On June 4, 2009, President Barack Obama addressed approximately 3,000 Muslims and Arabs at Cairo University. (To read the full transcript of the Cairo speech, click HERE.) In the speech, it seemed as though Obama's primary goal was to lay the groundwork for discrediting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, someone I admire a great deal for his opposition to Israel. Obama and Ahmadinejad appear to be in the midst of a great international debate, one that most people do not understand and are oblivious to, but make no mistake, a great debate is in the works. Actually, power struggle is a more accurate description, for most true intellectuals understand the issues being discussed, but few have the courage to state them openly. The topic of discussion is the Holocaust and its impact on middle eastern policies today. If I were advising Obama, I would tell him to avoid that topic like the plague. I would also urge him to avoid direct confrontation with Ahmadinejad. Although the Western press loves to berate the controversial Iranian president, he should not be underestimated. He is extremely intelligent, highly educated, and equally cunning. By Western standards, Ahmadinejad has exceedingly controversial views. But they reflect the mainstay of Arab and Muslim thought.

If we are going to set aside our differences with Arab and Muslim nations, particularly those regions with vast oil reserves, we need to respect their collective worldviews, and not preach to them about ours, as Obama did in Cairo. We should not call them "ignorant" or "hateful," as Obama did in Cairo. We should not be two-faced and underhanded with the Iranians, as we have done in the past when we helped overthrow democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in a coup d'état in 1953. In the Cairo speech, Obama acknowledged that unfortunate historical event, but also reminded people how the Iranians took our diplomats hostage in 1979, then said we should not live in the past, and should "move forward."

I must take exception to Obama's forgive and forget attitude because he did not draw a valid comparison. He essentially said America was wrong to help overthrow Mosaddeq in 1953, but Iran were equally wrong to place American diplomats under house arrest and hold them hostage in 1979 when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized power from the Shah. Why is that comparison not valid? For starters, the term "hostage" is not correct. It suggests that the Iranians wanted something in exchange for the release of American diplomats. In reality, the Iranians merely placed the diplomats under house arrest because many were believed to be CIA operatives. Second, overthrowing a democratically elected government is far worse than arresting and detaining diplomats from a country that helped overthrow a democratically elected prime minister several years earlier. In short, Khomeini wanted to prevent a repeat of the 1953 coup d'état, which was sponsored by the CIA. Therefore, Obama's half-hearted mea culpa doesn't quite wash. He was saying America was wrong in 1953 and Iran was wrong in 1979, but let's forgive and forget. He should have said something like this: America was wrong in 1953 and I therefore understand why Iran did not trust America in 1979, and because of that lack of trust, I understand why Iran took the actions that it did, but let's try to move forward anyway.

Obama was clearly upset with Ahmadinejad for questioning certain aspects of the official version of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad continually asks one question that enrages many people and governments. He has asked that question many times and at many places, so here is a paraphrased version of that question: "Assuming the Holocaust occurred as western nations claim, why were the Palestinian people punished for the actions of the German people? Arabs and Muslims had nothing to do with the Holocaust and little involvement in World War II. So why was land taken from the Palestinian people and made a Jewish homeland (Israel) shortly after the Holocaust?" This is a very thoughtful and intelligent question. Yet it is the main reason why virtually all Western news outlets portray Ahmadinejad in the most negative way possible.

Ahmadinejad also frequently asks why open discussions about the Holocaust are not allowed in Western nations. Again, that is an extremely valid question.

In 1925, Reza Shah Pahlavi (aka, Reza Khan) became Shah of Iran when he overthrew the weakening Qajar Dynasty. Pahlavi was considered a progressive leader who initiated industrialization, railroad construction, and the establishment of a national education system. For simplicity, I will refer to Reza Shah Pahlavi as Shah No. 1. His son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, later became Shah; I refer to him as Shah No. 2.

In 1941, Britain and the Soviet Union overthrew Shah No. 1 because they feared he was too friendly with Hitler. (NOTE: Hitler detested Britain and France, and was highly critical of their style of colonialism. Consequently, many Arab and Muslim nations in the middle east admired Hitler for standing up to the European imperialists who dominated their countries for years.) It did not matter that Shah No. 1 was a very good leader and helped Iran grow and prosper. When Shah No. 1 was driven from power, he was replaced with Shah No. 2 who was extremely weak, but remained in power for ten years until he fled the country when Mohammad Mosaddeq won a democratic election in 1951. Two years later, in 1953, the CIA helped topple Mosaddeq and re-installed Shah No. 2. A brutal secret police force, SAVAK, was created by the CIA and Israel's Mossad to keep Shah No. 2 in power. Shah No. 2 continued to rule for 26 years until driven from power by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini during the Islamic Revolution in 1979. When Khomeini seized power, his people placed American diplomats under arrest because they feared many were CIA agents on the verge of toppling the new regime and re-installing the Shah, or another Western puppet, for a third time.

