ConspiracyPenPal Newsletter

And now - live from the Tower of Hate, in beautiful downtown Sagle, Idaho, once again, it is time for Name that Jew!

[ES] Thank you and good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Edgar J. Steele and welcome to another edition of America's fastest-growing radio game show: Name that Jew!

Name that Jew! is becoming America's most talked-about and listened-to show in the up-and-coming genre of Reality game shows.

As regular listeners know, we showcase both celebrities and ordinary Americans alike, who must first Name that Jew! Then we award prizes, based upon how well they've done.

Now, without further ado, let's get right to this evening's first contestants. George, tell us a little something about tonight's guests.

[George] Edgar, tonight we welcome a pair of scholars from the very top of America's intellectual elite. They have published what some are calling a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's pro-Israel lobby, warning that its "decisive" role in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of action against Iran. Please welcome Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

[ES] Come on out, fellas. That's right. Don't be shy. First off, please tell us a little more about yourselves.

[JM] Hello, I'm John Mearsheimer, and I'm a professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.

[SW] And I'm Stephen Walt, professor of International Affairs at The John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

[ES] Very good, gentlemen. Now, Professor Mearsheimer, you've authored a book entitled, "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics," have you not?

[JM] Yes, Edgar, it's all about how nations inevitably will conflict with one another, such that a harmonious one-world Government simply is not attainable. I call my outlook offensive realism. The sad fact is that international politics has always been a ruthless and dangerous business. In my book, I show how the diplomatic and military history of the last two centuries supports my belief that the existing power structures in Europe and Northeast Asia simply are not sustainable through 2020. In particular, I think that America's policy of trying to make China wealthy and democratic will only make it a stronger rival.

[ES] Well, that all sounds very interesting. And, both you in the studio audience and the audience listening at home should know that Professor Mearsheimer is a regular contributor to both The New Republic and The Atlantic, two of America's most prestigious and thoughtful magazines.

[ES] And you've written a book, too, haven't you, entitled, I believe, "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy?"

[SW] Yes, I have, Edgar. My book analyzes the different strategies that states employ to counter U.S. power or to harness it for their own ends. I show how those foreign countries threaten America's ability to achieve foreign policy goals and may eventually undermine her dominant position. To prevent this, I believe that the United States must adopt a foreign policy that other states welcome, rather than one that reinforces their fear of American power.

[ES] Thank you, Professor Walt. And, just last year, you were elected a Fellow in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, weren't you?

[ES] In addition to consulting for several American think tanks specializing in the national defense, Professor Walt also has taught at Princeton and was a Dean at the University of Chicago, which is where I assume you two first met. Is that correct?

[JM] Yes, yes, that is where we first began to collaborate on a number of papers.

[ES] Very impressive, fellas. I can't imagine our having two more distinguished scholars as contestants, both of you impeccably knowledgeable about American foreign and domestic relations. Now, let's get right down to it. You both understand how Name that Jew! is played, don't you?

[ES] All right. Now, George, if you will start the clock, let's play Name that Jew!

[SW] Well, we have just published a detailed examination of the intimate relationship between America and Israel and, in particular, how that drives America's Middle East policy.

[JM] Yes, it is called "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" and a 21-page extract was just published by the London Review of Books, which is what has drawn all the recent media attention. The full 82-page article is posted at Harvard's web site.

(Note: All statements hereafter attributed to Professors Mearsheimer and Walt are direct quotes from their paper.)

[SW] In this paper, we show how our country's unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the Middle East has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world.

What's more, we document how the thrust of US policy in the Middle East derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of what's known here as the Israel Lobby. No other country's lobby, down through American history, ever has managed to divert it as far from what her national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel - are essentially identical.

[JM] We use 'the Lobby' as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.

The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of whom believe Israel's rebirth is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God's will.

Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult Israeli officials, to make sure that their actions advance Israeli goals.

[SW] A key pillar of the Lobby's effectiveness is its influence in Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism.

AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby's influence in Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. Money is critical to US elections and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her political opponents.

The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress.

[JM] Democratic presidential candidates depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the money.

[SW] Key organisations in the Lobby make it their business to ensure that critics of Israel do not get important foreign policy jobs.

