It's a shame that Cheney's 1994
words couldn't have been thrown in his face in 2002 and '03, before the
invasion. Forcing him to explain why he no longer believed the war would lead
to a quagmire would have been a useful exercise and why, when he became Vice
President, appointed neocon Irving Lewis “Scooter” Libby
as his Chief of Staff. It's nice that it's come out now, but at this late date
it only confirms what most Americans believe about a vice president they detest
and a war they no longer support.
Of course, the Neocons simply claimed that "9/11
What and who is a neocon you may ask? The in depth
study/report below is the result of many hours of research in an attempt to
answer the question.
The following is the result
of research done on the internet, reading periodicals and books, viewing C-SPAN
etc. which began one year prior to the invasion of Iraq. In doing the research it became apparently clear that
a group of individuals within and outside of the U.S. government were
influencing the direction of our foreign policy not to our benefit but for the
benefit of a foreign country. Some allegedly profited
from the war. Many of these individuals had dual
loyalties, one to the U.S.(weak) and the other to a foreign
irony of it all is that these individuals have not been brought to account for
their complicity in taking us to war. Instead, they have either
resigned from their government positions (Douglas
Feith , Richard
Perle) or been appointed to a new job such as the head of the World
Wolfowitz). Some have taken on a low profile while others, now
that the U.S. pre-emptive invasion of Iraq has met with insurmountable
obstacles, are still appearing on TV
talk shows, C-SPAN, writing Op-Ed pieces etc. trying to justify
their positions on the invasion of Iraq and
the blame for the failure on our military leaders. They cannot save
their discredited and bloodstained ideology; they can only try saving certain
Scooter Libby) from spending a good deal of time behind
bars where they belong. If they succeed then justice will not have been served.
As one radio talk show host
stated that these neocons should be held liable for their mistakes similar to a
surgeon who recommends an operation and due to his incompetence makes a mistake
and the patient either dies or is crippled for life. These neocons should be
dereliction of duty, malfeasance
in office and manslaughter
in the second degree .
the following and decide for yourself if what I have found does or does not
support my thesis.
genesis of the war on Iraq
the neocons hijacked the “war on terror”
update 5 / 22 / 08
The war against Iraq has
polarized Americans before the first shot was fired. And as the war was brought
home with nonstop frontline images, the lines between pro- and anti-war have
solidified, especially as U.S. and coalition forces began to take casualties in
the “post war insurrection”.
Polls show the sharpest
dividing line between those who support U.S. policy in Iraq and those who
oppose it is between Republicans and Democrats. The war
in Iraq has divided America like nothing since Vietnam, and that the hate
we once reserved for terrorists we are now spewing at one another.
We have spent a fortune attacking a
country that had done us no harm, killing tens of thousands of its people
and giving the United States a black eye as an aggressor that starts wars on
the basis of lies and disinformation. Two years (3/20/2003) after the
invasion of Iraq, discontent
with America and its policies has intensified rather than diminished.
article in USA
Today James Webb, a Marine platoon and company commander
in Vietnam whom Ronald Reagan named as his secretary of the Navy wrote –“ Bush arguably has committed the greatest
strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong
target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more
than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly
threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage
of our military in a region that never has known peace.”
And with criticism mounting as
the conflict became more bloody, President Bush has found himself defending,
time and again, on how the war on terror led to Baghdad.
The question is often raised as
Q: What role should U.S. citizens play?
A: It's really essential that Americans take an
interest in learning about how this war began. That's really their
citizenship duty; otherwise they may see their sons and daughters coming home
in pine boxes. At the end of the day, though, it's the November elections that
will determine the course of the war.
Hopefully those of you who take the time
to read this web page will gain some insight as to who, what and why led this
nation to war.
In tracing the roots of America's war in Iraq I
decided to do some research on the Internet to try to learn the truth as to why
and how president Bush and his administration arrived at making the decision to
invade Iraq. I focused on a very influential group of individuals who were
brought in to the administration by V.P. Dick Cheney who are often referred to
or “neocons”. They said that the invasion would be a “cakewalk”
and the Iraqis
would greet our troops with flowers. How could such a small group of
individuals wield so much power in influencing U.S. foreign policy?
Individuals, many of whom, had as one of their primary reasons for the invasion, which was to protect the ally
Israel, and not because Iraq was a threat to the U.S.
18. The wars’
aftermath. Civil War or Civil Society?
19. Neocon whitewash?
20. The Generals Speak Out
21. Where Is the Exit Strategy?
22. The truth is finally being told. (Reporters with gullions!)
23. The "Israel Lobby" and its
influence on U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel
24. Post-war Iraq.
25. Postscript .
26. The Real Iraq We Knew .
27. Last Goodbye: US Soldiers from Iraq War .
The 1991 Gulf war
Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie’s response to Saddam Hussein
It is possible to ague, however (and many have done so), that Glaspie's
statements that "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts"
and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" were
interpreted by Saddam as giving tacit approval of his annexation of Kuwait.
