Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page
No matter how much we disliked another country or its policies, we would not attack them with our armed forces -- we would not wage war against them -- unless they attacked us or one of our allies first. We used to put a lot of stock in never being an aggressor, but acting only in self-defense. We had to wait until we were hit before we would hit back.
Even the Second World War, in which all of the media Jews -- and therefore their boy Franklin Roosevelt -- wanted the participation of the United States in the worst way, had to wait until our government could maneuver Japan into attacking us at Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt and his Jews had been trying for more than a year before Pearl Harbor to provoke Germany into doing something which we could use as a pretext for declaring war. Our Navy had been firing on German ships at sea and doing everything else it could to provoke a military response from the Germans, but the last thing Hitler wanted was a war with America, and so the German Navy was under orders not to shoot back. Roosevelt secretly had told Churchill and others that he would bring the United States into the war as soon as he could, but first he needed something which he could hold up to the American public as moral justification for a declaration of war against Germany.
Well, Mr. Clinton went on television about 10 days ago to present to Americans his moral justification for waging war against Iraq. I figured beforehand that he and Mr. Cohen would have cooked up some phony "incident," some Tonkin Gulf affair, they could use to claim that the United States was acting in self-defense. But Mr. Clinton didn't even have such a pretext! His sole excuse for an attack on Iraq was that Iraq wouldn't follow orders. Saddam Hussein wouldn't permit the UN inspection teams to poke around in his palace bedroom and in other places Mr. Clinton said they must be permitted to inspect. For that Mr. Clinton proposed to launch a massive military assault on Iraq, which certainly would kill many Iraqis and would put us into a state of war with a country which has done nothing against us. He proposed to kill Iraqis on a large scale in order to enforce a policy. That's moving warfare onto quite new moral grounds for America, and it's something about which we ought to be quite concerned.
Do you remember when Mr. Clinton was explaining to the American people why we had to wage war against Iraq? He said that if we don't attack Iraq now and bomb the hell out of the Iraqis they'll develop weapons of mass destruction. And then, with that boyish little grin he puts on whenever he wants one of his lies to be especially convincing, he said that if we permit the Iraqis to develop weapons of mass destruction, then someday they'll use them. "You can be sure of that," he said.
That's a justification for a massive military attack on another country? An unsubstantiated assurance by a habitual liar that if we don't attack another country now, then they'll develop weapons we don't want them to have, and then, someday, they'll use them.
For something. Maybe for defending themselves from Israel? That, of course, is the key to this whole, sordid business -- Iraq may defend itself from Israel -- but it's something that's never admitted in public by the politicians or the media. Instead Iraq always is held up as a threat to us, to America, to the world: we must get the Iraqis before they get us. And that, of course, is nonsense: total nonsense. But Mr. Clinton is surrounded by people who parrot the same nonsense. The only people he talks with are his Jewish advisers and officials, the media, and other politicians. They all agree with him. Until Saddam Hussein's agreement just a few days ago to let the UN inspection teams into his bedroom whenever they want to come in, all of the people around Clinton agreed we should attack Iraq, and the sooner the better. Now most of them have backed off a bit until they can figure out a new reason for attacking, on which they're working.
Some Republicans are saying that we should ignore the UN agreement and attack anyway. Mr. Clinton thinks that because the Republican politicians as well as the Democrat politicians support his warmongering, he's got a lot of support. Of course, these Republican and Democrat politicians are as corrupt and as totally lacking in genuine patriotism as he is. They are men who fall to the ground and begin groveling whenever they see a Jew. And they know that the Jews are virtually 100 per cent in favor of a war against Iraq -- although they never say this in public.
It was this "bipartisan support" from the corrupt crowd in Washington which led Clinton to make the disastrous mistake of sending his all-Jewish defense and foreign-policy team to Ohio State University last week to stage one of his "town meeting" propaganda stunts that he thought would help persuade ordinary Americans to support his war against Iraq. The Clintonistas were surprised when a substantial portion of the audience rejected Clinton's war. Albright, Cohen, and Berger were expecting the same sort of groveling acquiescence to their policies that they are accustomed to from the Washington crowd, and they really didn't like it when people in Ohio asked them why America supported Israel and proposed to bomb Iraq, when Israel is by far the more flagrant flouter of UN resolutions.
