The War Against Us:
Living With Blinders Off
American Dissident Voices broadcast
April 26, 2003
Hadding Scott and Kevin Alfred Strom
Welcome to American Dissident Voices. Today we’ll be continuing
our series by ADV researcher Hadding Scott, and yours truly,
Kevin Alfred Strom, entitled "The War Against Us." Today we present
part 3: "Living With Blinders Off."
Abu Abbas: if only he'd stayed in Israel.
I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that one terrorist, Abu
Abbas, was found in Iraq, giving a slight element of truth to
George W. Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein “harbored terrorists.”
Actually Abu Abbas is an ex-terrorist, and the record shows his
operations to have been singularly inept. Abu Abbas is an ex-terrorist because under the Oslo Accords there is amnesty for
all acts of terrorism committed before 1993, and Abu Abbas has
taken that opportunity to renounce violence. Because of the Oslo
Accords, Abu Abbas legally visits the State of Israel, so that
Israel as well as Iraq could have been accused of "harboring"
While Abu Abbas is associated with a string of miserable attempts
at terrorism, the most notorious operation with which his name
has been associated, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, was not
even his idea. Ari Ben-Menashe, a salesman for the Israel
Defense Forces' armaments business, wrote in his 1992 book,
Profits of War: Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network,
that the hijacking of the Achille Lauro was actually ordered
and funded by the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad. Ben-Menashe writes: "That was, in fact, an Israeli 'black'
propaganda operation to show what a deadly, cutthroat bunch the
Palestinians were." Ben-Menashe states that Mossad officers
posing as mafiosi paid Abu Abbas millions of dollars to
assemble a team to attack the cruise ship.
"The team was told to make it bad, to show the world what lay in
store for other unsuspecting citizens if Palestinian demands
were not met. As the world knows, the group picked on an elderly
American Jewish man in a wheelchair [Leon Klinghoffer], killed
him, and threw his body overboard. They made their point. But
for Israel, it was the best kind of anti- Palestinian propaganda.
" An April 23, 1996 Associated Press report states that Abu Abbas
returned to Gaza and helped Yasser Arafat by apologizing for the
hijacking and the killing of Klinghoffer, saying, "The hi-jacking was a mistake, and there were no orders to kill
civilians," apparently meaning that the order came from the
Israeli agents posing as Mafiosi and that he, Abu Abbas, had
not given any such order.
[ http://www.mediamonitors.net/gillespie1.html ]
Abu Abbas is wanted in Italy for the Achille Lauro hijacking, but
Israel never handed him over, and indeed why should they wish to
do that, since the question of the Israeli government's
instigation of that hijacking would be raised in the trial?
Since the arrest of Abu Abbas in Iraq cannot really be used as
a justification for the war, other alleged evidence linking
Iraq to terrorism is being created.
Saddam Hussein tried to kill my daddy.
There is one well known allegation of Iraqi-sponsored terrorism
that is widely believed but demonstrably dubious: I mean the
canard that Saddam Hussein tried to have George Bush Sr.
assassinated. The original source of the claim that Saddam
Hussein tried to have Daddy Bush killed is a confession made by a
whiskey smuggler subjected to torture by Saddam Hussein's
longtime enemy, the government of Kuwait.
[Seymour Hersh, "A
Case Not Closed," The New Yorker, Nov 1, 1993
A confession extracted under torture is hardly a reliable basis
for any accusation, and it is certainly not an adequate basis
when the accusation serves a known political agenda.
It appears that there was a misrepresentation of other evidence
in this case. A chemist assigned to analyze the explosive made
the following complaint, summarized in a report by the Justice
Department's Inspector General:
"Whitehurst alleges that he compared the explosive material in
the main charge of the Bush device to explosive materials in
known Iraqi devices and told Explosives Unit Chief J. Christopher
Ronay that the explosives were different. Whitehurst claims
that Ronay purposely misinterpreted these results in order to
link the explosive material to Iraqi agents. Whitehurst further
asserts that very possibly his results were changed to support
the retaliatory missile strike by the United States."
A report submitted to President Bill Clinton by the DOJ Terrorism
and Violent Crime Section emphasized only similarities between
Iraqi explosives and the substance allegedly to be used in
assassinating Bush, omitting that the Iraqi stuff resembled
British PE-4A while the other was of Portuguese origin. In
other words, Bill Clinton was duped into taking hostile action
against Iraq by subordinates in the Department of Justice who
withheld information that exculpated Iraq. The DOJ document from
which I am deriving this information suggests that the omission
was due to carelessness, but nobody who is aware of the
relentlessness with which Zionist Jews have pressed their
vendetta against Iraq could possibly accept that this was a
mistake. [USDOJ/OIG Special Report The FBI Laboratory: An
Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct
in Explosives-Related and Other Cases (April,1997) Section D:
The Bush Assassination Attempt.
