He is alive, healthy and kicking which is a good thing but
when it comes to his contribution in the cause of human progress, former
President George W. Bush is better relegated to the mausoleum of oblivion. I am
aware of the “quiet” effort he made to help my cause during my darkest days
when Canada
was ruled by a monster called Jean Chretien, but his effort came to naught for
predictable reasons. Someday before I die, I may tell this story but I cannot
promise I will. In the meantime, Mr. Bush – whom I thank for having tried to
help -- has delivered a speech that was adapted and printed as an op-ed in the
Wall Street Journal on May 18, 2012 under the title: “The Arab Spring and
American Ideals”. The piece also has the subtitle: “We do not get to choose if
a freedom revolution should begin or end in the Middle
East or elsewhere. We only get to choose what side we are on.”
He says at the start: “The idea that Arab peoples are
somehow content with oppression has been discredited forever.” This
acknowledges that it was the reigning idea till it was no more. But while it
was, America
used it as a guide to fashion its relationship with the Arabs. You think,
therefore, that he will be inclined to say what he would have done differently
had he known then what he knows now but no, this is not what he says. Look what
he says instead -- but please don't scream because I may hear you hundreds of
miles away: “Some in both parties in Washington
look at the risks inherent...” What? Both parties where? In Washington , he says? Is he still looking at
the Middle East through the prism of Washington ?
Horror of horror, did he say the prism of the parties of political sewage in
charge of America
today? Has he not learned something?
He goes on to give a dissertation on freedom and governance
that is full of platitudes such as any high school student can write these
days. He tells of the challenges that the people of the Arab Spring now face to
build the future of their dream. But then, he explodes the same old bomb of
horror you wished he would never bring into the discussion. But he does, and
look at this passage of pure disgust: “As Americans, our goal should be to help
reformers...” Wrong, Mr. President, wrong. As Americans, your goal should be to
get the hell out of their way and keep your nose from coming anywhere near
their affairs. These people braved decades of your criminal interference in
their affairs, and they brought about the change they wanted despite your
demonic efforts to undermine their progress. Don't you recommit those crimes
again under a different pretext.
But I must say that the man is innocent of these charges
because he was never personally responsible for any of the crimes. He stayed in
the Oval Office like any other piece of furniture while a handful of demonic
characters did what they did to America
and to the world in his name. And you can tell they are still telling him what
to do because you see their fingerprints in the speech we are discussing. You
detect their attempt to have it both ways in the contradiction where he says at
the start: “We do not get to choose if a freedom revolution should begin or
end...” but later explains how to control the process. In fact, this is the
style of the so-called neocons (a cabal of Jewish leaders) whose philosophy is
expanded in an article that appears in the May edition of the Commentary
magazine. It was written by Sohrab Ahmari under the title: “The Failure of Arab
Liberals”.
Before I discuss this article, let me begin with two
analogies that will help to explain how I see things. The first analogy has to
do with a satellite that failed while on its way to the planet Mars. Actually,
the technology itself did not fail but the mission did because of a human
mistake that was made here on Earth. It is that the project was a joint venture
between the Americans who use the English system of measurements and the
Europeans who use the metric system. Bad coordination between the two had each
side work with its own system which meant, for example, that a function of the
satellite designed to be executed in feet per second could be executed by
mistake in meters per second. This, in fact, is what happened and the mission
was doomed.
The second analogy is something that happened even before
that. It was a time when Japan
was thought to be turning into an economic superpower whose GDP will soon
surpass that of America .
For this reason, the American Federal Reserve Bank decided to initiate a
process by which to set its interest rates not based on the readings of the
American economy but the readings of the Japanese economy. I wrote then that
such move was akin to having the heating system of your penthouse apartment
controlled by a thermostat situated in the lobby of the building where the entrance
door is constantly being opened and closed resulting in the back and forth
cooling and warming of the place. I saw that decision as being funny and
foolish.
Believe it or not, the scientific analogy that has an
economic resemblance also has a social and political resemblance. And this, in
part, is what this discussion is about. First, let us recall some historical
background. It happened during the decade of the Nineteen Seventies that the
Zionist movement had lured into Israel
all the Arab, Asian and European Jews it could lure. Desperate to take in more
people, Israel
had the choice of working first on the Ethiopian Jews -- something that would
have been easy to do -- or work on the Russian Jews -- something that would
have been more difficult to do. For some reason, Israel and its Zionist allies chose
to go first with the Russian Jews.
The difficulty with the Russian Jews was that unlike the
other countries that let their Jews go without condition, the Soviet
Union did not like the idea of giving free education and health
care worth billions of dollars to these people only to see them go somewhere
else. What galled the Soviets even more was that they knew many of these people
will only use Israel as a stopover to then head to their nemesis America, taking
with them all that free knowledge and wholesome upbringing. And so, they
instituted a process by which the Jews who wanted to leave would pay for the
education and the health care they received before getting an exit visa.
However, this being a communist country, people did not have the level of
savings that would pay for a lifetime of services paid for by the government. A
stalemate was created.
This is when the worldwide Zionist movement organized two
projects to run simultaneously. One project was to gather as many people as
they could and have them march in front of the Soviet embassies and consulates
anywhere in the world they were allowed to do so. And the marchers chanted:
“Let my people go” which, according to legend, is what Moses pleaded with the
Pharaoh of Egypt when he wanted to take the Jews out of that land. The other
project was to work on the American Congress through one of its own members.
The most receptive to the cause was Senator Henry Jackson (nicknamed Scoop) who
spoke on behalf of this and other Jewish causes. Jackson
also teemed with Senator Charles Vanik to formulate and pass an amendment that
restricted trade with the Soviet Union as a
way to force it to let the Jews leave without paying dues to the Russian state.
