The Israel Industry and Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown

Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is possibly one of the dumbest men to ever live. But if he knew about the Iraq lies and hid them in order to sell his book, then this man is an accomplice and ought to be trialed. He is perpetuating deliberate lies in order to save his skin.

5
3105

…by Jonas E. Alexis

Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown looks like a traitor, a coward and a pawn. You can easily get that impression the moment you begin to read a few lines from his new autobiography. He tells lies and produces excuses in order to absolve himself and the British government of the Iraq debacle in 2003. Brown writes in My Life, Our Times:

“When I consider the rush to war in March 2003 – especially in light of what we now know about the absence of weapons of mass destruction – I ask myself over and over whether I could have made more of a difference before that fateful decision was taken…

“At the time, therefore, I had as much and as little access to security and intelligence information as most other Cabinet ministers. For that reason, when I went to Chilcot in 2010, I defended our decision to go to war.

“I explained that Iraq had systematically defied the resolutions unanimously passed by the United Nations. That was and remains true. However, in retrospect, having reviewed all the information available now…I felt I now understand how we were all misled on the existence of WMDs.”[1]

Well, Gordon, why don’t you tell your readers who really conned you and the British into a big pile of mess in Iraq? Why don’t you pick up Murray Friedman’s The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and Public Policy, which by the way was published by Cambridge University Press? Why don’t you stop being intellectually lazy and pick up again America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the New World Order, which was again published by Cambridge University Press?

Both books come to similar conclusions: the Neoconservative ideology, which is essentially a Jewish political movement, bled England and America to death in Iraq because it produced the categorical lie that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Both Tony Blair and George W. Bush knew very well that WMD campaign was a colossal hoax.[2]

Bush was ready to remove Saddam from power for the Jewish lobby in Washington. He repeatedly used expletives in order to demonstrate how he was going to deal with Saddam long before the U.S. invaded Iraq, saying things like, “I’m going to kick this sorry mother fucker all over the Mideast.”[3]

John Prados, co-director of the Iraq Documentation Project, noted that the record plainly “demonstrates that the Bush administration swiftly abandoned plans for diplomacy to curb fancied Iraqi adventurism by means of sanctions, never had a plan subsequent to that except for a military solution, and enmeshed British allies in a manipulation of public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic designed to generate support for a war.”[4]

After the invasion of Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Israeli Knesset declared that much of the information passed on to Washington was a fabrication.[5] When it was revealed that the WMD were a lie, weakening the justification for the war, then new ideas supporting it sprang up: that the war in Iraq is good in order to spread democracy or because Iraq has oil.[6] Ari Shavit of Haaretz writes:

That doctrine maintains that the problem with the Middle East is the absence of democracy and of freedom. It follows that the only way to block people like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is to disseminate democracy and freedom. To change radically the cultural and political dynamics that creates such people.


“And the way to fight the chaos is to create a new world order that will be based on freedom and human rights—and to be ready to use force in order to consolidate this new world. So that, really, is what the war is about. It is being fought to consolidate a new world order, to create a new Middle East…Does that mean that the war in Iraq is effectively a neoconservative war? That’s what people are saying, Kristol replies, laughing.”[7]

Without neoconservative pressure, America likely wouldn’t have gone to war with Iraq. Shavit again states,

“Is the Iraq War the great neoconservative war? It’s the war the neoconservatives wanted, [Thomas] Friedman says. It’s the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded.

“This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq War would not have happened.”[8]

The inescapable conclusion is that the war in Iraq was a Jewish war. This is coming from Thomas Friedman himself. He told Haaretz in 2003 that the plan for war in Iraq

“was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Elliott Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history.

“They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington neoconservatives are the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke.”[9]

William Kristol “is believed to exercise considerable influence on the president, Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; he is also perceived as having been instrumental in getting Washington to launch this all-out campaign against Baghdad…because what happened on September 11, 2001, Kristol says, is that the Americans looked around and saw that the world is not what they thought it was. The world is a dangerous place. Therefore the Americans looked for a doctrine that would enable them to cope with this dangerous world. And the only doctrine they found was the neoconservative one.”[10]

It is this neoconservative doctrine that led America into the war in Iraq—a doctrine that, in the end, proved to be detrimental to the nation at large. Wolfowitz was so aggressive about invading Iraq that one Republican lawmaker declared Wolfowitz “was like a parrot bringing [Iraq] up all the time. It was getting on the President’s nerves.”[11] After one such meeting in Washington, we are told that Colin Powell rolled his eyes, declaring, “Jeez, what a fixation about Iraq.”[12]

Now, if Gordon Brown wants to tell us that he knew nothing about this, then he is one of the dumbest men to ever live. But if he knew about these issues but hid them in order to sell his book, then this man is an accomplice and ought to be trialed. He is perpetuating deliberate lies in order to save his skin.