Magnifying the Atypical.
NBC's video coverage of April 9, the so-called "Liberation Day,"
in Baghdad, featured only a small number of people making actual
denunciations of Saddam Hussein. In fact, some of the same
denouncers were shown more than once. There seemed to be many
more people who were simply looting without making any political
statements, and I would not assume that there was any political
notion behind the looting as Donald Rumsfeld has suggested, any
more than I would attribute political motivation to the Negro
looters of South Central LA in 1992. Earlier in that very same
broadcast of NBC Nightly News, in footage that showed U.S.
Marines running through Baghdad, one could already hear Iraqi
women off-camera chanting, "Yankee go home," but you had to be
paying very close attention to notice that, because it was very
brief, and the women's chanting received no specific comment
from Tom Brokaw. I myself would not have noticed what the women
were saying if I hadn't videotaped the segment and listened to
it several times. A more balanced news-broadcast would have
spent less time showing the same small group of anti-Saddam
protestors and would have given just a little face-time to the
women chanting "Yankee go home" at armed marines.
In the second half-hour of a special edition of NBC Nightly News
on "Liberation Day," Tom Brokaw asserted that Saddam Hussein's
regime was collapsing and added: "There may be no more enduring
symbol of that than the sight of overjoyed Iraqis toppling this
huge Saddam statue in the center of the Iraqi capital." Hold on a
just a minute, Tom! In the first place, that statue was not
toppled by any Iraqi people: it was dragged down by a United
States Marine Corps tank-recovery vehicle. It was a United
States Marine who was sent up to drape a flag over the statue's
face, apparently with two flags for two different photo-
opportunities, first the very same U.S. flag, we are told, that
flew over the Pentagon on 9-11, then a pre-1991 Iraqi flag that
just happened to be there. This was a completely staged event
that was in no way a spontaneous expression by the people of
Iraq. It was in fact a private party! The roads leading into
that square were all blocked off with tanks, and there were no
more than 200 people present, and we know that at least some of
them -- all of them I suspect, given the amount of security --
were members of Ahmed Chalabi's carpetbagger brigade better
known as the Iraqi National Congress.
[ http://globalresearch.ca/articles/NYI304A.html ]
Another telling characteristic of this staged event is that a
marine who happens to be a full-blooded Chinaman was chosen for
the glorious task of draping the flags over Saddam's face.
Likewise, Brigadier Vincent Brooks was chosen as the spokesman
for the U.S. Army, obviously because he is Black.
The United States Government hardly misses an opportunity for
artificially elevating and glorifying non-Whites. These staged
events sharply contrast to what happens in unstaged, real life,
as in the famous scene of three White firemen raising a flag over
the rubble of the World Trade Center.
The lopsided reporting of "Liberation Day," combined with the
revived claim that Saddam Hussein was dead, and the simultaneous
stifling of independent media that could have undermined that
claim, may have contributed to the discouragement of Saddam
Hussein's supporters, and of would-be mujahedeen who might have
traveled to Iraq, but no matter; with Saddam Hussein out of the
way, we are seeing why General Brent Scowcroft advised Bush
Senior to leave Saddam Hussein in power. Thousands of Iraqis are
demonstrating for an Islamic Republic, and that will certainly
inspire much more fanaticism than Saddam Hussein's secular
government ever could.
There was alleged intelligence before the fighting started, that
chemical artillery shells had been issued to Iraqi troops. As
soon as the first Iraqi fortress was overrun and no chemical
weapons were found in the arsenal, this began to look like a lie.
Subsequently the lie was modified. We were told that as U.S.
troops approached Baghdad, then the Republican Guard would break
out the chemical weapons.
We were told that Iraq had set up metal drums full of liquid
chemical warfare agents at the edge of a minefield in a defensive
perimeter around Baghdad. This was said to be part of a killing
zone where the drums full of mustard gas, or whatever it was
supposed to be, would be fired on by the Iraqis, causing them to
burst and spread debilitating gas everywhere while U.S. troops
were attempting to cross the minefield.
That's a plausible theory about how chemical agents might be
used, and it seemed quite believable at the time. It put me at a
loss for any alternative explanation. Maybe I was wrong in
thinking that the Iraqis had no chemical warfare agents since,
obviously, military analysts would not be saying that the Iraqis
were setting out metal drums on their defensive perimeter if they
weren't really doing it, right? And what other explanation could
there be except that those contained chemical warfare agents?
This seems to be an example of how, if you are going to tell a
lie that you want people to believe, it is better to tell a big
one. No metal drums of chemical warfare agents have been found
on any battlefield in Iraq, nor has any excuse been made to
explain this misinformation, as far as I know.
In fact, no such weapons have been found so far in Iraq, despite
several false alarms. George W. Bush will be in a very awkward
position if no evidence is found to justify what he has done..