So if one wants to put things in historical perspective, the Iranian government does not owe America an apology. What they did with America's diplomats in 1979 was understandable considering what the CIA did in 1953. In addition, Britain and the Soviet Union had no business driving Shah No. 1 from power in 1941 simply because they feared he liked Hitler a little too much. This occurred before the Holocaust, so that cannot be used to justify the ousting of a progressive leader.

For years the Bush administration warned that Iran was on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb. In December 2007, the American intelligence agencies challenged those warnings in a report called the "United States National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)." Their assessment concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remained frozen. This was an odd situation because America's spy agencies had officially stated that Iran did not pose a nuclear threat, yet the Bush administration ignored the NIE and continued its fear mongering campaign regarding Iran's presumably non-existent nuclear program. During the 2008 presidential race, Republican candidate John McCain criticized Iran repeatedly for its nuclear program. As president, Obama occasionally warns of Iran's pending nuclear threat. One has to ask, why do we spend billions of tax payer dollars funding spy agencies if our leaders continually ignore their findings? This is one of those rare glimpses into raw power where our leaders know they are pushing a lie, but they push it anyway in the most brazen manner imaginable. We are obviously dealing with a highly sophisticated level of mendacity within both major political parties.

Obama Criticizes Iranian Government's Treatment of Protestors.
As of this writing, Khomeini's Islamic regime has remained in power for thirty years (from 1979 through 2009). Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president after winning the 2005 presidential election and was re-elected to a second term in 2009 after a disputed election, although virtually all polls indicate that Ahmadinejad was favored to win the election by a substantial margin. Protests occurred, but the Iranian leadership accused foreign powers of instigating the protests. On June 23, 2009, Obama strongly condemned the Iranian government's crackdown on protestors saying he was "appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days."

Obama added: "I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran's affairs… Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd."

Obama has a knack for giving sharp-edged responses that will ultimately make him look foolish in a few years. He loses quite a bit of credibility by claiming the rabble rousing charge is “absurd,” because this is major-league back-pedaling. On June 4, 2009, in Cairo, Obama made the following statement: “In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.” That was quite an admission. A sitting president finally admitted that the CIA helped overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in a coup d'état in 1953. He further acknowledged that Mosaddeq was democratically elected. After making such a major concession about America’s under-handed dealings with Iran 56 years ago, how can Obama claim that Iranian charges of similar behavior today are absurd? Does he think this buys credibility in the Arab/Muslim world? Is Obama claiming America has no spies whatsoever in Tehran or in Iran? If not, why does America have foreign spy agencies like the CIA? Aren’t they supposed to monitor the activities of hostile foreign governments?

Obama made the following comments in the June 23rd statement: “We have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history." Obama was referring to Neda Agha Soltan when he mentioned the woman “bleeding to death on the streets.” Bloomberg.com claims Soltan, a 27-year-old philosophy student, was shot in the heart by a so-called “Basij militiaman.” A video of a dying Soltan was posted on Youtube. Do we really know the true agenda of the shooter? It is quite plausible that the shooter was an under cover assassin for Western spy services such as the Mossad, the CIA, MI6, and so on. By murdering an innocent, then displaying a video caption of the murder on Youtube, this further deteriorates the public image of the current Iranian government.

Speaking of murdering innocent women, what about White House Chief of Staff Rahm Israel Emanuel's father, Benjamin M. Emanuel? I expect the senior Emanuel has personally murdered lots of pretty young women to further the cause of Israel. When Emanuel’s father was a member of Irgun, they murdered Jewish women, Arabic women and British women when they blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1946. So please, Mr. Obama, let’s not wax indignant over the death of a young girl as long as you have the son of a murdering terrorist employed as your White House Chief of Staff. Anyone who believes the Arab/Muslim people are oblivious to Emanuel’s terrorist baggage is living in a fool’s paradise.

Menachem Begin was the leader of Irgun in 1946. Figures 1 through 5 show some of Begin’s handywork, assisted by Rahm Emanuel's father:

Fig. 1: King David Hotel before bombing

Fig. 2: King David Hotel AFTER bombing

Fig. 3: Searching through rubble for bodies

Fig. 4: Body of woman (Secretariat typist) in rubble of King David Hotel

Fig. 5: Picture of a younger Menachem Begin and youthful members of Irgun.

Photos provided by Thurston Clarke, from his book, By Blood and Fire: The Attack on the King David Hotel.

Like many Americans, I was relieved and excited when George W. Bush stepped down as president of the United States on January 20, 2009. I was equally energized that Barack Obama defeated John McCain in the presidential race and became the new leader of the free world. I was also moved by Obama's emotional impact on my African American friends and acquaintances. They were ecstatic to see a man of color finally become president of the United States. On that level, the inauguration of President Obama was a truly breath-taking experience. It was a lifetime dream come true for most African Americans, and seemed like a dream to me as well. But like all dreams, eventually we awaken to face reality.

