The Iraq War and the Conspiracy of Silence

by Richard Hartmann

15 November 2004

When George W. Bush was elected President of the United States in 2000, he appointed to head the Department of Defense the neoconservative functionary Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld, a bureaucrat, is not a policy-maker. Under Rumsfeld were appointed the two policy-making jews Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. Both are hardcore Zionists with ties to Israel and both had been investigated earlier in their careers for inappropriate relationships or activity relating to the Israeli government. Feith, along with other Bush administration officials, had participated in policy deliberations for a Likud think-tank which included the advocacy of the removal of Saddam Hussein from power as Israeli policy as early as 1996.

To chair the influential Pentagon Defense Policy Board, President Bush, or, let us be frank, his handler Dick Cheney -- also a dyed-in-the-wool neoconservative who was appointed VP for no apparent reason - no apparent reason - but an obvious one: to arrange this all -- appointed the jew Richard Perle, who too had been investigated -- twice -- for the same reasons.

To the State Department the neocon shill John Bolton and the jew David Wurmser were appointed as policy-makers, below the front-man token minority Colin Powell, who isn't even in line with administration policy most of the time. David Wurmser, too, along with his Israel wife, Mevra, were part of the study group chaired by Perle in Jerusalem which produced the paper 'Clean Break' for incoming Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu. Of course, this 1996 paper outlined what has pretty much become Bush administration policy.

All of this -- the obvious connection between the neoconservative movement and Zionism, the backgrounds of these high-ranking jewish Bush administration officials, their relationships with Israel and the Israeli government, their past investigation by government bodies -- has never been exposed or even broached by any of the major mainstream newsmedia; none of the networks, none of the big national newspapers or news magazines or larger city newspapers. Nor is it ever discussed on talk radio. Nor is it ever commented upon satirically on any late night comedy show. Nor is it mentioned even in most of the smaller leftist and rightist media operations -- such as or The biggest circulation magazine to touch it that I am aware of is Pat Buchanan's The American Conservative and Pat's own columns at The general public is completely unaware of it as are the vast majority of educated people, and no significant politician from either party has raised the issue, besides Senator Hollings as he left office.

The war in Iraq was engineered by these jewish, Israel-connected Bush administration officials without the media ever calling attention to it. In the lead up to the Iraq war the mainstream media allowed little to no criticism of the WMD claims, which were known to be false by numerous experts. In fact anyone with any familiarity with the region and the issue knew the claims to be false propaganda put out by Iraqi exiles and Washington's cronies. There was no actual intelligence proving the existence of such weapons which we were told could be launched at us at any moment and which were an imminent threat - none. None has been produced for us in the aftermath of the war either. It didn't exist.

If Iraq had ever come even remotely close to the development of a nuclear weapon or was even engaged in efforts to do so, if there was any genuine evidence that this was actually taking place, Israel would have known about it first, would have publicized it, would have raised a shriek and cry and panic of the sort we're seeing now with regard to Iran's nuclear program, and would have either demanded something be done or done it herself as she had in the 1980s. None of this happened. Why not? Because 1) Israel knew Iraq did not possess and was not developing weapons of mass destruction and 2) did not want in any way to be associated with the circulation of the false intelligence that was being employed by the jewish neoconservatives in the Office of Special Plans and the Bush administration to bring about a war with Iraq, which all knew was in fact being waged for Israel.

Every politician and every statesman and every journalist who pretended that Iraq was developing or possessed weapons of mass destruction while Israel sat and said nothing was knowingly lying. Scott Ritter knew that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction, and Israeli intelligence -- since it said nothing and wanted nothing to do with the promotion of the war -- must also have known that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. And everyone with any expertise or even familiarity with Middle East issues knew what the real motivation for the war was and who it's real architects were - every Washington insider, every knowledgeable journalist, every network boss and news producer and newspaper editor.

So then, why the total absence of any reference to these facts in all the months leading up to the war and all the months after, in any of the mainstream media, so that today it is still only a small minority of people who are aware of what actually happened? Are we to believe that this is a coincidence and not a result of policy? That the editors of the New York Times are unaware of all this all, the news producers at NBC, the editors of Newsweek, Rush Limbaugh and his boss at ABC Mike Eisner, Bill O'reilly and Dan Rather and their bosses (jews Chernin and Redstone respectively) were all unaware or uninterested? That they did not deliberately withhold -- conceal -- this information from the gentile public in order to advance jewish aims? This is the crux of the issue -- not what the neoconservatives did, but what they were able to do, what they were able to get away with. What the media enabled them to do by protecting them from exposure. Oil companies don't control the media, readers -- Jews do.

And this brings us to an even more fundamental issue. If these jews and their hired surrogates do in fact conspire to advance jewish interests in the Middle East at America's expense, and knowingly distort and cover up the facts in order to do so, would they not do exactly the same to advance their far more important agenda of maintaining their power and status in America itself, which requires the suppression of any group that could contest their power and special status (which they always vehemently deny), foremost the suppression of the racial majority, which, conscious of its own identity and interests, would never tolerate such a situation and would overturn it immediately and assert itself politically against it? Could that be the basis for the anti-white character of the media? Think about that, reader.

It is the answer to everything that is going on in the world today that concerns your interests.


Back to VNN Main Page