It seems extremely unlikely that the Iraqi leadership had any
such weapons and chose not to use them when they were facing
overthrow; if you would not use such weapons then, when would
you? But on April 20 the New York Times reported:
"A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons
program for more than a decade has told an American military
team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare
equipment only days before the war began."
The claim attributed to the anonymous scientist implies that
Saddam Hussein knew ahead of time that George W. Bush was going
to force a war with his “48 hours” ultimatum. Here's the icing on
the cake: this alleged Iraqi scientist who cannot be named is
not only an expert on weapons, but he is also omniscient, a one-stop source for all the revelations that the Bush administration
needs in order to assure the American people that the Iraqi war
is justified, and to justify its incipient hostility toward
"The scientist also told American weapons experts that Iraq had
secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to Syria,
starting in the mid-1990's, and that more recently Iraq was
cooperating with Al Qaeda, the military officials said." [ Judith
Miller, "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist
Is Said to Assert," New York Times, Apr 21, 2003
What an amazing range of top-secret knowledge! That scientist
must be Saddam Hussein himself! To add further insults to our
intelligence, we are told that this scientist must remain
anonymous because of possible retribution, meanwhile persons
claiming analogous credentials, such as the liar Khidir Hamza and
other "Iraqi defectors," have been touring the interview
circuit for years, defaming the government of Iraq without
coming to any grief whatsoever. How reporter Judith Miller could
know that such a scientist exists is hard to say, because,
"While this reporter could not interview the scientist, she was
permitted to see him from a distance," which means that all of
the wacky claims that Judith Miller is passing on to us have
been fed to her by the Army's “Mobile Exploitation Team
Since an anonymous person making an unproven claim is totally
unpersuasive, it is very likely that physical evidence of such
weapons will be manufactured. The fact that the United States
Government is refusing the presence of Hans Blix in Iraq to
authenticate MET Alpha's discoveries is a pretty solid indicator
that they are up to no good.
The Larger Context.
The American public's impression that Saddam Hussein was a global
menace is based on two lies: (1) the gassed-Kurds story, and
(2) the idea that Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980 and Kuwait
in 1990 without cause. These two lies about Saddam Hussein
correspond to allegations that we Americans have been trained
to believe about Adolf Hitler, and in fact we have been led to
regard Saddam Hussein through the lens of such a comparison.
George Bush Senior, after persistent goading by Zionist-Jew
newspaper columnist William Safire, even called Saddam Hussein
"worse than Hitler," and George W. Bush has made similar
comparisons, encouraged by luminaries like the moralizing Jewish
hypocrite Elie Wiesel. The following exchange occurred between
reporter Helen Thomas and Jewish liar Ari Fleischer at a White House press briefing:
HELEN THOMAS: "Does the President think [those who] dissent
against the war that he's planning are appeasers?"
ARI FLEISCHER: ".... The President does view this much like Elie
Wiesel did, when Elie Wiesel came to the White House yesterday
and met the President -- where Elie Wiesel, one of the great
humanists and smartest intellectuals and a leading moral
authority -- no less an official than Elie Wiesel stood in front
of the White House after a meeting with the President and said,
this is like 1938 all over again. And he called -- "
HELEN THOMAS: "And he thinks we should bomb people?"
ARI FLEISCHER: "-- and he called on the world, including Europe,
to intervene, to disarm Iraq. As Elie Wiesel said, if the world
had done that in 1938, there would have been no World War II.
The President views it in a similar way."
So there you have it. Invidious comparisons to Adolf Hitler are
used to cause wars. A "leading moral authority" who sets himself
up as an opponent of Hitler-the-Devil wants us to bomb people,
and so we do it.
The mania to prevent "another Hitler" is a greater threat to the
peace than Adolf Hitler ever was. Where there is "another
Hitler," often there is also "another Neville Chamberlain" to be
found. I think it's a bit ironic that anyone who opposes these
Jewish wars against countries that are not our natural enemies is
called an appeaser, in effect "another Neville Chamberlain,"
because Neville Chamberlain's failing was precisely that he,
like the Bushes Senior and Junior, allowed himself to be pushed
into a war by the Jews.
George Will expanded the comparison even further last October,
identifying two congressmen who visited Iraq with Lord Haw Haw.
[ George Will, "The World is too Good for America," Jewish World
Review, Oct 2, 2002
Saddam Hussein is only the latest example of "another Hitler."
Slobodan Milosevic -- who is clearly innocent of the charge of
genocide in Kosovo -- has been called "another Adolf Hitler"
since 1992. It was even "leaked" about the Mestizo dictator
Manuel Noriega that he had "a framed picture of Adolf Hitler"
in his home -- a false "leak" to make the U.S. invasion of Panama
seem justified in retrospect.
