Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
Bill Clinton’s relationship with “the Jews” was a complex one during the nineties and resists easy classification. His affinity for the globalizing and financializing tendencies of these years is well-known; but the president’s relationship with the Israel lobby was more problematic. “Perhaps the most ambitious, and certainly one of the most remarkable examples of coercion,” writes John Hughes-Wilson in The Secret State, was “the astonishing attempt by Israel to blackmail Bill Clinton, the President of the most powerful country on earth, the United States.”1 “The trap closed in October 1998, when Clinton called the Wye River Summit with Benjamin Netanyahu (replacing the assassinated Yitzak Rabin) plus Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, in an attempt to keep the doomed Oslo peace process alive,” Hughes-Wilson reveals:
In the margins of this high-level summitry Netanyahu quietly dropped his bombshell: he informed a startled Bill Clinton that the Israelis had hard evidence from White House phone-taps that the President had had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Despite the President’s very public TV denials to the American people that, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” Netanyahu knew that Clinton was lying. Moreover, he could prove it, and openly threatened to expose him with incriminating tapes, which Mossad had collected. In return for keeping his mouth shut, the Israeli Prime Minister demanded the release of Jonathan Pollard, an American Jew who had spied for Israel. This was blackmail and an attempt at compromise at the very highest level. […]
The Israelis, who take great pride in always bringing their boys home, lobbied hard for Pollard’s release, without result. It took until 1998 for Netanyahu to admit that Pollard was an Israeli agent. Next Netanyahu demanded his release, and followed this up with his threat to blackmail the President.
However, when a worried Clinton quietly brought Israel’s demand for Pollard’s release to the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, he “blew his top”, angrily pointing out that Pollard had sold classified information to South Africa and Pakistan as well as Israel and threatened to resign on the spot should Clinton cave in and release the convicted traitor.
The entire US intelligence community threatened to rebel if Pollard was released to keep the Israelis and the Jewish lobby happy. The result was that the Lewinsky affair eventually petered out after the story came out anyway and was followed by an attempt to impeach President Clinton for perjury. That failed, thanks to plentiful Jewish bribes on Capitol Hill and dark threats to expose several well-known Republican Senators who, like the randy Bill Clinton, just couldn’t keep their flies zipped.
Clinton ultimately declined the Israeli request to release Pollard, since when the government of Israel and their well-funded and numerous mouthpieces in the US have lobbied hard for a pardon, claiming that a convicted spy is really a martyr and a loyal Jew – as if that somehow makes the traitor’s crimes against America and betrayal no crime at all.2
As Hughes-Wilson’s “Jewish bribes” reference suggests, there were other Jewish interests, perhaps even more powerful than the Israel lobby, that worked at cross-purposes with the Likud faction led by Netanyahu and favored Clinton’s continuation in the Oval Office.
Gordon Thomas gives a somewhat different account in his book Gideon’s Spies. “In Tel Aviv,” he writes, “Mossad’s strategies [sic] pondered how to use the highly embarrassing taped conversations; they were the stuff of blackmail – though no one suggested any attempt should be made to blackmail the president of the United States.” Aryan Skynet leaves to readers’ judgment the question of whether such scrupulousness is characteristic of Israeli intelligence. “Some, however,” Thomas adds vaguely, “saw the recordings as a potent weapon to be used if Israel found itself with its back to the wall in the Middle East and unable to count on Clinton’s support.”3 Is it possible that this “potent weapon” would be deployed, not simply to assist an Israel “with its back to the wall”, but in an effort to initiate a superfluous war in the Jewish state’s interest?