During the Clinton administration, Middle Eastern policy was largely shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel organisations. The situation is even more pronounced in the Bush administration.

[JM] Most Americans don't seem to know that Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli.

[SW] And, believe it or not, Israel is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes...The US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

[JM] Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel's nuclear arsenal on the IAEA's agenda.

More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around.

[JM] Israel...does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises...Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China...According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally.

[SW] The Lobby doesn't want an open debate, of course, because that might lead Americans to question the level of support they provide. Accordingly, pro-Israel organisations work hard to influence the institutions that do most to shape popular opinion. The Lobby's perspective prevails in the mainstream media... Newspapers occasionally publish guest op-eds challenging Israeli policy, but the balance of opinion clearly favours the other side.

To discourage unfavourable reporting, the Lobby organises letter-writing campaigns, demonstrations and boycotts of news outlets whose content it considers anti-Israel.

[JM] Jewish groups have made strong efforts to push Congress into establishing mechanisms to monitor what professors say. If they manage to get this passed, universities judged to have an anti-Israel bias would be denied federal funding.

[SW] Anyone who criticises Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy - an influence AIPAC celebrates - stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-Semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America's Jewish Lobby. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it.

[JM] Israel's advocates, when pressed to go beyond mere assertion, claim that there is a 'new anti-Semitism', which they equate with criticism of Israel.

[SW] In the autumn of 2001, and especially in the spring of 2002, the Bush administration tried to reduce anti-American sentiment in the Arab world and undermine support for terrorist groups like al-Qaeda by halting Israel's expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating the creation of a Palestinian state...Yet the administration failed to change Israeli policy, and Washington ended up backing it. Over time, the administration also adopted Israel's own justifications of its position, so that US rhetoric began to mimic Israeli rhetoric. By February 2003, a Washington Post headline summarized the situation: 'Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Mideast Policy.' The main reason for this switch was the Lobby...In short, Sharon and the Lobby took on the president of the United States and triumphed.

[JM] Maintaining US support for Israel's policies against the Palestinians is essential as far as the Lobby is concerned, but its ambitions do not stop there. It also wants America to help Israel remain the dominant regional power.

[SW] According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the 'real threat' from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The 'unstated threat' was the 'threat against Israel,' Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002.

According to (Israeli Prime Minister) Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached 'unprecedented dimensions,' and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq's WMD programmes... Apart from Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990, Israel was the only country in the world where both politicians and public favoured war.

[JM] Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives...The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam's removal from power. The signatories...who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war.

[SW] Wolfowitz advocated attacking Iraq before Afghanistan, even though there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks on the US and bin Laden was known to be in Afghanistan. Bush rejected his advice and chose to go after Afghanistan instead, but war with Iraq was now regarded as a serious possibility and on 21 November the president charged military planners with developing concrete plans for an invasion.

Other neo-conservatives... played important roles in persuading Cheney that war was the best option, though neo-conservatives on his staff – Eric Edelman, John Hannah and Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of staff and one of the most powerful individuals in the administration – also played their part. By early 2002 Cheney had persuaded Bush; and with Bush and Cheney on board, war was inevitable.

[JM] Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely to acquire nuclear weapons... Sharon began pushing the US to confront Iran in November 2002, in an interview in the Times. Describing Iran as the 'centre of world terror', and bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, he declared that the Bush administration should put the strong arm on Iran 'the day after' it conquered Iraq... The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime change in Tehran... As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent neo-conservatives made the case for going after Iran.

[SW] It is not surprising that Israel and its American supporters want the US to deal with any and all threats to Israel's security. If their efforts to shape US policy succeed, Israel's enemies will be weakened or overthrown, Israel will get a free hand with the Palestinians, and the US will do most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying.

[JM] Can the Lobby's power be curtailed? One would like to think so, given the Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America's image in the Arab and Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC officials passing US government secrets to Israel... But that is not going to happen – not soon anyway. AIPAC and its allies (including Christian Zionists) have no serious opponents in the lobbying world... The Lobby's influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face – including America's European allies.

[SW] Equally worrying, the Lobby's campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could lead the US to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous effects.