Since it is not now possible to know what was in Saddam's mind, this matter cannot
be resolved. Saddam was a dictator who had never visited a western country, and
who lived a in a world where disputes were routinely resolved by force. It is
therefore quite possible that he wrongly interpreted Glaspie's remarks.
It seems unlikely that Saddam would have invaded Kuwait had he been given
an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with force by the United
States, but Glaspie can only be criticised for not giving such a warning if it
can be established that she knew that Saddam was planning an invasion. There is
nothing in the transcripts to suggest this.
The most that can be argued is that, given the Iraqi troop build-up in the
Kuwait border area, she should have been instructed by the State Department to
give Saddam an explicit warning. Glaspie later testified that she had
given Saddam such a warning, but no mention of this appears in the published
transcripts. This is hardly surprising since these transcripts were released to
further Iraq's ends.
Edward Mortimer wrote in the New York Review of Books in September
"It seems [likely] that Saddam Hussein went ahead with the invasion
because he believed the US would not react with anything more than verbal
condemnation. That was an inference he could well have drawn from his meeting
with US Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, and from statements by State
Department officials in Washington at the same time publicly disavowing any US
security commitments to Kuwait."
Iran, and September 11: A Chronology
Jacob G. Hornberger,
December 19, 2002
had given Saddam a green light
The Iraqi Government still
insists that April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein in 1990 before his invasion
of Kuwait. Glaspie "...was informed of Iraq's plans and gave her de facto
approval." America and April Glaspie flatly deny this accusation:
"Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were
going to take all of Kuwait. -- Former Ambassador April Glaspie, in response to
accusations that the U.S. invited Saddam Hussein to take Kuwait" 4
In a May 27, 1999 Christian
Science Monitor article, Carleton Cole writes, "...from a translation
of Iraq's transcript of the meeting, released that September, press and pundits
concluded that Ms. Glaspie had (in effect) given Saddam a green light to
"We have no opinion on your
Arab-Arab conflicts," the transcript reports Glaspie saying, "...such
as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me
to emphasize the instruction...that Kuwait is not associated with
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We
have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with
Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the
instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not
associated with America. (Saddam smiles)
On August 2, 1990 four days
later, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____
In war, some
facts less factual
US assertions from the last war on Iraq still appear dubious.
| Staff writer of The Christian Science
September 06, 2002
More recently, in the fall
of 1990, members of Congress and the American public were swayed by the tearful
testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only as Nayirah.
In the girl's testimony
before a congressional caucus, well-documented in MacArthur's book "Second
Front" and elsewhere, she described how, as a volunteer in a Kuwait
maternity ward, she had seen Iraqi troops storm her hospital, steal the
incubators, and leave 312 babies "on the cold floor to die."
Seven US Senators later
referred to the story during debate; the motion for war passed by just five
votes In the weeks after Nayirah spoke, President Bush senior invoked
the incident five times, saying that such "ghastly atrocities" were
like "Hitler revisited."
But just weeks before the
US bombing campaign began in January, a few press reports began to raise
questions about the validity of the incubator tale.
Later, it was learned that
Nayirah was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington and
had no connection to the Kuwait hospital.
She had been coached – along with the handful of others who would
"corroborate" the story –
by senior executives of Hill and Knowlton in Washington, the biggest global PR
firm at the time, which had a contract worth more than $10 million with the
Kuwaitis to make the case for war.
"We didn't know it
wasn't true at the time," Brent Scowcroft, Bush's national security
adviser, said of the incubator story in a 1995 interview with the London-based
Guardian newspaper. He acknowledged "it was useful in mobilizing public
How the public relations industry
sold the Gulf War to the U.S. -- The mother of all clients
Congressman Jimmy Hayes of Louisiana -- a conservative Democrat who supported
the Gulf War -- later estimated that the government of Kuwait funded as many as
20 PR, law and lobby firms in its campaign to mobilize US opinion and force
against Hussein.4 Participating firms included the Rendon Group, which received
a retainer of $100,000 per month for media work, and Neill & Co., which
received $50,000 per month for lobbying Congress.
& Knowlton (H&K), then the world's largest PR firm, served as
mastermind for the Kuwaiti campaign. It's activities alone would have
constituted the largest foreign-funded campaign ever aimed at manipulating
American public opinion. By law, the Foreign Agents Registration Act should
have exposed this propaganda campaign to the American people, but the Justice
Department chose not to enforce it. Nine days after Saddam's army marched into
Kuwait, the Emir's government agreed to fund a contract under which Hill &
Knowlton would represent "Citizens for a Free Kuwait" (CFK) a classic
PR front group designed to hide the real role of the Kuwaiti government and its
collusion with the Bush administration. Over the next six months, the Kuwaiti
government channeled $11.9 million dollars to Citizens for a Free Kuwait, whose
only other funding totaled $17,862 from 78 individuals. Virtually all of CFK's
budget -- $10.8 million -- went to Hill & Knowlton in the form of fees.6
The War on Iraq 2003
October 16, 2002
It's been about 40 years since a
president's speeches didn't sound like infomercials. So George W. Bush's prime
time sales pitch last week on slapping a "New Ownership" sign on Iraq
was not surprising for sweating the manipulative bullets of sales pitches --
exaggerations, inflated sincerity, half-truths, outright lies. This isn't a
Bush family specialty. Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and Lyndon
Johnson were terrific salesmen, each more or less made for television's blind
spot for hucksters. But for sheer breadth of deception and implications to
thousands of human lives, the Bush performance for a resolution authorizing
Gulf War II can only be compared with Johnson's fabrication 38 years ago that
uselessly condemned 57,000 Americans and more than a million Vietnamese -- the
Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
Iraq war resolution Congress approved with a mob-like majority last week is the
Tonkin of our day. Like Bush with Iraq today, Johnson back then didn't have the
facts to back up his demand for war on North Vietnam. So he invented them.