Clinton’s relationship with the Zionists, initially more hospitable, had soured somewhat over the course of his presidency. As Michael Collins Piper theorizes, this was in part due to Clinton’s handling of the Oklahoma City bombing case and his resistance to lobbying efforts for an Iraq invasion at that time:
My theory was that, while, yes, indeed, the United States government was very much involved in covering up the truth about Oklahoma City, the reason why the Clinton administration and his Justice Department and the FBI were so adamant in trying to do this was because, in my opinion, and I think it’s an informed opinion […] it was because they realized that this attack in Oklahoma City was not the work of homegrown terrorists […] but, in fact, it was a conspiracy hatched abroad, specifically by the government of Israel, and the purpose of the conspiracy […] was ultimately what was achieved after 9/11; but I think that the Clinton administration, which had been resisting strong pressures from the neoconservatives to invade Iraq […] didn’t want to go to war against Saddam Hussein, and therefore it was part of their program to limit the investigation, limit the inquiry into who Timothy McVeigh was, who he was dealing with, and just try to limit it to Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols […] but, if anything, in this particular case, and I know I’ll upset a lot of people by saying this […] I think the U.S. government actually did the American people a service and kept us from becoming involved in the endless wars of Israel in the Middle East […]4
This ploy, if Piper is indeed correct as to how the Oklahoma City bombing was utilized, was unsuccessful in achieving its aims. Coming to the Zionists’ aid, however, was Clinton’s involvement with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. After Newsweek squashed plans to publish reporter Michael Isikoff’s exposé on the subject, Matt Drudge broke the story through a communications novelty known as the “World Wide Web” on January 17th, 1998. Mossad, however, had long been aware of the Lewinsky affair – and so had Hollywood. The “eerily prescient” Wag the Dog had its premiere exactly a month before, on December 17th, 1997, going into wide release on January 9th, more than a week before The Drudge Report broke open Monicagate. The movie had been in preproduction in 1996, months before Tripp began recording Lewinsky calls. The film’s director, Barry Levinson, was furthermore in something of a rush to get the movie made, as Variety reported at the time:
Barry Levinson is close to agreeing to direct Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro in Wag the Dog, a David Mamet-scripted drama for New Line, sources said.
The film will be produced by Jane Rosenthal, president of Tribeca Productions, and is a co-production between Tribeca, Hoffman’s Punch Prods. and Levinson’s Baltimore Pictures. […]
Although the deal isn’t completed, Wag the Dog is expected to be Levinson’s next film, with a Jan. 13  start date. He was to have directed the big-budget adaptation of Michael Crichton’s underwater novel Sphere, with Hoffman and Andre Braugher. That film’s fall start was pushed back to March by Levinson […]
In the meantime, Levinson’s enthusiasm for Wag was bolstered by a recent all-star cast reading at the Peninsula Hotel, overseen by Rosenthal. Levinson received permission last week from reluctant Warner Bros. executives to slip the film in. He’ll try to shoot the pic in less than 30 days, then jump almost immediately back into Sphere.5
Levinson poses as a liberal – claiming, for instance, to be “appalled” by Israeli treatment of Palestinians6 – but screenwriter David Mamet has made no secret of his brutal and uncompromising commitment to Zionist militancy. Haaretz describes him as “a neoconservative fighter who is out to shatter the ‘dogma’ of the liberal left and defends Israel aggressively.” Regarding the “Iranian nuclear threat”, Mamet “likened the West’s attitude toward Israel to the sacrifice of Isaac, to the ancient rite of sacrificing the beloved son in order to appease the wrath of the gods.” More specifically, the playwright “attributes to the American left an approach that rejects Israel’s existence and wishes to hand the country over to the Arabs, who want to liquidate it.”7 The source material for Wag the Dog is supposed to have been Larry Beinhart’s 1993 novel American Hero, which, however, is concerned with Operation Desert Storm and President George H.W. Bush’s reelection – not Bill Clinton and a girl in a beret8. One is left to speculate where Mamet and his collaborators got the inspiration to spice up Wag the Dog with such predictive specificity.
Randy Laist, in his book Cinema of Simulation: Hyperreal Hollywood in the Long 1990s, explains the way in which the movie exacerbated public perceptions of the Clinton administration’s disingenuousness:
Wag the Dog [is] a movie about a presidency derailed by an affair with a younger woman […] As if the timing of the film’s anticipation of the real scandal were not compelling enough, when Wag the Dog shows a brief video clip of the president with the girl, the fictional footage is strikingly reminiscent, or pre-miniscent, of the now-famous video tape of Clinton greeting Lewinsky in a rope line. In both the movie video and the news video, the president leans in to embrace the girl, and in both versions, the girl is clad in a memorable dark beret. Later that summer, when Clinton ordered cruise missiles to bomb sites in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation for acts of terrorism committed by individuals allegedly harbored by the governments of these countries, it was inevitable that he would be accused of wagging the dog […]9
Indeed, this is the way in which some commentators approached their coverage of the opening volleys in the looming “War on Terror”. “Secretary of Defense William Cohen was asked by reporters yesterday if the administration was trying to hand the country a ‘Wag the Dog’ scenario,” SFGate reported on August 21st, 1998.
