved in making (MIHOP) or letting (LIHOP) 9/11 happen on purpose, they were almost certainly Jewish Zionists: Khaleej Times: Osama bin Laden Hype Misled Public. A Harvard degree is hardly required to understand why Zionist pundits like Frum and Zionist media like Fox are outraged at the possibility that Van Jones might want real answers to serious questions about 9/11 (The Myth of Birther-9/11Truther Equivalence, Van Jones Controversy: No There There).

In any case, I really liked Van Jones's parody of George W. Bush on crack, but I have to qualify that at Harvard W. was generally rumored to have been fond of angel dust. I have always assumed that the story of Bush's alcoholism was a cover-up for his supposed cocaine habit, which may have been a red herring to distract from his use of a drug that is likened to sandpapering the brain.

Sphere: Related Content