the Gulf of Tonkin
We are now faced with another
administration urging another congressional resolution that will be used to
authorize war. There will be many opportunities for "interpreting"
alleged violations of agreements concerning disarmament inspections. And there
will be many ways for the Bush administration to exaggerate, dramatize and
publicize what may or may not be attempts to conceal weapons of mass
Pentagon insider: 'When we lie about stuff,' people perish
former Pentagon insider talks about Iraq propaganda
“But then the
Sept. 11 attacks occurred, and certain people saw a chance to turn a crisis
into an opportunity. Specifically, neoconservative ideologues inside the
administration--Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and others--could taste
their dream of invading Iraq, but the existing intelligence didn't lend much
support for a Mesopotamian adventure.
the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. Conceived by Wolfowitz, the office grew
out of the Near East South Asia directorate's Iraq desk and was officially
launched in the summer of 2002--just as the administration was readying its big
sales pitch for war.”
This guy is a modern-day Hitler
The following is
an excerpt from Norman Solomon's new book, War
Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death, just
published by John Wiley & Sons.
Iraq II: The Comparison Fits Like an Old Shoe
When the second Bush administration returned
Saddam Hussein to the center stage of U.S. foreign policy, it was time to
reprise countless stories about his evilness, while again eliding the cozy
relationship that Hussein had long enjoyed with Washington. (When I accompanied
former U.N. assistant secretary-general Denis Halliday to a private meeting in
Baghdad with Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz in late January 2003, Aziz
glanced at the latest Time magazine, which Halliday had just given to him.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was on the cover. "Rumsfeld has
become quite a warmonger," Aziz said. "He did not seem so when he
came and visited us in the 1980s.") The Iraqi dictator had not ordered an
attack on another country since 1990, and his military capabilities had
obviously diminished -- but comparing him to Hitler fit like an old shoe.
One of many politicians eager to keep putting it
on was "moderate Republican" Christopher Shays, who repeatedly
invoked memories of the Third Reich to justify an invasion of Iraq. Days before
Congress passed the war resolution in October 2002, Shays went on MSNBC and
used the Hitler analogy as part of a slick repertoire about Saddam.
After more than two decades of representing a
San Francisco area district in Congress, Tom Lantos was the ranking Democrat on
the House International Relations Committee by the time an invasion of Iraq was
on the near horizon. He was not to be outdone at conflating Baathist Iraq with
the Third Reich, as though Saddam's forces were somehow comparable to Germany's
Wehrmacht. In early October 2002, Lantos pulled out all the stops on Capitol
Hill as he proclaimed: "Had Hitler's regime been taken out in a timely
fashion, the 51 million innocent people who lost their lives during the Second
World War would have been able to finish their normal life cycles. Mr.
Chairman, if we appease Saddam Hussein, we will stand humiliated before both
humanity and history."
and people leading up to the invasion of Iraq 2003
(Iraq responsible for
9/11? Weapons of mass destruction. Neocons)
The real issue is
how this administration manipulated the intelligence to make a case for war
against Iraq and sold it to an ignorant public with the acquiescence of
Congress. Senator Robert Byrd in his Senate remarks of Feb.
12, 2003 said
"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of
human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the
brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors
this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully
silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the
nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing."
Iraq was not
responsible for 9/11. There were a number of individuals who would lead you to
believe that it was, such as Laurie
Mylroie, William Kristol and the rest of the so called
neoconservatives who were advising the president. These individuals set the
stage for invading Iraq by writing books and op ed pieces in newspapers, making
presentations on the subject at seminars sponsored by think tanks such as the
American Enterprise Institute.
As a C-SPAN junkie I
remember when Mylroie appeared on C-SPAN's Book Notes to talk about her book Study
of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America, a book
published by AEI in 2000. At
the time I did not give it much thought but individuals such as Peter
Bergen who referred to her as the neocons favorite conspiracy theorist
was able to piece things together. Bergen wrote-
be debating that question for years, but an important part of the reason has to
do with someone the average American may well have never heard of: Laurie
Mylroie. Mylroie has an impressive array of credentials that
certify her as an expert on the Middle East, national security, and, above all,
Iraq. She has held faculty positions at Harvard and the U.S. Naval War College
and worked at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, as well as serving
as an advisor on Iraq to the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign. During the
1980s, Mylroie was an apologist for Saddam's regime, but reversed her position
upon his invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and, with the zeal of the academic
spurned, became rabidly anti-Saddam. In the run up to the first Gulf War, Mylroie
with New York Times reporter Judith Miller wrote Saddam
Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf, a well-reviewed bestseller
translated into more than a dozen languages.