Cohen flat-out denied it, but the moment was unprecedented.
In the midst of justifying a military action, a member of the president’s Cabinet was being asked if the government might not be stealing material from Hollywood. […]
In the movie, the timing of the attack couldn’t have been better, but yesterday’s timing rivals it. Without the attack, the lead story on every news broadcast last night – and every newspaper this morning – would have been Monica Lewinsky’s reappearance before independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s grand jury. The military action came on the very day that Lewinsky was expected to dispute details of the president’s grand jury testimony.
But there’s no connection between a fictional film and the bloody realities of the past week, said the movie’s executive producer, Claire Rudnick Polstein.10
Clinton eventually caved and launched a “degrading” series of bombings of Iraq (dubbed Operation Desert Fox – a sly reference to Lewinsky?)11 in December 1998 which, conveniently enough, coincided with the impeachment hearings resulting from the investigation of Kenneth Starr, who – it may or may not be relevant to note – later joined Israel booster Alan Dershowitz as defense counsel for infamous character Jeffrey Epstein12.
Another potential Israeli use for the Lewinsky tapes, Gordon Thomas indicates, involved a sensitively placed Mossad agent in the White House, codenamed Mega:
[…] the FBI had begun to explore the role Mega could have had in the way Jonathan Pollard had been run. Had Mega been the source for some of the ultrasecret material Pollard had passed on? The FBI had recently interviewed Pollard in prison and he had admitted that even his high security clearance had not been enough to obtain some of the documents his handler, the funereal [Yosef] Yagur, had requested. The FBI knew such documents had a special code word through which they had to be accessed, which changed frequently, sometimes even on a daily basis. Yet Yagur had seemed to know the code within a matter of hours to give to Pollard. Had Mega provided it? […]
There was a common consensus that the FBI must also be aware of the conversations between Clinton and Lewinsky. Some strategists urged [Mossad chief Danny] Yatom to use “the back-door channel” with Washington and let the FBI know Mossad was aware of the president’s phone calls: it would be a not-very-subtle way of telling the agency to back off in their continuing hunt for Mega. Other analysts urged a wait-and-see policy, arguing that the information would remain explosive whenever it was released. That view prevailed.13
When Drudge eventually broke the Lewinsky drama, its timing and ethnic flavor prompted Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to suggest yet another use for the scandal during a 1998 appearance on Meet the Press. “I look at Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp, and Monica Lewinsky, and I ask myself, ‘Why was this introduced at this time when [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu was being pressured by the president to give up more land on the West Bank?’”14 Tripp, a Pentagon employee who had previously worked for Army Intelligence15, was encouraged by literary agent Lucianne Goldberg, to whom she was introduced by Tony Snow of Fox News16, to secretly record conversations with Lewinsky.
Goldberg (née Steinberger) is an interesting character in her own right. She worked at The Washington Post as a teenager, caught on with the Democratic National Committee, and allegedly boasted at one time of having had an affair with Israel-friendly commander-in-chief Lyndon Johnson17. She married Sidney Goldberg, an editor with the North American Newspaper Alliance, which, according to Gene Lyons and Joe Conason, “was exposed as a media conduit for the Central Intelligence Agency.”18 In 1972, Goldberg worked undercover for the Nixon reelection campaign, insinuating herself into the McGovern milieu with the purpose of learning “sexy” details of “who is sleeping with whom and things like that.”19
Linda Tripp, interestingly, was not the only controversial figure with whom Goldberg would involve herself in her capacity as a literary agent. She also represented “white supremacist” neo-Nazi-connected LAPD officer Mark Fuhrman, whose strange media success caused Michael Collins Piper to wonder aloud whether Fuhrman was not an LAPD liaison of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith20. (The ADL has been known to ensconce its agents with various “right-wing” groups. In a notorious instance, ADL spy Roy Bullock, who had a “long history of working closely with police departments” in California, was revealed to have infiltrated dozens of political organizations21 – a case discussed at length by Piper in his book The Judas Goats22.)