Even so, I made a vow to remain hopeful for awhile, no matter what. My view was let’s replace the old team with a new team and see what happens. Things can only improve, right? Although I believe all public officials are fair game for criticism, I promised myself not to criticize the new president without first giving him a reasonable period of time to succeed or fail. On June 4, 2009, when President Obama addressed the crowd of Muslims and Arabs at Cairo University, it seemed like the right time to raise critical points regarding the new American president’s middle east policy, and questionable public statements regarding modern world history. President Obama made certain statements which, in my view, are in direct opposition to free speech accorded to Americans under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It bothered me that Obama made direct references to the Holocaust in the Cairo speech. The term "Holocaust" itself is clearly a propaganda ploy used primarily by right-wing extremists like former President George W. Bush, former Vice-President Richard Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and others. In addition to Bush, Cheney and Limbaugh, no one pushes the Holocaust and supports Israel more than Senator John McCain and his former presidential running mate, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. I thought Obama was going to bring change, particularly with America’s middle eastern policy, but he’s playing the same tire old conservative tune as Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, McCain, Palin and other Republican extremists.

Watching Obama’s Cairo speech, and listening to him rant about the Holocaust, was quite depressing. For the first time, I realized that some of his critics may be correct. They say he is a charismatic speaker, but a tool of others. Listening to Obama’s comments about the Holocaust demonstrated either one of two things: (a) his knowledge of history is limited, or (b) he has no problem looking straight into a camera and telling a brazen lie, as long as his backers endorse that lie.

Holocaust Glue

The term Holocaust is used like a type of Zionist glue that holds together different factions of people who otherwise might not support Israel. Because of Jewish suffering, we must therefore capitulate to anything Israel wants. That is the strategy behind right-wing exploitation of Jewish suffering. If any portion of that suffering turns out to be exaggerated or even fabricated, then support for Israel might dwindle. In other words, the official Holocaust story is marketed like a product primarily by right-wing extremists. This is why Ahmadinejad has become the object of scorn among Western elites who support Israel. They are obviously afraid that his basic straight-forward questions about the Holocaust will eventually cause support for Israel to evaporate within worldwide Jewry.

Most American Jews are assimilated and liberal-minded on many topics. They don’t particularly care about Judaism as a religion. They were taught that their grandparents and ancestors suffered for centuries, and that suffering culminated with the Holocaust. This linkage to the past by oral storytelling is the only thing that binds most liberal Jewish factions with more orthodox Jewry. It is the latter group that truly cares about the state of Israel. I share many values with liberal-minded American Jews, many of them the descendants of Russian immigrants. Like me, they want to end the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. Like me, they want improved health care for all Americans. Like me, they think women should have the right to choose whether to have abortions or not. Like me, they want a nuclear test ban treaty ratified by all nations of the world. We share so much, but we differ on many aspects of the middle east which center around Israel. The primary difference between myself and most liberal-minded Jews is their steadfast support of Israel, which is an offshoot of stories of suffering passed on by their parents and grand-parents, and the most memorable story is obviously the Holocaust. If these liberal-minded Jews should ever begin to question various aspects of the official Holocaust story, it could be disastrous for the state of Israel. It's essentially a middle eastern version of the "domino theory."

So why did Obama suddenly start preaching the same old tired Holocaust rhetoric of Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, McCain and Palin? (That is: Holocaust + centuries of suffering = ISRAEL) Did he switch parties while nobody was looking? Before addressing that, let us re-examine the word Holocaust itself, as it applies to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s through 1945, and treatment of Jewish individuals in Europe during that time period.

The objective of the word Holocaust is to suppress free speech on that topic by giving it a label and attaching to it several so-called historic facts. Anyone who challenges any of those facts is labeled a Holocaust Denier, then tarred and feathered by the American news media if they are a public figure, like Ahmadinejad, for example. This is totally dishonest because the general public thinks a Holocaust Denier is someone who claims no one died in Nazi work camps and the entire event is a complete fabrication. I have never heard of anyone who claims that a comprehensive single event related to Nazi Germany and Jewish individuals was fabricated. Specific facts and events are challenged. Nobody says "it didn't happen" in a literal sense.

Questioning specific aspects of any historic is the essence of being an historian. Yet this is not allowed when discussing the Holocaust. True critics of the official Holocaust story question many things, as opposed to denying a comprehensive single event. They question if the Jewish death toll of six million is accurate, a completely legitimate historical question. Obama claims that anyone who asks that particular question is ignorant and hateful, a comment that was extremely upsetting to me. Doesn’t he support free speech? True critics question the extent of gas chamber usage by Nazis as a device of mass murder, another completely legitimate historical question. Dovetailing on the gas chamber issue, true critics question if the overall death toll (whatever the actual number may be) was caused mainly by typhus and war-time starvation as opposed malicious mass murder with the objective of ethnic cleansing and genocide. True critics question whether the Adolf Hitler specifically targeted Jews at all (other than writing an inflammatory book, Mein Kampf) or if he imprisoned anyone deemed undesirable, which included a number of Jewish individuals, but in proportion to the overall population of German Jewry, which was in the minority.