this point, there was nothing controversial about Mylroie's career. This would
change with the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the first act of
international terrorism within the United States, which would launch Mylroie on
a quixotic quest to prove that Saddam's regime was the most important source of
terrorism directed against this country. She laid out her case in Study
of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America, a
book published by AEI in 2000 which makes it clear that Mylroie and the neocon
hawks worked hand in glove to push her theory that Iraq was behind the '93
Trade Center bombing. Its acknowledgements fulsomely thanked John Bolton and
the staff of AEI for their assistance, while Richard Perle glowingly
blurbed the book as "splendid and wholly convincing." I.
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of
staff, is thanked for his "generous and timely assistance." And it
appears that Paul Wolfowitz himself was instrumental in the genesis
of Study of Revenge: His
then-wife is credited with having "fundamentally shaped the book,"
while of Wolfowitz, she says: "At critical times, he provided
crucial support for a project that is inherently difficult." Wolfowitz
having read the book became convinced that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for
9/11 and made the invasion his top priority.
book was followed by books by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. In the
Dangers Kristol and Kagan's basic
argument is that the US needs to exercise world domination, here spun as
"benevolent global hegemony" and that there are a number of external
obstacles which stand in the way and must be dealt with. These are Iraq,
Iran, North Korea, China, the Middle East peace process and an
one distasteful aspect of the book is the attempt to wrap the entire endeavor
in the cloak of "American morality", understood as protecting
citizen's liberties. This is breathtaking stuff from accomplices in the most
extensive attempt to incinerate the Constitution in recent history.
War over Iraq
Kristol and Lawrence Kaplan, a senior editor at the New Republic,
cogently make the case for a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Kristol is also
Chairman of the Project for the
New American Century, a non-profit think-tank established in 1997. As of May 20, 2008, The Project for the New American Century website was inoperable.
A message saying that the account has been suspended and to contact the billing department was put on the sites page.
Could it be that Kristol and his fellow NEOCONS are feeling the heat and are running scared?
of Principles the PNAC raises the question "Does the United States
have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American
principles and interests?" I'm of the opinion that in Kristol's mind he
substitutes the word Israel for American.
the four consequences listed in the S of P is " we need to strengthen our
ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes
hostile to our interests and values". Again substitute Israel
for democratic allies and Iraq, Iran, Syria for regimes.
book is The
Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack. Pollack's chapter in which he justifies a
U.S. invasion of Iraq is highly flawed, for a very important reason. Having
stated convincingly why continued sanctions, and even strong inspections, would
not be enough to topple Saddam, and having made the case that he must be
toppled before he can truly menace the world, Pollack concludes that no course
remained but a U.S. invasion.
Philip Zelikow is of the type of whom it is customarily
said: "He has impeccable establishment credentials". He served as
executive director of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Between 2001
and 2003 he served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
(PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. Before his appointment to
PFIAB he was part of the Bush transition team in January 2001. And in 1995 he
co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice.
It's recently been revealed that
in 2002 he publicly stated that a prime motive for the upcoming invasion of
Iraq was to eliminate a threat to Israel.
Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and
David Wurmser urged him to "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from
power" as an "Israeli strategic objective." Perle,
were all on Bush's foreign policy team on 9-11.
In 1998, eight members of
Bush's future team, including Perle,
Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, wrote Clinton urging upon him a strategy that
"should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein.
On Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9-11, Wurmser
called for U.S.-Israeli attacks "to broaden the (Middle East)
conflict to strike fatally ... the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli,
Teheran and Gaza ... to establish the recognition that fighting with either the
United States or Israel is suicidal." "Crises can be
opportunities," added Wurmser.” Moreover,
the majority of those in and out of government who were Middle East experts had
grave concerns about the wisdom of invading Iraq and serious doubts about
claims that Saddam's regime posed an urgent threat to American security. What,
then, gave neoconservatives like Wolfowitz
and Perle such abiding faith in their own positions?
person is revisionist historian Stephen Sniegoski. This is what
he says about Laurie Mylroie and the Iraq war-
real threat, Wolfowitz insisted, was state-sponsored terrorism
orchestrated by Saddam. In the meeting, says Richard A.
Clarke, Wolfowitz cited the writings of Laurie Mylroie,
a controversial academic who had written a book advancing an elaborate
conspiracy theory that Saddam was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
reference is very interesting. Mylroie is a neocon, and
other neocons have picked up and trumpeted her Iraq-involvement thesis.
While Saddam was still in power she claimed that al Qaeda was a front for
Iraqi intelligence. And she emphasized Saddam's purported weapons of mass
destruction. Her book was originally published by the American Enterprise Institute,
a leading neocon think tank. Regan Books, an imprint of HarperCollins,
released the book in paperback. HarperCollins is owned by pro-neocon/pro-Zionist
Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Fox News Channel, which, in turn,
booked Mylroie as an Iraq expert during the build-up to the war. Fox
News was the leading media cheerleader for the war, and Mylroie's
commentary served the same war-propaganda purposes as Ahmed Chalabi's bogus
intelligence.” (See "Osama, Saddam, and the Bombs" by David
Plotz, Slate, September 28, 2001.)