[JM] Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians... US efforts to limit nuclear proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness to accept Israel's nuclear arsenal, which only encourages Iran and others to seek a similar capability.

[SW] Besides, the Lobby's campaign to quash debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy. Silencing sceptics by organising blacklists and boycotts – or by suggesting that critics are anti-semites – violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends.

[ES] Ok, gentlemen. Time's up and I've got to say - that was a spectacular effort on your part. George, tell the professors how they did and what they've won for playing Name that Jew!

[George] The professors have scored 90%, Edgar - one of the highest scores ever recorded on Name that Jew! by members of mainstream American society. As their reward, they will receive unprecedented scorn and derision from every sector of America's academic, political and social worlds. Under incredible pressure, via threats of funding withdrawal, Harvard will remove its seal from your paper and quietly investigate what can be done to censure and remove Professor Walt from its faculty. Professor Mearsheimer's fate will be as severe, as we see both professors ostracized and condemned by colleagues, friends and, even, family members, not to mention the entire Israel Lobby.

Furthermore, media throughout America, while maintaining near silence about the professors' report, will be working overtime to discredit it and the professors, themselves. Rest assured that we are about to see blackballing by America's Jewish-owned media unlike anything ever before seen, in a scorched-earth campaign to destroy both the report and its authors.

[ES] Yes, professors, congratulations. And backstage, George will see that you each receive the home edition of Name that Jew! so that the fun needn't stop tonight.

Folks, both here in the studio audience and at home, don't forget to pick up a copy of Name that Jew! so that you and your family can play right along with us each and every week right at home, as well as any other time you like.

Now, George, we gave that segment double length because we had two players at once. That means we have time this evening for only one more player. Please tell us about tonight's next contestant on Name that Jew!

[George] Edgar, our next contestant is a bona fide movie star with strong political convictions, just like his father. This past week, he went public with his opinions concerning 9/11. Please welcome, direct from Hollywood, the star of the current hit television comedy show, Two and a Half Men, actor Charlie Sheen.

[ES] Welcome, Charlie. Do you mind if I call you Charlie? It seems like I know you so well, after all your memorable on-screen performances, perhaps most notably in Hot Shots and its riveting sequel, Hot Shots, Part Deux.

Now, Charlie, you recently were interviewed by Alex Jones for his popular counterculture radio show on the GCN Radio Network, weren't you?

(Note: all statements hereafter attributed to Mr. Sheen are mostly direct quotes from his radio interview by Alex Jones and, where necessary, some context-establishing commentary from Mr. Jones, presented as if said by Mr. Sheen, as well as a few quotes from follow-on TV interviews.)

[CS] Yes, I was, and subsequently CNN covered my statements in some detail, leading to a real media whirlwind this past week. All I can say is, wow! Wow! This has been some kind of week, I can tell you.

[ES] Is it true that you are calling for a truly independent investigation of 9/11, thereby joining the ranks of prominent credible whistleblowers across America?

[CS] We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue. It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions.

[ES] Very interesting. We're running late tonight, so let's get right down to it. You understand how Name that Jew! is played, don't you?

[CS] Yes.

[ES] Ok. Now, George, please start the clock and let's play Name that Jew!

BZZZTTT!!!

[ES] Ok, Charlie: Name that Jew!

[CS] I was up early and we were gonna do a pre-shoot on Spin City, the show I used to do, I was watching the news and the north tower was burning. I saw the south tower hit live, that famous wide shot where it disappears behind the building and then we see the tremendous fireball.

There was a feeling, it just didn't look like any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother, "Call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?"

Most people's gut instinct, that the buildings had been deliberately imploded, was washed away by the incessant flood of the official version of events from day one.

I question the plausibility of a fireball's traveling 1100 feet down an elevator shaft and causing damage to the lobbies of the towers as seen in video footage, especially when contrasted with eyewitness accounts of bombs and explosions in the basement levels of the buildings.

"Pull," a demolition industry term for pulling the outer walls of the building towards the center in an implosion, was used by Larry Silverstein in a September 2002 PBS documentary when he said that the decision to "pull" building 7, which never was hit by any planes, was made before its collapse.