DailyNews/demonizing_enemy030129.html]. It seems to be the usual practice
whenever the United States Government wishes to start a war on
dubious grounds, that the leader of the targeted state is
represented as "another Hitler."
The name Hitler generates a suspension of disbelief as far as
atrocity stories are concerned. We live with the idea that Hitler
was somehow immune to all ordinary laws of logic and science,
and had great power although making no sense, neither in terms
of reason nor in terms of human nature that any ordinary person
can understand. This is the picture of Adolf Hitler that we have
been given, and it is a picture of a monster. I don't dispute
that some monstrous humans exist, but the tendency to accept
such characterizations without clear evidence is a problem,
especially when it is a leader of a country who is so
characterized, because entire peoples will suffer for it.
Furthermore, it is certainly wrong to assume that every
autocratic leader is ipso facto a monster, but this assumption
is widely propagated, above all by the Jews, who realize that
an autocratic government is able to resist Jewish manipulations
more easily than a democracy can.
When you have been raised to believe in witches, then you know
what to believe and how to react when some particular "witch" is
pointed out to you. That Jewish caricature of Adolf Hitler has
been of immense value in getting our gullible countrymen to
believe every kind of irrational slander against foreign leaders
and thus to cheer the devastation of Serbia and Iraq without a
pang of conscience.
To reduce the ease with which our people are goaded into war, it
might be helpful to ask how much reality is really in the picture
of Adolf Hitler that we have been given. Of course, the main
slander of Adolf Hitler is the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ story, just
as the enemies of Saddam Hussein never fail to mention that he
is "a man who gassed his own people." Regarding the alleged
gassing of Kurds at Amadiyyah, Stephen C. Pelletiere and
Douglas V. Johnson say:
"This one is extremely problematical since no gassing victims
were ever produced. The only evidence that gas was used is the
eye-witness testimony of the Kurds who fled to Turkey, collected
by staffers of the U.S. Senate. We showed this testimony to
experts in the military who told us it was worthless. The
symptoms described by the Kurds do not conform to any known
chemical or combination of chemicals."
The same kind of rational analysis that Pelletiere and Johnson
of the U.S. Army War College have used to dispel the gassed-Kurds myth also dispels the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ myth, if one has
the courage to be logically consistent. In the case of the
Jewish ‘Holocaust’ story, it is also true that:
1. No gassing victims were ever produced; that is to say, no
autopsy was done in 1945 to demonstrate that anybody was gassed,
and the films that most people accept as proof are misleading,
because those films, made by the U.S. and British armies to
justify the destructive war they had fought, misrepresent
victims of the disease typhus as victims of gassing. Further,
the U.S. and British armies did not pass through any part of
Germany that is today considered to have been the site of a
death camp. Therefore those films do not show victims of gassing.
2. Alleged eyewitness testimony is the only evidence that any
Jew was gassed; contrary to popular belief there are no
documents of the Third Reich tallying victims of gassing.
3. The stories told by "Holocaust Survivors" who claim to know
that there were gassings always turn out to be nonsense,
contradicting each other and embellished with large sweeps of
Just as the United States Government now is resorting to
falsification in order to retroactively justify its war against
Iraq, so also in 1945 did the United States Government falsify
evidence of atrocities committed by Germany, including the
hoaxing of gas-chambers such as the shower room at Dachau which
was given a lower ceiling in order to conceal the shower-room's
plumbing and thus make the idea that it was a gas-chamber seem
less ridiculous. Other examples of fake evidence at the end of
World War II are the alleged human-skin lampshades and the
alleged human-fat soap, which are now generally regarded as not
being what they were claimed to be.
With all the lying that you have witnessed in this current war,
you should not find it incredible when I say that the Jewish
‘Holocaust’ is also a pack of lies.
I have urged truthfulness in the assessment of Saddam Hussein
because it is for our benefit not to be motivated by delusions.
I hope that an awareness of the prevalence of untruth in wartime
will not only inform the way you view future conflicts but also
provoke a reassessment of past conflicts, most importantly in
the case of World War II. The permanent demonization of that
era’s Germany by the Jews has had profound detrimental effects
on the entire world.
The State of Israel uses the ‘Holocaust’ as an excuse for its
own terrorism. And at the same time it is also used to attack
and suppress racial pride and self-determination among White
people. As an introduction to this matter I recommend reading
the booklet Did Six Million Really Die? which you can purchase
from National Vanguard Books. Did Six Million Really Die? is our
item number 386, and is available for $8 postpaid from National
Vanguard Books, PO Box 330, Hillsboro WV 24946 USA.
Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you that
free men are not equal, and equal men are not free.
For the latest contact, donation, and other update information regarding
Kevin Alfred Strom, please visit his web page at Americafirstbooks.com. Please also visit kevin-strom.com, and revilo-oliver.com. Prices, addresses, and availability information pertaining to materials cited in his works are subject to change.
Please also visit the America First Institute donation page.