Republican attack machine is trying to paint Clarke as some kind of partisan
Democrat — an unlikely characterization of a 30-year career in
government at the highest levels, starting out in the Reagan administration.
What we are witnessing here is yet the latest episode in an extraordinary
series of whistle-blowing accounts by government insiders: Ambassador Joe
Wilson, Lt. Col. Karen
Kwiatkowski, and now Clarke, all patriotic Americans
pointing to a dangerous vulnerability."
During the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq
Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a hearing hosted by the House Committee on
Government Reform on 12 September
2002. C-SPAN televised his remarks. He spoke about Conflict
with Iraq - An Israeli Perspective. This was another example of
Israel’s complicity in support of the U.S. Iraq invasion.
The following is an excerpt from his talk.
“History’s judgment should inform our own judgment today.
Did Israel launch that preemptive strike because Saddam had committed a
specific act of terror against us? Did we coordinate our actions with the
international community? Did we condition that operation on the approval of the
No, Israel acted because we understood that a nuclear-armed Sadaam would place
our very survival at risk. Today, the United States must destroy that same
regime because a nuclear-armed Sadaam will place the security of our entire
world at risk.”
Wolfowitz's war on Iraq began before 1998 - now it's official.
Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz undertook a full-fledged lobbying
campaign in 1998 to get former President Bill Clinton to start a war with Iraq
and topple Saddam Hussein's regime. They claimed that the country posed a
threat to the United States, according to documents obtained from a former
This new information begs the
question: what is really driving the Bush Administration's desire to start a
war with Iraq if two of Bush's future top defense officials were already
planting the seeds for an attack five years ago?
In 1998, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz
were working in the private sector. Both were involved with the right-wing
think tank Project for a New
American Century, which was established in 1997 by William Kristol, editor
of the Weekly Standard, to
promote global leadership and dictate American foreign policy.
While Clinton was dealing with
the worldwide threat from al Qa'ida and Osama Bin Laden, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz
Clinton urging him to use military force against Iraq and remove Hussein
from power because the country posed a threat to the United States due to its
alleged ability to develop weapons of mass destruction. The Jan 26, 1998 letter
sent to Clinton from the Project for the New American Century said a war with
Iraq should be initiated even if the United States could not muster support
from its allies in the United Nations. Kristol also signed the letter.
"We are writing you
because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding,
and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we
have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union
Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for
meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a
new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and
allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of
Saddam Hussein's regime from power."
"We urge you to turn your
Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's
regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political
and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties
in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far
greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to
take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital
interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be
crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security
Because the letters were written in 1998 it proves that this
war was planned well before 9-11 and casts further doubt on the claims that
Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
Advisers Planned Iraq War Since 1990s
The George W. Bush Administration's
intentions of removing Saddam Hussein from power are not a recent development
by any stretch of the imagination. Top White House officials affiliated with
conservative think tanks and past administrations have been developing
strategies for removing the Iraqi leader since the 1990s.
real goal in Iraq
Among the architects of this would-be
American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key
positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and
enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax
Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have
not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.
How We Got Into
This Imperial Pickle: A PNAC Primer
from PNAC were now powerful "insiders," placed in
important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on U.S.
policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is
Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's Chief of Staff,
Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security
Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is
Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory
board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as
well, etc. etc. (PNAC's chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of Rupert
Murdoch's The Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC had a lock on military
policy-creation in the Bush Administration.
Beyond Osama: The Pentagon’s
Battle With Powell Heats Up
Saddam in the Crosshairs
November 21 - 27, 2001
D.C.—The simmering conflict within the Bush
administration over how to prosecute the next phase of the "war on
terrorism" suddenly flared up last week as the Taliban fled Kabul.
"Where to go next and how big it should be is what's being argued right
now—and Baghdad is what's being debated at
the moment," said a senior Pentagon official. "This is both an
internal discussion at the Pentagon, and one between departments. Our policy
guys are thinking Iraq.
Unity Is Essential
By Zbigniew Brzezinski
have not been helped by the evident, if unstated, endorsement by President Bush
of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's notions of how to deal with both the
Palestinians and the region as a whole The European press has commented more
widely than the U.S. press on the striking similarity between current U.S.
policies in the Middle East and the recommendations prepared in 1996 by several
American admirers of Israel's Likud Party for the then-prime minister, Binyamin
these admirers are now occupying positions of influence in the
administration is seen as the reason the United States is so eager to
wage war against Iraq, so willing to accept the scuttling of the Oslo peace
process between Israel and the Palestinians and so abrupt in rejecting European
urgings for joint U.S.-European initiatives to promote peace between Israel and
THE NEW PENTAGON PAPERS
Americans hold U.S. policymakers accountable?
Karen Kwiatkowski –
A high-ranking military
officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted
the truth to drive the country to war.