Some critics even suggest that Hitler was a Soviet spy and his work camps were similar to the Soviet work camps of Joseph Stalin. Some say there was a pact between Soviet Jews and Hitler to destroy the British Empire, thus releasing Jewish settlers in Palestine from the grasp of the British Mandate. After Hitler was defeated, Irgun terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem which housed many British military officers. The objective of the terrorist attack was to drive the British out of Palestine, and it worked. They left shortly thereafter, and Israel declared its independence shortly after that. Approximately 25 years later, the Russian born Menachem Begin, who was commander of the Irgun and ordered the bombing of the King David Hotel, was elected prime minister of Israel. Truth seekers ask why would Begin and his terrorist group, Irgun (which also included Rahm Emanuel's father), terrorize the British shortly after the British helped defeat Hitler? If the traditional Holocaust story is completely true, then Irgun's actions towards the British make little sense. One would think the Irgun would love those who liberated their people from further extermination in gas chambers. Asking such questions should be viewed as exercising one’s right of free speech, not denying a single large-scale tragic event. Many people ask these questions, and they are anything but ignorant.

Obama is apparently under pressure by his White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Israel Emanuel. As previously stated, his father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, was a bona fide terrorist. The senior Emanuel was a member of the Irgun, a Jewish terrorist organization behind the terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre April 9, 1948. Why on earth would an American president appoint the son of a known terrorist to White House Chief of Staff? Sadly, it seems that Emanuel and his ilk are calling the shots in the Obama administration with respect to middle east policy. They clearly detest Ahmadinejad for questioning various aspects of the Holocaust, and Obama is being used to publicly rebuke and possibly discredit the Iranian president.

Holocaust Museum Shootings, then Riots in Iran
Obama’s comments about the Holocaust, in Cairo, were so inflammatory that I personally blame him for the death of Stephen Tyrone Johns, the 39-year-old security guard fatally shot at the Holocaust Museum on June 10, 2009. A few days later, on June 12, 2009, the American news media reported widespread insurrections in Iraq following the re-election of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, the man whom Obama insinuated was "ignorant" and "hateful" in the Cairo speech. The timing of these three events is interesting. It has the earmarks of an intelligence operation, as Iranian leadership now claims. It was apparently designed to discredit Ahmadinejad for the reasons already described.

When the protests first began, it struck me as unbelievable that any segment of the Iranian people would suddenly get excited about the results of a presidential election because in Iran the president has no power. It is purely a figure-head position, similar to the president of Israel. The real power in Israel is held by the Prime Minister. In Iran, the real power is held by the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei (also known as the "Grand Ayatollah Khamenei"). So it makes no sense that people would naturally protest the outcome of such an election. I suspect there is massive CIA and Mossad activity in Iran to incite most of these so-called protests and riots. On Friday, June 19, 2009, Khamenei publicly made a similar accusation, except he claimed it was primarily the British government causing the trouble.

Excerpts From the Cairo Speech
The Cairo speech was a good move symbolically because America now has a president willing to talk directly to the Arab and Muslim nations. This is important because Arabs/ Muslims hold the primary oil-producing regions of the world. It is not in America’s national interest to have hostile relations with such countries. While it is important to be concerned with global warming and to reduce America’s massive energy consumption, it is unrealistic to think we will break free from middle eastern oil reserves. All we can do is invest in more mass-transportation systems (mainly invest in more trains, subways and bus systems), look for alternate fuel types (natural gas, solar, etc), and build more fuel efficient cars. Other than that, we need to make a concerted effort to be friendlier to oil-producing countries.

Unfortunately, Obama stuck to the same policy of embracing Israel, a position that few Arabs/ Muslims will take seriously or respect. In addition to expressing direct support for Israel, Obama also defended the official Holocaust story, which seemed like an act of desperation. But he also tried to win a degree of credibility when he called for a halt of new Israeli settlements and acknowledging America's participation in the coup in 1953. But he continually negates that credibility when he defends Israel.

That stated, I wish to focus on five troubling passages from Obama’s Cairo speech. Those passages are particularly upsetting because they could have been stated by Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, McCain, Palin or other right-wing extremists and/or any NeoCon. I will first present the five excerpts initially without comment, followed by comments for each excerpt. The five excerpts are as follows:

EXCERPT # 1: Obama says the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. Here is a brief excerpt: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace."

EXCERPT # 2: Obama acknowledges that the CIA helped overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in a coup d'état in 1953. Here is a brief excerpt: "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government."