I hate to keep reminding everybody of this, but what the Clinton government was trying to do -- and what some of their people are still trying to figure out an excuse for doing -- is exactly what I predicted more than a year ago. In my broadcast of December 21, 1996, right after Mr. Clinton had appointed his new, all-Jewish foreign policy, national security, and defense team. I said:
"I am convinced that there will be a strong effort to involve America in another major war during the next four years. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. While the warmongers are scheming for war, they will tell us how much they want peace."
I explained my reasons for believing that the Clinton team would try to start a war. I explained in detail why the Jews need a war and why they need it before the end of Clinton's second term. Those reasons still hold. And that's why the Jews around Clinton will push ahead with their war plans despite the obvious reluctance of most non-Jewish Americans to go to war for them and despite the new agreement between Iraq and the UN.
The situation in Washington today is really bizarre. We've never before had anything quite like it. Clinton has a few of his old cronies from Arkansas with him in the White House, people like lawyer Bruce Lindsay, who used to get him out of problems with drugs back in Arkansas and who now helps him with problems like Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, but nearly everyone else is a Jew -- especially everyone who has anything to do with foreign policy or national defense.
One of Clinton's top advisers in the White House is the Jew Rahm Emanuel. During the 1991 war against Iraq Emanuel joined the army: the Israeli army, that is.
He's a dual citizen and one of the key advisers who sets policies for Clinton. Madeleine Albright, the Jewess Clinton chose to handle America's foreign affairs, has had very little foreign policy experience, but she has surrounded herself in the State Department with experienced people, and they're all Jews too. The Jew she chose to head the State Department's Middle Eastern section, Martin Indyk, wasn't even a U.S. citizen when Clinton was first elected President. His whole life has been spent working for Israel in one capacity or another, and now he's the man in charge of "our" policy in the Middle East.
These people aren't concerned about what's good for the United States. They're concerned about what's good for Israel, what's good for the Jews. We might as well have the Israeli Knesset conducting our affairs of state for us. They're all hot to blast Iraq back into the Stone Age, and they want us to do it for them. I don't think it even occurred to them before they staged that town meeting in Ohio that not all Americans are eager to do that for them.
Unfortunately, however, some Americans are -- and not just the Washington politicians, who are always eager to do whatever the Jews want. I saw a television interview with one of our military pilots in the Persian Gulf, and he was obviously eager to begin the war. We have all of these hot, new weapons, he said, and he wants to see what they'll really do. He's been trained to use these weapons, he said, and he's eager to try out the things he's learned. He's eager to try out his new bombs and missiles on live targets. The TV interviewer seemed to think that this was a normal, healthy sentiment: the sentiment of a real patriot.
I remember a time when I was a kid and I had just bought a new rifle, and I was hot to go out in the woods and try it out on live targets. I wanted to see what my bullets would do to live animals. I'm really ashamed now that I ever thought like that: that I was so indifferent to the destruction of wildlife and the suffering of animals. But apparently the Jewish media bosses aren't ashamed to broadcast interviews with our military people who are eager to start blowing Iraqis to bits with their new weapons so they can see how well these weapons work, people who are hot for some live targets.
During the past seven years we've killed five per cent of the population of Iraq with the embargo that Jews like Madeleine Albright are so determined to maintain. Five per cent of the population. What do you call that? Genocide?
I am not a pacifist. I am not against war, when war serves our purposes, rather than someone else's purposes. I'm not even against genocide, if we're killing people who need to be killed, people who are our natural enemies. But I don't like being tricked into going to war or waging genocide against someone else's enemies.
We were told -- and I'm convinced that we will be told again -- that we must go to war against Iraq because it's bad for Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction. And what about Israel's weapons of mass destruction? You ask that question of one of Mr. Clinton's Jews and you'll be told that we're more concerned about Iraq than about Israel because Iraq has a record of aggression, a record of attacking her neighbors. As if Israel doesn't attack her neighbors!
Over the past 50 years Israel has attacked her neighbors more often than any other country in the Middle East. Israel has grabbed the territory of her neighbors in one war after another, and every time has been armed and supported by the United States government in this aggression. The United Nations has condemned Israel's aggression and has passed a number of resolutions demanding that Israel give back the land stolen from her neighbors, but those resolutions are ignored with impunity.