In the spring of 2002, I was a
cynical but willing staff officer, almost two years into my three-year tour at
the office of the secretary of defense, undersecretary for policy, sub-Saharan
Africa. In April, a call for volunteers went out for the Near East South Asia
directorate (NESA). None materialized By May, the call transmogrified into a
posthaste demand for any staff officer, and I was "volunteered" to
enter what would be a well-appointed den of iniquity
The education I would receive there was like an M. Night
Shyamalan movie -- intense, fascinating and frightening. While the people were
very much alive, I saw a dead philosophy -- Cold War anti- communism and
neo-imperialism -- walking the corridors of the Pentagon. It wore the clothing
of counterterrorism and spoke the language of a holy war between good and evil.
The evil was recognized by the leadership to be resident mainly in the Middle
East and articulated by Islamic clerics and radicals. But there were other
enemies within, anyone who dared voice any skepticism about their grand plans,
including Secretary of State Colin Powell and Gen. Anthony Zinni.
From May 2002 until February
2003, I observed firsthand the formation of the Pentagon's Office of Special
Plans and watched the latter stages of the neoconservative capture of the
policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. This seizure
of the reins of U.S. Middle East policy was directly visible to many of us
working in the Near East South Asia policy office, and yet there seemed to be
little any of us could do about it.
I saw a narrow and deeply flawed
policy favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate
and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the
Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies.
I witnessed neoconservative
agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments,
and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what
were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the
While this commandeering of a
narrow segment of both intelligence production and American foreign policy
matched closely with the well-published desires of the neoconservative wing of
the Republican Party, many of us in the Pentagon, conservatives and liberals
alike, felt that this agenda, whatever its flaws or merits, had never been
openly presented to the American people. Instead, the public story line was a
fear-peddling and confusing set of messages, designed to take Congress and the
country into a war of executive choice, a war based on false pretenses, and a
war one year later Americans do not really understand. That is why I have gone
public with my account.
The following report is worthwhile reading since it offers
another point of view about our invasion of Iraq from an Indian perspective.
Note month and year.
Behind the Invasion of Iraq
Table of Contents:
The Real Reasons for the US
Invasion of Iraq—and Beyond
& 34, December 2002
The United States’ current strategic agenda is of staggering
proportions. It is not secret: rather, it is being discussed openly in the
American press and academia; various documents reflecting it, official and
semi-official, are in circulation; and the US is implementing that agenda at
breakneck speed. By the time this article is published, the US will have begun
its bombing and invasion of Iraq, the second third world country to be attacked
in less than two years.
Given the massive imbalance of forces, the immediate
military success of the current US mission is not in doubt. But its medium and
long term prospects hinge not only on the US’s unrivalled military strength,
but on three other factors: the US’s own underlying economic condition, which
is weakening; the position of other imperialist powers, which is tenuously
balanced and may turn into active opposition; and the stance of the world’s
people — growing conscious opposition in the advanced world and, crucially,
popular explosions and resistance battles in the targeted third world.
The Issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction
of Mass Destruction in the Middle East (Iraq was not alone)
Dimona nuclear facility
. Israel started the construction work at the Dimona site
sometimes in early 1958, but it took the United States intelligence community
almost three long years to "discover" the site for what it was,
namely, a nuclear site under construction.
Vanunu spent 18 years in an
Israeli prison—11 and a half of them in solitary
confinement—for providing evidence of Israel’s
nuclear arsenal to a British newspaper in 1986. “I acted
on behalf of all citizens and all of humanity,” said
In October 1986, Vanunu, a
nuclear technician who had worked at the Dimona Nuclear Power Plant in the
Negev Desert for 10 years, traveled to London and gave photographic evidence to
The Sunday Times that Israel was secretly developing nuclear weapons.
Two months earlier he had converted to Christianity while traveling in
Iraq and Weapons of Mass
to George W. Bush's assumption of the presidency in January 2001, the U.S. made
it clear that it would not accept what had become the status quo with respect
to Iraq - a country ruled by Saddam Hussein and free to attempt to reconstitute
its assorted weapons of mass destruction programs. As part of their campaign
against the status quo, which included the clear threat of the eventual use of
military force against the Iraqi regime, the U.S. and Britain published
documents and provided briefings detailing their conclusions concerning Iraq's
WMD programs and its attempts to deceive other nations about those programs.
really are the weapons of mass destruction?
Iraq and the Gulf of Tonkin
WMDs were weapons of mass deception that became the pretext for
the grand design. As was a much ballyhooed, and later discredited, park bench
meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence agent and Mohamed Atta, the
September 11, 2001, Saudi kamikaze
The amateur strategists in the neo-con camp knew
a lot more about Israel and its need for peace than they did about the
law of unintended consequences, writ large in Iraq, and in the Arab world
Bush's Statements On Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about
weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these
statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as
explicit and declarative as I had recalled.
Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that
were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address
September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is
rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently
authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons
the dictator tells us he does not have."
October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and
biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of
chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a
growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to
disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned
that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its
nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi
nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his
nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding
facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.
Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment
needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had
the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves
no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
US news media admits
promoting lies about Iraq's WMD
Two of America's most respected newspapers
have admitted that their editors knowingly "resisted" publishing
information that challenged the official excuse for invading Iraq.
There was no evidence to support the allies' claims that Iraq possessed
stockpiles of WMD. Meanwhile, there was ample evidence to prove that the
politicians were lying, and clear ulterior motives to explain why. The
Washington Post concedes: "We should have warned readers we had
information that the basis for this was shakier". The New York Times
confess that their coverage "was not as rigorous as it should have
How the 'Washington Post'
Promoted a War
Editors now admit its news coverage during the run-up to the attack on Iraq
was terribly one-sided. But the editorial page was even worse.
By the paper's own admission, in the months before the war, it ran more than
140 stories on its front page promoting the war, while contrary information
"got lost," as one Post staffer told Howard Kurtz.
Wolfowitz: Not just any optimist
Trudy Rubin writes the
Worldview column for the Philadelphia Inquirer
This week I had the chance to sit
down with someone who's an optimist about Iraq.
Not just any optimist. I refer
to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the administration's most
persistent advocate of ousting Saddam Hussein.
Wolfowitz' worldview helps clarify the thinking
behind the administration's obsession with the Iraqi leader. (At this delicate
moment in the Iraq saga, with the administration currently committed to U.N.
arms inspections rather than military action, much of our conversation was on
Yes, the administration worries
about Saddam's biological and chemical weapons, the possibility he may get
nukes, and the chance he might pass them off to terrorists. But the goal of
changing the Iraqi regime is part of a much larger project - and I don't mean
grabbing oil or protecting Israel.
The creation of a new Iraq is
central to the administration's vision of the role America should play in the
Back in 1992,
then-Undersecretary of Defense Wolfowitz (who served under Reagan and Bush père)
supervised the draft of an ambitious new defense doctrine. It proposed that the
United States should prevent the rise of any new superpower that could rival
U.S. primacy around the world. The United States would convince would-be
competitors that its dominance was so beneficial it wasn't worth challenging.
When news of the doctrine leaked
to the press, it was watered down. But its essence has become the core of the
Bush administration's new national security doctrine. And Wolfowitz is the
administration's pre-eminent intellectual.
Where does Iraq fit into the
doctrine? Post 9/11, the challenge to U.S. supremacy comes not so much from
states as from international terrorists - and states who aid them. The biggest
threat originates in Muslim countries, including the Mideast.
A U.S. triumph in Iraq would
send a dramatic message. "If we can defeat a terrorist regime in Iraq, it
will be a defeat for terrorists globally," Wolfowitz said in a speech on
Oct. 16. Moreover, "[Saddam's] demise will open opportunities for governments
and institutions to emerge in the Muslim world that are respectful of
fundamental human dignity and freedom...."
In other words, Iraq not only
could become a democracy but could be the launch pad for transforming the
Only an a utopian dreamer
could put forward such a vision.
Wolfowitz has little patience
with arguments that war with Iraq could encourage Muslim jihadists. Not for him
the worry that Arab satellite television will inflame the masses with endless
scenes of dead Iraqi civilians and Palestinians suffering under Israeli curfew.
He has repeatedly waved aside fears that Saddam's fall from power will cause
instability in the region.
Part of his confidence stems
from the belief that TV cameras will show Iraqis dancing in the streets of
Baghdad on The Day After, as Afghans did in Kabul
"It is entirely possible
that in Iraq, you have the most pro-American population that can be found
anywhere in the Arab world," Wolfowitz told me, for quotation.
Iraqi opposition activists say
U.S. troops may indeed be welcomed right after they enter Iraqi cities
(provided a war is short and Iraqi civilian casualties aren't large). But
they also say that old suspicions and resentments linger - at past American
betrayals of Kurds and Shiites, and sanctions - and that the warmth may fade
quickly if the troops stay very long.
And then there is the danger
that Iraqis will collapse into struggles among tribes, ethnic groups and
religious confessions over who gets what share of power and oil. Wolfowitz
doubts the likelihood of such chaos. But, he says, "If there is a real
fear about what happens after Saddam goes, you would want the American army
there when he goes."
The problem here is that the
burdens for resolving the chaos would then fall on the shoulders of U.S. forces.
If you take over a country, you own it, unless you can hand off to locals
To be fair, administration
officials, with some key exceptions, seem aware of the danger of long-term
occupation. They are familiar with the warnings of the noted Mideast scholar
Bernard Lewis, who cautions that Israelis were welcomed at first by local
Lebanese Shiites in South Lebanon. The Shiites were happy to see the departure
of the Palestine Liberation Organization. But Israeli troops stayed on for
years and soon were viewed as occupiers. They were bloodied by guerrilla
attacks and ultimately pulled out.
Wolfowitz doesn't advocate the
Japan model of U.S. occupation (as some administration officials have done). In
Japan, a six-year U.S. presence and the proconsulship of General MacArthur
created a democracy in a non-European nation after World War II. This
definitely wouldn't work in Iraq.