Tripp, during her time at the White House, worked under attorneys Bernard Nussbaum and Vincent Foster. Nussbaum resigned after advising Clinton not to allow an independent counsel investigation of Whitewater. It is interesting to note, however, that at the time of Starr’s appointment, one of the objections raised by the Clinton administration’s conservative critics was that the new independent counsel had “past lawyerly associations” with Nussbaum23 – who, it is also very interesting to observe, had a history of lobbying against Iraq on behalf of the Zionist state24 and later represented Larry Silverstein in his insurance litigation following the World Trade Center attacks in addition to petitioning President Obama to commute Jonathan Pollard’s prison sentence25. Tripp, however, seems to have had a falling out with Nussbaum, who had recommended attorney Kirby Behr to her, Salon’s Jeff Stein reports in an article dimly illuminating the murky chaos of the series of events and calling the nature of Nussbaum’s relationship with Tripp into question:
Tripp’s first lawyer was Kirby Behr, who Goldberg said had a “hissy fit” when another lawyer showed up in his office last January, announced he was Tripp’s new counsel and demanded the tapes. “He ran around the office screaming and said, ‘How do I know you’re not a criminal?’ and ‘Your client is a wack-job’” […]
Tripp fired Behr because he was a friend of former White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum, who had recommended Behr to her, Goldberg said. “That made Linda very uncomfortable.” But the end came when Tripp showed up at Behr’s office with a tape of Lewinsky implicating President Clinton’s friend Vernon Jordan in the affair.
“Behr went ballistic and said, ‘I’m calling Bob Bennett right now,’” Goldberg recalled. Bennett was – and still is – Clinton’s personal lawyer. Tripp, according to Goldberg, said coolly: “I don’t think so.” Behr was gone, but nobody knew how many tapes he might have copied.
Next to represent her was James Moody, a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency whom Goldberg recommended. Tripp soon replaced him, too, but not before he had made his own copies of the tapes. “Jim Moody did a lot of copying and didn’t tell her,” Goldberg charged. “She fired him because he’s a loon. And he was too much of a player with the media.”26
Complicating matters is the fact that Nussbaum, in addition to serving as Clinton’s counsel, also worked with the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, one of whose attorneys, George Conway, entertained a “low view of President Clinton” and according to The New York Times was the person who recommended Jim Moody to Linda Tripp. “As it turns out, some of the most serious damage to Bill Clinton’s presidency came not from his high-profile political enemies but from a small secret clique of lawyers […] who share a deep antipathy toward the President, according to nearly two dozen interviews and recently filed court documents,” Don Van Natta and Jill Abramson reported in 1999. “While cloaking their roles, the lawyers were deeply involved – to an extent not previously known – for nearly five years in the Paula Jones sexual misconduct lawsuit. They then helped push the case into the criminal arena and into the office of the independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr.” The Conway group’s leader, Van Natta and Abramson claim, “was Jerome M. Marcus, a 39-year-old associate at the Philadelphia law firm of Berger & Montague, whose partners are major contributors to the Democratic Party.” Marcus “helped arrange for Mrs. Tripp to take her explosive allegations to Starr.”27 Berger & Montague’s website also boasts of the firm’s litigations against Swiss banks and German businesses on behalf of “Holocaust” survivors28.
Al Gore’s potential function in the Clinton impeachment affair may also warrant scrutiny. “The fact that Vice President Al Gore had been favorably inclined toward Likud, Netanyahu’s party, led some to think that the impeachment of Clinton would benefit the Israeli hardliners – another clear sign of conspiracy” among Arab observers, writes Marjorie Garber29. “On the day Mr. Gore formally declared his candidacy in June 1999,” The New York Times reported, “ABC News broadcast an interview with the vice president in which Mr. Gore repeatedly distanced himself from the president, voicing disappointment over Mr. Clinton’s behavior with Monica S. Lewinsky, the White House intern with whom he had an affair.”30 Was this distance merely political expediency – or did something more substantial divide them? Given, too, the fact that Zionist stalwart Joseph Lieberman would join Gore on the presidential ticket in 2000, one is left to wonder whether the whole “War on Terror” debacle might not have played out in much the same fashion even if Bush had not “won” the election.