EXCERPT # 3: Obama says it is a fact beyond dispute or debate that Al-Qaida carried out the 9/11 attacks. Here is a brief excerpt: "We went [to Afghanistan] because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al-Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. […] They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with."

EXCERPT # 4: Obama says it is completely factual that six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, and anyone who challenges that point is ignorant and hateful. Here is a brief excerpt: "Six million Jews were killed [in the Holocaust]. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful."

EXCERPT # 5: Obama evokes the story of Isra. Here is a brief excerpt: [Evokes] "the story of Isra […] when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed […] joined in prayer."

==

Here are the same five excerpts presented with more text to provide context, followed by my response to each comment.

EXCERPT # 1: Obama says the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. Here is the full excerpt: "[…] Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security, neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank."

RESPONSE: I agree that Israel should stop building settlements in disputed lands, but I disagree with Obama’s two-state solution. Tension between Jewish citizens and Palestinians are more likely to relax if Israel transforms itself into a true democracy and grants full citizenship to Palestinians. But Israel opposes this approach because it wants to promote Jewish nationalism by only granting full citizenship to Jewish individuals. Israeli leaders often boast of being the only true democracy in the Middle East, but obviously this is a false assertion because true democracies do not discriminate on religious grounds. The two-state solution is an extension of that form of religious bigotry.

EXCERPT # 2: Obama acknowledges that the CIA helped overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in a coup d'état in 1953. Here is the full excerpt: "The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons. This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself, in part, by its opposition to my country. And there is, in fact, a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against but, rather, what future it wants to build."

RESPONSE: At first I thought this was a positive admission by Obama. But after observing the ensuing unrest in Iran, it is possible that the American president was sending Iranian leadership the following message: We overthrew your government before, we can do it again! Personally, I do not believe Obama or the CIA or the Mossad has the power to overthrow Ayatollah Khamenei’s and President Ahmadinejad’s current government. Iran is not Iraq, and Ahmadinejad is a more charismatic and beloved figure than Saddam Hussein. Hezbolla is loyal to Ayatollah Khamenei whose Iranian Revolutionary Guards trained them and shamed Israel’s commandos during Israel’s brutal attack of Lebanon in the summer of 2006. It will take more than a few rabble rousers complaining about a fixed election to topple the current regime in Iran. Every poll shows that Ahmadinejad one the election by a substantial margin. Therefore, the claim of a fixed election does not ring true.

EXCERPT # 3: Obama says it is a fact that Al-Qaida carried out the 9/11 attacks. Here is the full excerpt: "The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al-Qaida and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice. We went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al-Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al-Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with. Make no mistake, we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military — we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict."

RESPONSE: This is vintage Bush speak. Again, this is another example of the highly sophisticated level of mendacity within both major political parties. Mr. Obama is open lying because he fears the forces that will be unleashed on him if he tells the truth about 9/11. Frankly, who can blame him for lying? If he is truthful on this particular topic, he will probably be killed in a Dallas second. Few Americans question the Afghanistan war because, overall, it went much better than the Iraq War. Quite simply, it is absolutely NOT a fact that Al-Qaida carried out the 9/11 attacks, as Obama claimed at Cairo. His words could have been uttered by Republicans Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, McCain, or Palin. We only accept that Al-Qaida carried out the 9/11 attacks because Bush and Cheney said so, but they provided no tangible evidence to support that claim. But again, the Afghanistan war went relatively well, so nobody really cares about that minor detail.

Keep in mind Bush and Cheney also asserted a connection between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al-Qaida. This was shown be a lie. Bush and Cheney further claimed that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger to build nuclear weapons. This was shown be a lie. Bush and Cheney repeatedly claimed that Iraq had stockpiles of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD). It was overtly stated that Iraq had chemical and biological WMDs, but it was strongly insinuated that they possessed nuclear WMD as well. All claims about WMDs were shown be total lies. But Bush and Cheney were aggressive about sticking to their stories. When former ambassador to Iraq, Joseph Wilson, publicly challenged Bush’s claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium from Niger to build nuclear weapons, the Bush administration retaliated by leaking to the press that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was an undercover CIA operative. That particular offense is a felony.

Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted, not of the felony charge of leaking classified information to the press (Valerie Plame's CIA employment status, that is), but for lying about that offense to investigators. There is no question that Libby leaked Plame's classified CIA status to New York Times reporter Judith Miller because she revealed his name to prosecutors when faced with hard time in jail. When the Valerie Plame scandal first broke, Bush vowed to fire any White House employee responsible for leaking classified information. Not long after Libby’s perjury conviction, President Bush broke that vow and commuted Libby's 30-month prison sentence. Bush also forced then-White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, to resign because McClellan had publicly defended Libby by telling White House reporters that he was not involved in the Valerie Plame scandal. The reason McClellan was forced out was because he was the public face for the Bush administration, which had little credibility after Libby's direct connection in the Plame scandal was revealed by Judith Miller. Bush replaced McClellan with the late Tony Snow who was seriously ill with colon cancer at the time. This was obviously a cynical move by the Bush Administration to soften questions from a hostile White House press corpse angry about being lied to regarding Scooter Libby's involvement in the Plame scandal.