If we want to compare the relative aggressiveness of Israel and Iraq, let us not forget that it was Israel who first attacked Iraq. All we hear from the controlled media is that Iraq fired some SCUD missiles at Israel during the Gulf War. What we are never reminded of is Israel's military strike against Iraq in 1981. That Israeli strike, by the way, was a sneak attack. Iraq had done nothing to Israel to provoke it. When Iraq fired its SCUD missiles at Israel in 1991, Iraq was under massive military attack by the United States and its allies, and I think that we cannot blame Saddam Hussein for regarding that as an attack on his country by Israel. Then as now we were being used as an instrument of Jewish policy, and the world understood that, even if few world leaders had the honesty to say so.
I predicted this war effort against Iraq because I understood the underlying forces at work. I cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the war will be after it begins. There are too many variables. But one outcome I think we should be prepared for is the commencement of terrorism on a significant scale in the United States. I know that if I were Saddam Hussein I would have spent the last seven years quietly putting agents into place in the United States: agents equipped with biological and chemical weapons. The U.S. military machine is capable of completely destroying Iraq. There's no way that Iraq can oppose the United States by conventional means. We can, of course, threaten horrible retaliation against Iraq if biological or chemical terrorists strike in the United States. Still, if I were Saddam Hussein, as a last resort I would use my terrorists. I would turn them loose against the Great Satan to do as much damage as possible. I wouldn't go down without a fight. I would teach the world a lesson about the limits of the Great Satan's power.
The Jews, of course, are willing to take that chance with the lives of our people. They've got their borders under a lot tighter control than we have. It may be difficult for Arab terrorists to smuggle biological weapons into Israel, but it's not difficult at all to smuggle them into the United States. Illegal aliens enter the United States by the hundreds every day. And a few may have really potent terrorist weapons. Perhaps we'll find out what some of those weapons are capable of doing to our civilian population.
In fact, I'd not be surprised if Israel is thinking right now about popping an anthrax bomb in some place without many Jews -- some place like Des Moines, say, or Sioux Falls -- if the Israelis think that's the only way they can get their war against Iraq started. Israel can do this knowing that Iraq will be the one blamed by the media and the government and the one that our military will flatten in retaliation. That is the sort of thing Israel has done before. That is what Israel had in mind back during its 1967 war against its neighbors when it tried to sink our electronic intelligence ship the USS Liberty. If the Israeli attack on the Liberty had been successful, the sinking would have been blamed on Egypt.
In any case, if Mr. Clinton's advisers figure out a way to get around the UN agreement with Iraq and proceed with their planned war it will be perceived by the world -- and most especially by the Islamic world -- as an attack carried out for the benefit of, and at the behest of, the Jews. And an attack against Iraq will greatly increase the likelihood of terrorist activity in the United States, whether that activity begins immediately or later. There's one interesting thing about biological and chemical terrorism: they don't require much in the way of resources. Anyone with a little graduate training in microbiology or chemistry can figure out how to produce extremely lethal substances. The equipment required is minimal. One country wanting to wipe out another country with chemical or biological weapons delivered in a military way might need big factories and warehouses for the equipment and materials, but an educated terrorist aiming to build a biological or chemical bomb to kill 100,000 people can do it in his basement. All that's required is the will. Mr. Clinton and the gang of Jews around him are providing that will to a lot of people around the world.
When the first such terrorist attack hits the United States -- not if, but when -- the media and the government will be yapping about "extremism" and "hate" and "anti-Semitism" and all of their familiar devils. But you and I will know whom to blame. We will understand who brought it on.
You know, there are many people, in Washington and out of Washington, who already know everything I've told you today. The Jewishness of the Clinton gang and the Clinton government's policies is just too obvious to miss. Unfortunately, most of these people are too polite, too cautious, or just too timid to talk about the Jewishness of America's affliction. They are afraid that they will be condemned as "racists" or "anti-Semites" if they attribute the Clinton government's policy against Iraq specifically to the Jews. And so they talk all around the problem. They talk about the government's policy being a bad policy, an unwise policy, a policy which is harmful to America, but they refuse to tie that policy to Madeleine Albright's Jewishness, Samuel Berger's Jewishness, William Cohen's Jewishness, Rahm Emanuel's Jewishness, Martin Indyk's Jewishness, or the Jewishness of the whole Clinton gang. They will try to find other explanations for the policy: any explanation except the explanation that those behind the policy are Jews, and the policy was formulated to benefit Jews at the expense of the rest of us.
Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page