Opinions- Bush or Rice—Who is Boss? what do you think?

C. answered to the question asked in OMEDIA, see article below

 

The CFR runs the show.  Rice and Bush are just figureheads to shroud the real power behind the scenes.  MARK IT DOWN - THEY ARE FOLLOWING ORDERS FROM THE CFR, WHOSE CHIEF IS ARCHBISHOP EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN WHO GETS HIS ORDERS FROM BENEDICT XVI WHO GETS HIS ORDERS FROM THE JESUIT GENERAL.  The Jesuit General, who at this time is about to be replaced (probably a younger and more vibrant one in order to face the mounting world crises, especially in Israel) is the chess player while Bush, Rice, and political leaders are the pieces.  His delegated powerful key instruments include the Knights of Malta, with SMOM King Juan Carlos overseeing the Middle East.  Henry Kissinger of the CFR of New York and Tony Blair of the RIIA of London (Chatham House) have a major hand in Israel's politics, even though they work in the shadows away from public view.

 

One has to get the big picture of who is calling the shots in Israel.  Casting the blame on the surface puppets just leads to speculation.  The "Roadmap to Peace" is a smokescreen term for "Plan for War" engineered by the man at the top in order to further his progress toward a New World Order and establish his headquarters in Jerusalem - removing it from the beloved true Israelites to whom G-D has promised in his eternal covenant made with Abraham since Genesis 12.

 

C.

Omedia : Policy - Opinions- Bush or Rice—Who is Boss?

Opinions Bush or Rice—Who is Boss? During his visit to Israel can the US president close the gap between Secretary of State Rice's biased policy and his own support for Israel (Op-Ed) Dr Joel Fishman (1/9/2008) The writer is a fellow with a Jerusalem-based research institute American president George W Bush will pay an official visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority starting Wednesday. As we await his arrival, however, the question we should be asking is where does the president stand? Because the president does not make his views apparent in public. Past presidents who visited Israel were Nixon, Carter, and Clinton. Their visits were linked to miscellaneous peace processes and we sometimes saw unpleasant incidents while they were here. For example, President Clinton attended a Palestinian parliamentary session when a theatrical ceremony was held revoking the clauses of the "Palestinian Charter" calling for the destruction of Israel. Now that was a real sham. Nor will we forget the time Suha Arafat accused Israel of poisoning the water in Gaza in front of Hilary Clinton, who had no answer for her. Rice: Dangerous Naiveté These events are important because they show an ignorance of the basic facts. Today, just like in Clinton's day, US policy makers refuse to believe that the Palestinians reject all solutions leading to official recognition of the Jewish state, and to abandoning terror and incitement to violence, instilling hatred, and the murder of Israeli civilians. Although Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has already voiced her views, the president's views remain unclear because he conveys another message. A week ago, Ha'aretz newspaper correspondent Aluf Ben wrote that Rice (perhaps naively) has an exaggerated sense of identification with the Palestinians, making her see reality in a simplistic and personal way. According to Rice's view, the Israelis are like the white racists of the American south, while the Palestinians resemble their black victims, which means that they merit unreserved compassion. According to Rice, the right is with the Palestinians. At the end of November, after the Annapolis conference, she tried, and failed, to get the Security Council to adopt the conference agreements as an official resolution and thus enable the UN to interfere legally in the conflict. When the Israeli government learned this, the prime minister protested the move and the US envoy withdrew his proposal. This incident is proof of unfairness towards Israel unseen since the days of Secretary of State James Baker and President Jimmy Carter. So, in effect, Condoleeza Rice has eliminated herself as an honest broker. Who is boss? Although Rice's views are well known, the president's are not. There are several possibilities. President Bush and his wife have tried to foster warm relations with the American Jewish community and individual Jews. On Chanukah, for example, the president invited Jews to light Chanukah candles at the White House. There he paid special attention to Judea and Ruth Pearl, the parents of journalist Daniel Pearl, who was murdered by terrorists in Pakistan. Not long ago, the president held a reception for American Jewish leaders and dignitaries, which was also attended by Israeli Knesset member Yuli Edelstein. Some say he has received representatives of the settlers from Judea and Samaria and that there were tears in his eyes as he listened to their claims. The president is also an ardent fan of Natan Sharansky, and has received him at the White House and recommended his book (jointly authored with Ron Dermer) "The Case for Democracy". He even quipped that he and Sharanksy "share the same DNA". So something jars here. On the one hand, it seems the president feels warmly towards the Jews, while on the other hand his Secretary of State has swallowed the Palestinian narrative and is effectively implementing a hostile American policy towards Israel. It is worthwhile noting that Rice is largely responsible for the dangerous situation now in Gaza, because it was she who forced Israel to consent to having a border crossing between Gaza and Egypt without an Israeli army presence (November 2005) and she—together with the president—pressed for elections in the Palestinian Authority in 2006. From which Hamas emerged the winner. The price of these momentous errors will be paid by the Israelis and the Palestinians long after Rice and Bush have exited the political stage. Under the American constitution, the Secretary of State takes orders directly from the president. Naturally the American State Department has its own special agenda and working methods, but the final decision is the president's. For example, President Truman in his day recognized the state of Israel despite fierce objection from the State Department. In other words, if the president supports a policy he has the authority to see it is carried out. However, there could be another explanation: that President Bush is playing the "good cop" and being nice to the Jews, while Condoleeza Rice is playing the "bad cop" and doing the boss's dirty work. So the question is does the president actually favor Rice's policy, or is Rice really the one setting the tone in Washington. If Bush truly supports Israel, it is time for him to prove his support through action. In other words, he must reject the Secretary of State's one-sided policy and adopt a fairer and more balanced approach towards the Jewish state.