There were fire fighters in the buildings who were eyewitnesses to demolition-style implosions and bombs. This is not you or I watching the videos and speculating on what we saw, these are gentlemen inside the buildings at the very point of collapse.

What's more, if there's a problem with building 7 then there's a problem with the whole thing.

Once Andy Card whispered to Bush in that Florida school that America was under attack, why didn't the Secret Service immediately whisk Bush away to a secret location? It seems to me that upon the revelation of that news that the Secret Service would grab the President as if he was on fire and remove him from that room.

What's more, Bush said he saw the first plane hit the north tower, when no live footage of that incident was carried, an assertion that Bush repeated twice. I guess one of the perks of being President is that you get access to TV channels that don't exist in the known universe. It might lead you to believe that he'd seen similar images in some type of rehearsal, as it were. I don't know.

And the official story of what happened at the Pentagon doesn't match the physical evidence. Show us this incredible maneuvering, just show it to us. Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers. 270-degree turn at 500 miles an hour, descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, skimming across treetops the last 500 meters.

We have not been able to confirm that a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon because the government has seized and refused to release any footage that would show the impact. I understand in the interest of national security that maybe not release the Pentagon cameras but what about the Sheraton, what about the gas station, what about the Department of Transportation freeway cam? What about all these shots that had this thing perfectly documented? Instead, they put out five frames that they claim not to have authorized, it's really suspicious."

And, how did the plane basically disappear into the Pentagon with next to no wreckage and no indication of what happened to the wing sections?

The Bush administration had finalized Afghanistan war plans two days before 9/11 with the massing of 44,000 US troops and 18,000 British troops in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and in addition the call for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor," as outlined in the PNAC documents. You don't really put those strategies together overnight, do you, for a major invasion? Those are really well calculated and really well planned.

Coincidence? We think not. The PNAC quotes are emblematic of the arrogance of this administration.

September 11 wasn't the Zapruder film, it was the Zapruder film festival. A new inquiry has to be headed, if this is possible, by some neutral investigative committee. What if we used retired political foreign nationals? What if we used experts that don't have any ties whatsoever to this administration?

It is up to us to reveal the truth. It is up to us because we owe it to the families. We owe it to the victims. We owe it to everybody's life who was drastically altered, horrifically, that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened.

It was Mark Twain who said, "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

BZZZZZTTT!!!

[ES] Ok, Charlie. Time's up. Very eloquent. Very earnest. Well done. George, please tell Charlie how he did and what he's won for playing Name that Jew!

[George] Mr. Sheen scored 60%, Edgar. It would have been higher, but he never actually used the words Jew, Zionist, Israel or The Chosen. Even so, Charlie Sheen wins tonight because he is attacking America's controllers and America so obviously is controlled by Jewish interests. Furthermore, because the only clear beneficiary of 9/11 has been Israel, a country that had been plummeting in the polls until after 9/11. Besides, it never has mattered to Jews themselves - simply by opposing something they want, one is deemed to be an anti-Semite and has, by implication, Named that Jew! By calling for an independent investigation, suggesting that elements of our government was involved and criticizing the Administration's handling of 9/11, Charlie Sheen tonight has successfully Named that Jew!

Charlie Sheen, here is what you get: Endless media attacks and vilification. Both the New York Post and the Boston Herald will smear you as an unstable crackpot. You will be depicted as a member of the tinfoil-hat-wearing crowd by even one of the Internet's leading alternative news sites: WorldNetDaily.com. What's more, your acting career almost certainly is at an end. Congratulations, Mr. Sheen, for being willing to Name that Jew!

(applause)

[ES] Yes, Charlie, congratulations. Perhaps once the reality of how your life now has changed forever sinks in, you might be willing to come back and try to raise your score by answering your detractors directly.

[CS] It feels like you and I have started the revolution and God bless America.

[ES] Indeed, Charlie, I hope you are right about that. Thanks so much for being with us. Backstage, of course, George will see that you receive your own personal copy of the fabulous home edition of Name that Jew!

Ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately that is all the time we have for tonight. Be sure to tune in next week, same time, same station, for another exciting edition of Name that Jew!