JEDDAH, 8 May — Arkansas has never been one of the most well-known states in the US and Bill Clinton’s election as president was a major event there. Before becoming president, Clinton was governor of Arkansas for many years. His family owns business projects in the state, the most famous being the Whitewater project. When Clinton moved to Washington, his interests also shifted from Arkansas to Washington and the federal government. That was of course only natural. The federal government is what links the 50 states to one another. Its laws and regulations are applicable in all states, superior to state laws, which differ from one state to another. Federal tax, imposed on both individuals and institutions, is the artery of the government, being its only source of revenue. Thus in the US, tax evasion is a major crime. One may escape punishment for murder and rape but not for tax evasion. For example, when Leona Helmsley was convicted of tax evasion, she was jailed and her property confiscated. On the other hand, OJ Simpson, who was accused of murder on very strong evidence, received no punishment — in spite of the allegations against Simpson being proved by DNA testing.
The federal government protects major US companies as part of its strategy. This policy sometimes triggers political conflicts with other countries as happened in the case of the recent steel tariffs. We all remember that the US Congress mobilized its forces and set up committees to investigate the Clintons and Whitewater.
Whitewater was a small real estate project. Why then did it move US lawmakers? Because it represented a good source of revenue for the federal government. The congressmen were not happy with Clinton’s Israeli policy as they wanted his total support for the Jewish state. The first lady’s words of praise for the Islamic and Arab heritage after her Morocco visit might had provoked them. Congress took no notice that the accused were the president and his wife. The pressure on Clinton did not end with Whitewater. They also exploited his affair with Monica Lewinsky and tried to impeach him with the support of the Israeli lobby and international Zionism. But Clinton defeated the impeachment with the support of the public and after taking a pro-Israeli stand.
Let us now look at the bankruptcy of Enron, the fifth largest company in the US. Its annual revenues were estimated at $162.4 billion and was the largest bankruptcy in US history. Enron had a strategic position in terms of federal revenue. Its collapse also affected a large number of investors, inside and outside the country. But the strangest thing is that this big issue did not move Congress as the Whitewater case had done. And this was so in spite of the strong evidence of the involvement of Vice President Cheney. Why did Congress keep silent?
Those who study the case of Enron will find that the Israeli lobby and international Zionism did not use the issue to topple the Bush government. The government apparently tried to cool public reaction to the bankruptcy. The vice president, with the support of White House, refused to submit Enron’s files.
How can we explain the stand of the US Congress and the judiciary on this matter? We know that Andersen, the auditors of Enron, received all kinds of favor from the American judiciary. On the other hand, the judiciary put more pressure on Andersen than on the company’s management.
I would like to ask a question to those who read this article: Has there been any kind of deal between the US government and the Zionist lobby in the Enron case? Why was the vice president kept away at the beginning of the war on Afghanistan? Why did the vice president disappear from the limelight, citing security reasons? Was it because of a deal between the US government and the Zionists including the Israeli lobby to whom the vice president was sympathetic?
One may ask why I link the silence of the US lawmaking body and judiciary to Zionist influence.
My answers are:
o Enron’s bankruptcy is the largest in US history and is the biggest loss for the federal government in terms of revenues.
o The Zionist lobby has showed its influence by supporting some candidates and defeating other candidates or officeholders through financing and other pressure tools.
o Because of Zionist influence on the media in general and on the US media in particular, the media did not highlight the Enron case.
o The Democratic Party did not make Enron a big issue, apparently because it was influenced by the Zionist lobby.
o The US president intervened personally to suppress European interference with Sharon’s massacre of Palestinians.
This means the Zionist lobby has strong influence on American decision-makers. US lawmakers (Congressmen) and the American executive (presidents) are rarely elected without the support of the Zionist lobby. In the light of this, I can see only the Israeli lobby’s hand in suppressing the Enron case.
Let us now examine the present Israeli massacres in Palestine, which are without equal since World War II. The US president tells us that he can understand what the Israelis are doing. Why did he ignore the views of his European allies and take it as a personal issue? Can anybody believe that this is the thinking of a person ruling the world’s most powerful country — unless he was pushed by some force? Will the truth of Israel’s massacres lead to the downfall of the presidency and the Zionists playing the Enron card? How can we compare Irangate, which almost toppled the government of Reagan, with the Enron bankruptcy, which was the largest in US history.
The million-dollar question is: Did the Zionists do a deal of Enron for Sharon?