Since the control of nuclear weapons was the preoccupation
of the planet at that time, and since the two main nuclear powers were America and Russia , Henry Jackson who had a
strong background in foreign policy got involved in this file as well. What he
probably did not realize was that the consequence of fusing foreign policy with
military power would give minor assistants in his team such as Richard Pearle
big ideas. Years later, Pearle and others got together and translated that
approach into a doctrine that came to be known as Pax Americana. It consists of
using American military power to implement the Jewish agenda of controlling the
world, a neocon aspiration. Hence, the view that Henry Jackson was the
inadvertent founding father of the neocon movement.
Much has happened in the three and a half decades that
followed those activities. For one thing, America
was made to shift its attention from Asia to the Middle East, was made to start
a war on Islam and was duped into invading Iraq . Meanwhile, the speechwriters
who wrote speeches for President George W. Bush were putting words in his mouth
that signaled to the Arab and the Muslim nations that America was now
under the full control of the Jewish and Zionist leaders. And since the W (as
he came to be nicknamed) was becoming more of a joke with every passing day,
the Jewish and Zionist leaders thought of creating an instrument that will
allow them to distance themselves from him, yet let them implement the ideas
they had him spew in the speeches they wrote for him.
At the start of the Bush second term, the neocons founded
the Henry Jackson Association and had it based in England
and in America .
They made it bipartisan which is what you do when you aim to take the full
control of something. And they made it a charitable organization to avoid
paying taxes – no surprise here, being Jewish to the core. At first, the
founders renounced the use of force as a means to implement their agenda, a
move that helped them draw several prominent people into the movement and gain
name recognition. But then, they took advantage of some little incidents that
happened in the world to argue that violence was sometimes necessary to do good
things. And so they put out a statement of principles allowing the use of
military power to intervene in the affairs of other nations; a stance that
exactly matches the neocon agenda.
Then came the next big move when they began to recruit
Middle Eastern people of every background and every religion. They called them
upstart neocons and gave them the task of spreading their influence in the
region, especially after they saw what the Arab Spring was doing. Their aim is
not as yet well defined, and it may never be, but their method is clear. It
consists of fusing together the so-called “Freedom Agenda” they had President
Bush spew in his speeches, with the idea of employing tough rhetoric to
intimidate the Arabs and the Muslims. If necessary, that performance will be
followed by military intervention. And this is where the analogy of
constructing something using two incompatible measurements is seen to apply
with the consequences that follow.
We see how this works in the Ahmari essay who is of Iranian
origin and now a member of the Henry Jackson Society -- apparently specializing
in Arab affairs. The gist of the piece is this: Yes, there are good reasons to
lament the illiberal fruit of the Arab Spring but take heart because there is
something we can do about it: the implementation of the Freedom Agenda. But you
see right away that he is not writing just to explain his views, he is writing
to advocate the philosophy of the Agenda. And he is doing it in a smooth and
subtle way to appeal to both the liberals and the conservatives. It is
important to be aware of this because it is the method by which the neocons have
managed to take complete and effective control of the American Congress and
many other American institutions.
But you know the method will fail in the Middle East because
you see the flaw in his reasoning as you detect that what the Arab Liberals
want for their country, and what he believes they should want are two different
things. In the same way that the Jewish leaders have over the decades split America , the
Congress and every institution in the country into poles they pit against each
other, Ahmari see the Egyptian beneficiaries of the Revolution as being made of
two parts, the liberals who want one thing and the Islamists who want another
thing. And he tries to pit them against each other. What he does not understand
is that Egyptians of every stripe do not measure their revolution in these
terms; they measure it by the common dream they have for the future of their
nation.
He boils down the whole subject matter in the form of a
question that goes like this: How can this revolution be made to serve Israel and the
West? They boil down the whole subject matter in the form of a question that
goes like this: How can we make this revolution yield the good things we are
entitled to, being a diverse people with diverse needs and aspirations we all
share? And these are two measurements that will never meet.
The Ahmari essay is a long piece, and I shall not respond to
it point by point. But given my introduction you will see in it everything you
need to see. I would only draw attention to a passage at the end that reads as
follows: “Our liberal allies … are deeply flawed. Disengaging from the region …
will only leave them more vulnerable … to their own worst urges … the Middle
East today is desperately in need of an ideological plan … But to make the
investment worth its while, the United States should … shape and articulate a
Middle East liberalism that is at peace with Israel...” You clearly see that
these are sick people whose only passion is to serve Israel . And you will see this again
when you look at an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on the
same day that the Bush piece did.
That piece was written by the Jewish affairs correspondent
for the Jerusalem Post, Gil Shefler. It has the title: “A Successful Jewish
Return to Tunisia ”
and the subtitle: “The new Islamist government passes a religious freedom
test.” Reading it, you see how a sick mind powered by a sick ideology has
created a fictitious problem that the author says could have existed but did
not exist. Yet, he builds a whole theory on a piece of fiction that goes like
this: “...only a few dozen people came
from overseas … But it's hard to see the event as anything other than a success
... had Qaradawi stirred up trouble ... or had inadequate security been
provided ... it would have cast a pall on the future of the Jews in Tunisia
and, in turn, on the new government's commitment to human rights.”
To him and to the
Jewish leaders in America ,
everything is to be measured by the yardstick of Israel and the Jewish causes. This
has been the George W. Bush legacy; it is what has come to be called the
Freedom Agenda. It is more like the Neocon Agenda of Raw Sewage.
Take it with you
anywhere you go, America ,
and the world will run away from the stink you will be diffusing.