The interesting thing is that he never mentions the Israel lobby and its influence on US and British politicians in his entire memoir. He also failed to mention the Neoconservatives who beat the war drum. No one should take this man seriously. In fact, he should be behind bars for the rest of his natural life because he is indeed a traitor. He is still a member of the group named Labour Friends of Israel.[13]


  • [1] Gordon Brown, My Life, Our Times (New York: Vintage Books, 2017), kindle edition.
  • [2] See for example Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (New York: Perseus Books, 2008).
  • [3] Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Hubris, 3.
  • [4] Dan Froomkin, “The Two Most Essential, Abhorrent, Intolerable Lies of George W. Bush’s Memoir,” Huffington Post, November 22, 2010.
  • [5] Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby, 235-236.
  • [6] Ibid., 253-255.
  • [7] Ari Shavit, “White Man’s Burden,” Haaretz.
  • [8] Ibid.
  • [9] Ari Shavit, “White Man’s Burden,” Haaretz, April 4, 2003.
  • [10] Ibid.
  • [11] Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby, 246.
  • [12] Ibid., 247.
  • [13] Assaf Uni, “Claims of ‘Jewish conspiracy’ in U.K. campaign finance scandal has local community worried,” Haaretz, December 10, 2010.


EDITORIAL DISCLOSURE
All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

5 COMMENTS

  1. I have a comment or two from a new book – hot off the rack, which aptly segues into your article Jonas. The title of the book is “Iraq and the Politics of Oil” by Gary Vogler (University Press of Kansas). A West Point graduate Vogler spent seventy-two months in Iraq after the 2003 invasion involved in rebuilding the Iraqi oil sector. I include three paragraphs from the Chapter entitled ‘What Haunts Me’ to indicate the secret oil agenda that sent the US to War in the Middle East.

    “Would many of Friedman’s twenty-five neoconservatives get access to the economic gains from a pipeline to Haifa or Aqaba? I think it is naive to beleve that greed did not play a role in their motivation to push the Iraq

    • Part II

      “Would many of Friedman’s twenty-five neoconservatives get access to the economic gains from a pipeline to Haifa or Aqaba? I think it is naive to believe that greed did not play a role in their motivation to push the Iraq War. Dr. Ahmed Chalabi made prewar promises about opening trade between Iraq and Israel. He promised to open a pipeline to Haifa for exporting millions of barrels per day of crude oil. How could the highly educated and brilliant neocons have fallen so easily for the lies of a known and unscrupulous opportunist like Dr. Ahmed Chalabi? How were they so easily blinded to what was obvious to the CIA and State? Does greed explain this blindness?
      “The costs to the United States for invading Iraq were huge. There were 4,489 sons and daughters killed, 32,223 troops injured (not including PTSD), at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians killed…
      “Did my country incur all of these costs because of a couple dozen neocons? Did a network of highly educated, right-wing, pro-Israel US government senior political appointees develop a plan to enrich themselves and their colleagues? Did they bring in staffers with a similar ideology to help execute such a plan? Some staffers, like Mike Makovsky, arrived in 2002 with direct ties to the Israeli government.”

      Vogler has written a fascinating and engaging book, which despite its emphasis on oil, exposes the cabal of NeoCon/Khazarians pushing the Israeli agenda which resulted directly in the deaths of US personnel.

  2. The reasons for the WMD lies can be found in the pudding, and can be ranked in any order, they are; Loot the US and European treasuries, control oil flow, eventual land theft for the expansion of Israel. It’s about power and money. There are other residual benefits for the creators of this war with out end, wars that just keep giving, paying off like loaded dice.

  3. Looking from today it looks like it was always “get there before the Russians do” so they figured they had these 10-15 years before the Russians consolidate after USSR breakdown and realize the ongoing manipulation. Oh boy and did they realize. They realized so well there will never again be such Europe and Middle East manipulation like in the sorry 20th century and the fading glory Bush days. New American Century is officialy dead much like the Lenin corpse.

  4. Do not the U.S., Britain and Israel also possess weapons of mass destruction? Perhaps some other countries should use the same excuse to obliterate them for a change. Wouldn’t this be doing the world a favor? Isn’t what is good for the goose also good for the gander? Isn’t this the only kind of language these arrogant insolent hypocritical unindicted international war criminals might understand?

Comments are closed.