One person who escaped criticism was Stephen John Hadley, one of Bush’s National Security Advisors. Hadley admitted he had added controversial text to Bush's January 28, 2003 State of the Union Address indicating that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Although Hadley claimed it was an innocent mistake, I never believed that for a minute. Scott McClellan wrote a stinging book, "What Happened," which claimed then-CIA director George Tenet warned Hadley, prior to the 2003 State of the Union Address, not to make the Iraq-Niger connection in another speech, but Hadley went ahead and added the text to the state of the union address anyway. How could that be a mistake?

My point is the Bush administration pushed numerous lies which have since been exposed. Given that, why should we believe their unsubstantiated claim that Al-Qaida carried out the 9/11 attacks? In addition, there is a tremendous leap in logic even if we accept that as fact. Why did we overthrow the Taliban government if we believed Al-Qaida carried out the 9/11 attacks? Answer: More Bush logic. Supposedly, the Taliban was friendly with Al-Qaida and allowed them to train in the mountains of Afghanistan. In other words, it’s guilt by association. But rather than ask Taliban leadership to give us Bin Laden and the Al-Qaida members who allegedly carried out the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration simply had the Northern Alliance overthrow the Taliban. Many have forgotten, however, that the Taliban government sent at least two communiqués to the Bush administration (prior to the American led assault that overthrew the Taliban) stating that they would turn over Osama Bin Ladin if the United States would provide evidence that he and Al-Qaida carried out the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban’s requests were ignored by the Bush Administration and their government in Afghanistan was quickly overthrown, but the Taliban has maintained resistance for several years.

The only known evidence of Obama’s claim that Al-Qaida carried out the 9/11 attacks was found shortly after the drug-dealing Northern Alliance overthrew the Taliban government. The so-called evidence was a highly questionable video of Bin Ladin (or someone disguised as Bin Ladin) speaking in Arabic. In the video, Bin Ladin supposedly made a reference to carrying out the 9/11 attacks. This is propaganda 101. The Bush administration did not have the courage to provide the video directly to anyone, so their fingerprints are not on it. This alone suggests the video is a forgery. Were they claiming they had no other evidence prior to toppling the Taliban government? Again, nobody wants to talk about that because the Afghanistan War went better than the Iraq War, so nobody really cares.

Prior to toppling the Taliban in 2001, apparently many people realized the guilt by association argument was weak, so an alternate propaganda program was pushed to turn politically correct Americans against the Taliban. Suddenly media figures were discussing how the Taliban men mistreated their women. Jay Leno gave his wife, Mavis Nicholson, a substantial bloc of air time on the Tonight Show in 2001 dedicated do the Taliban’s mistreatment of women. Obviously, mistreating women makes a society fair game for criticism, but not for mass invasion and overthrowing the government with military force. Keep in mind, America did not directly overthrow the Taliban. We used a group of drug dealers called the "Northern Alliance" to do the dirty work. The Taliban had outlawed narcotics although the Afghanistan mountains are fertile ground for opium production. It’s fairly obvious that the Bush administration paid the Northern Alliance in opium to overthrow the Taliban. It makes one wonder what other tasks the Northern Alliance did for the Bush administration to be given an entire nation whose primary product is opium. On the other hand, at least we liberated the women.

Another critical aspect of the 9/11 attacks is the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). When an aircraft flies out of control, NORAD jets quickly intercept it or shoots it down. Where were the NORAD jets on 09/11/2001? In short, 9/11 was a physical impossibility without somebody from the inside telling the NORAD jets to stand down and allow the attacks to occur.

How could this happen? Previously, I mentioned how Rahm Emanuel’s father was a member of Irgun, the Jewish terrorist group that blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1946 (killing 90 people). In that attack, Jewish terrorists disguised themselves as Arabs. This is a well-documented historical fact. So it seems highly plausible that a new generation of Jewish terrorists might have tried a similar tactic on 9/11 where they carried out the attack and blamed it on Arabs. How else would you explain the stand down of the NORAD jets? The 9/11 attacks created a pretext for attacking Iraq to fulfill the Old Testament vision of expanding "The Land of Israel" (Hebrew: Eretz Yisrael) from the Nile to the Euphrates. (This reference is made several times in the Old Testament, which includes Genesis 15:18, King James Version.)

I have presented a series of facts related to the 9/11 attacks. All of these facts provide mountains of reasonable doubt to Obama’s claim that (a) Al-Qaida carried out the 9/11 attacks, and (b) the Bush administration was justified in blaming the Taliban for its association with Al-Qaida, even though the Taliban offered to give Bin Laden to the Bush Administration if Bush provided evidence of Al-Qaida’s involvement in 9/11. In a nutshell, Obama said of the so-called Al-Qaida attack on 9/11, that these "are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with." He’s close. They are not "opinions." They are obvious *lies* that must be dealt with.

EXCERPT # 4: Obama says it is completely factual that six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, and anyone who challenges that point is ignorant and hateful. Here is the full excerpt: "America's strong bonds with Israel are well-known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied. Around the world the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries. And anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews is deeply wrong and only serves to evoke in the minds of the Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve."

RESPONSE: Ignorant and hateful? Excuse me, when did President Obama become an expert in history? He is an educated man, but history is not his forte. He studied political science with a specialization in international relations and eventually received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) from Harvard Law School. He’s an expert in the fields of politics and law, but has no more expertise in world history than a high school senior on the honor roll.

Obama was obviously directing his harsh rhetoric at Ahmadinejad, a man with an undergraduate degree in civil engineering, and a PhD in transportation engineering and planning from Iran University of Science and Technology. So it seems quite inappropriate for Obama to insinuate that someone of Ahmadinejad’s high academic level is ignorant when Obama himself has no special training or expertise in the field of history. We would expect such inappropriate comments from the likes of Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, McCain, or Palin, but not from a highly educated articulate liberal-minded guy like Obama. Frankly, Bush is too ignorant to participate in any historical debate, but the others (even Palin) know a thing or two about the Holocaust.

The Holocaust is extremely sensitive and controversial. So calling another world leader names over that issue is not only inappropriate, it is dangerous. As previously stated, I personally blame Obama’s inflammatory comments about the Holocaust for the death of Stephen Tyrone Johns, the 39-year-old security guard fatally shot at the Holocaust Museum on June 10, 2009. The accused assailant is James von Brunn, an elderly man whom the American news media have collectively described as a "white supremacist." Unlike most news outlets, I will reserve judgment on Mr. von Brunn until he receives a fair trial. To my knowledge, no one actually witnessed the assault except the now deceased Mr. Johns, a Wachenhut security guard, and a few other Wachenhut security guards assigned to the Holocaust Museum. To be quite blunt, I do not fully trust the integrity of Wachenhut officials or their employees. The company openly employs retired CIA agents, retired FBI agents, retired military officers, all of which makes them correctly vulnerable to charges of governmental conspiracy and linkage to political assassinations. Critics of Wachenhut have accused them of involvement in the murders of labor union activist Karen Silkwood and famed ex-Beatle John Lennon (the latter accusation was made by yours truly).

Unless somebody can demonstrate that Mr. von Brunn is legally insane, what is the motive for murdering a security guard at the Holocaust Museum? Mr. von Brunn could have murdered any number of prominent people whose deaths would have impacted America’s relationship with Israel more than shooting a random security guard. This point alone suggests that the entire shooting may have been an inside job, and von Brunn was merely a patsy. How could such a plan be carried out? Here’s a hypothesis: Remember, the only witnesses were the security guards. It is plausible that a professional hit man was brought in by Wackenhut to pose as a security guard. Then von Brunn was asked to meet somebody at the Holocaust Museum. When he arrived, the hit man intentionally shot him and the guard (Mr. Johns), threw the murder weapon (a rifle) beside von Brunn and told people that von Brunn walked in the museum carrying the weapon and shot the other guard. That cover story was disseminated by the DC police officials, who in turn described it to local reporters who quickly broadcast it to the world through their respective media outlets. But von Brunn is expected to live, so one of two things will probably occur. Option A: He may be an informant for ADL or the FBI already. If this is true, he will simply be paid to play the public role of villain. If that doesn’t work, Option B will be implemented, which means he will probably be killed.

Notwithstanding Wackenhut’s highly questionable credibility, a guard (a real live human being) at the Holocaust Museum was murdered, and it is quite apparent that the stated crime was a direct reaction to Obama’s harsh words about the Holocaust in his Cairo speech, which occurred six days before Stephen Johns was gunned down at the Holocaust Museum. The blood of that crime is on Obama’s hands.

The truth is many intellectuals have for years challenged the reliability of the stated six million death toll. Clearly it is does not fall within the category of a "fact" that is beyond dispute, as Obama claims. Speaking of facts, here’s an interesting one. It is an absolute fact that government thugs, from Obama’s home state of Illinois, abducted German scholar Germar Rudolf and deported him to Germany to be tried for Holocaust Denial. The following text is from Germar Rudolf's website:

"Mr. Rudolf has authored, edited and published numerous academic articles, brochures, books, and magazines in the German and in the English languages both in his native Germany and abroad. Until his abrupt deportation from the United States in Nov. 2005, he was the owner of a university-press-style publishing house that focused on detailed scientific and archival studies of well-defined historical topics. He is lauded as an academic of high standards by many professors from around the world. Yet the German authorities imprisoned him exactly because of his scholarly success, for his ground-breaking academic writings.

"Rudolf’s crime: he did not obey a German penal law that forces everybody to parrot the official version of a detail of German history. You may wonder what detail that may be, but to be sure, it does not matter, because a government that prescribes the writing of history by penal law is dictating to its citizens what to think, and that is the exact definition of a dictatorship. Period."

EXCERPT # 5: Obama evokes the story of Isra. Here is the full excerpt: "All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians could, can see their children grow up without fear, when the holy land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be, when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra — as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed — peace be upon them — joined in prayer."

RESPONSE: This is one of the more ridiculous parts of the Cairo speech. Previously, Obama lectured Ahmadinejad and others for denying basic historical facts. He accused Holocaust deniers of being ignorant and hateful. Then he switched gears and evoked a completely fabricated fairy tale known as the "story of Isra." He mentioned the "children of Abraham," then he evoked a story about Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed meeting and praying together. There is no historical evidence that Moses or Abraham ever existed at all, and that’s a fact. Jesus and Mohammed were historical figures and the central figures of Christianity and Islam, respectively. Their lives have been thoroughly documented by several non-religious sources. For the sake of discussion, however, let us assume that Moses or Abraham were real live human beings too. Even so, they would have died long before Jesus and Mohammed ever lived. And Jesus died long before Mohammed lived. Consequently, there is no way that Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed met and prayed together. This is obviously a religious fairy tale. Why does Obama lecture people for not believing the official version of the Holocaust, then he evokes a religious fairy tale? Talk about irony.
====

In closing, I sincerely hope Obama’s distorted view of middle eastern reality does not represent his view of other issues. Because of the Cairo speech, I have lost some faith in his ability to make progress in other areas; however, I realize he was pressured by AIPAC, his chief of staff (Rahm Emanuel) and others to publicly rebuke Ahmadinejad for challenging the Jewish Holy Grail known as the Holocaust. I hope Obama reforms health care in America in a positive way. I hope he gets the economy moving again. I hope he improves energy waste in America, but I am doubtful that he will get Arabs to lower the price of oil if he keeps supporting Israel in such a Bush-like manner. I hope, but am doubtful, that he will withdraw American troops from Iraq as he promised many times during the presidential campaign. His comments about the Holocaust and 9/11 have demonstrated that he is fully capable of lying openly and unashamedly.

For some reason Obama is obsessed with building up military forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He does not understand what many know to be true. Democracies imposed by force almost always fail. The puppet governments established in Iraq and Afghanistan will certainly collapse as soon as the Americans leave. It does not matter if we stay for ten more days, ten more months, or ten more years. Both governments will collapse when we leave! By prolonging the inevitable, Obama is merely attaching his name to Bush’s wars, which is essentially signing his own political death warrant. So we may as well leave immediately if Obama wants his other fronts to succeed.

To save face in Arab/Muslim nations, we must seriously consider punishing those individuals responsible for starting both wars with serious jail time or worse. Bush, Cheney, Stephen Hadley and other subordinates are war criminals, in my opinion. Punishing them severely is the only way to get the oil-producing nations of the world to respect America again after the misery inflicted on them during the Bush administration. The stated individuals can hide behind the Holocaust all they want, but eventually they will be revealed for the war criminals and liars that they are. Severe punishment of those responsible for starting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is not about revenge. It's a face saving device!

The differences between Arab/Muslim nations and Western nations may seem overwhelming at the moment, but it is a bad idea to make trouble with Iran. To even consider military action against Iran would be an extremely bad idea. Iran is not Iraq. If attacked, they will not lie down and take it. They will fight back hard. I expect Obama is under heavy pressure to deal with Iran in a manner that pleases the Israel lobby. Who knows, perhaps they're blackmailing Mr. Obama over an embarrassing event from his past. If so, the best advice I can give the new American president is to allow Ahmadinejad to make more statements about the Holocaust, then respond by taking a neutral stance on that topic. It would be a huge mistake to continue defending the Holocaust directly because it is a complex and controversial topic. Defending something like that could put anyone in a vulnerable position. The point is to allow Ahmadinejad to speak repeatedly on that topic because there is a good chance that his words alone will weaken the Israel lobby by planting the seeds of doubt in the minds of liberal American Jews. This approach will only strengthen Obama's hand.

One more thing, Mr. Obama. You really need to get rid of your current White House Chief of Staff. He's got too much baggage and the Arab/Muslim nations will think you're a joke with someone like him on your team. If you're afraid to fire him because he's blackmailing you, be creative. (For example, many Jewish people love Arabic food. Take the chief to the nicest Lebanese restaurant in Washington, DC. Then make sure the head chef knows that the son of a former Irgun member is about to have dinner there.) It's amazing what some people will do for a hundred dollars, especially if the request is made at the behest of the president.