Yet how else can one envision
the establishment of democracy in a country that has known only autocracy and
"If you're looking for a
historical analogy," the soft-spoken, professorial Pentagon official
suggested, "it's probably closer to post-liberation France [after World
That one threw me for a bit, but
I think I get it. Led by Gen. Charles de Gaulle, the Free French were looked
down on when they were based in London, but the general became a hero-leader
when the war was over. The Wall Street Journal suggested a parallel this week
between de Gaulle and the exiled Iraqi opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi, of the
Iraqi National Congress.
The parallel is pretty dicey. De
Gaulle was a charismatic general directing organized resistance on the ground.
He came home after five years of exile to a mono-ethnic France untroubled by
interfering neighbors. Germany was prostrate, the United States was the
overlord of Europe. France, a European nation with (admittedly spotty)
experience of democracy, didn't need U.S. tutelage.
No Iraqi exile has anything
like de Gaulle's legitimacy at home.
Certainly not Chalabi, for all his capabilities. Once in Baghdad, U.S.
officials would have to mediate among Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Turkmen,
Assyrians, secularists, Islamists, tribal leaders, leftover Baath party
officials, and Iraq's anxious neighbors who will want to intervene.
At best, we will be the
long-term referee behind the scenes, blamed for what goes wrong, suspected of
myriad conspiracies against Iraqis and their oil. Better than Saddam, no
doubt. But a democracy - before, at best, another two decades - is unlikely.
Call me a pessimist. But if the
rosy view of Iraq's potential as role model for the region is driving a desire
for an early war, it is very misguided. If we have to go after Saddam's
weapons, let's do it with eyes wide open.
Otherwise we may wind up like
Israel in Lebanon.
The above column by Trudy
Rubin was very prophetic indeed. In my search for a balanced view of the Iraq
war Rubin by far has been the most accurate of all the reporters writing for
Blindness: The Bush Administration and Iraq
Trudy Rubin, Worldview Columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer
collection of Trudy
Rubin's columns on Iraq covers the period from July 2002 through June 2004.
Read back as her columns predicted with uncanny accuracy before the war what
would happen in Iraq if the Bush administration failed to plan for the real
Iraq as opposed to the Iraq of its imagination. Rubin's predictions were on the
mark. As the situation developed, she outlined steps that might ameliorate the
situation. Few have been taken. In the conclusion, Rubin looks at what must be
done to prevent Iraq from deteriorating into a terrorist haven and to enable
the United States to drawn down its troops.
book draws on the author's extensive knowledge of the Middle East based on
thirty years of covering the region, including six years stationed in
Jerusalem and Beirut as a foreign correspondent. Rubin has written continuously
on Iraq for the last two years and taken three lengthy trips to Iraq since the
fall of Baghdad. She has extensive contacts with members of the new Iraqi
government, Iraqi clerics and a broad range of ordinary Iraqis. Whether
familiar with Rubin's columns or not, this book is an excellent way to revisit
the events surrounding the Iraq war and to understand what our nation must do
to call the endeavor a success.
then when the WMD’s
not found the reason du jour to
invade became “Regime
Change and Introducing Democracy to Iraq
Neoconservatives Are Crazy
The neoconservatives around George Bush
are crazy. They actually believe the United States can run about the world,
overthrowing governments by force and establishing democracies in their
behind the Bush WMD "Investigation"
Mr. Bush is expected to announce
within days the make-up of the panel to investigate why intelligence on which
he said his administration based its claims about Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction did not match what has been found on the ground in Iraq. Brent
Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser in Mr. Bush's father's
administration, has been tipped to head the inquiry.
Mr. McGovern said that there was outrage among intelligence professionals that
they were being used as scapegoats. He said that intelligence provided by the
CIA and other intelligence agencies was used selectively by the administration
to support a political decision that it had already made to go to war with
"Especially earlier on, the intelligence they were getting was accurate:
[CIA director] George Tenet stood up to them. But after he was told that Bush
was going to war he caved in," Mr. McGovern said. "There is a sense
of outrage among analysts, at least the good ones. The good ones are leaving.
There are a lot of mid-level managers who are leaving."
What of the charge that It’s About Oil?
War for oil? The west had
it’s eye on Iraqi oil for nearly a century.
Great Power Conflict over
Iraqi Oil: the World War I Era
World War I (1914-18),
strategists for all the major powers increasingly perceived oil as a key
military asset, due to the adoption of oil-powered naval ships, new horseless
army vehicles such as trucks and tanks, and even military airplanes. Use of oil
during the war increased so rapidly that a severe shortage developed in
strategists also understood that oil would assume a rapidly-growing importance
in the civilian economy, making it a vital element in national and imperial
economic strength and a source of untold wealth to those who controlled it.
Already in the United States, John D. Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil
Company, was the world’s richest person.
government was not satisfied with its secondary role in world oil, fearing
the might of the big British and US companies. In an effort to
strengthen and “liberate” France,
the government in Paris set up the Compagnie Francaise des Pétroles in 1924 to
take up the French share in Mesopotamia – now a
Oil in Iraq
Iraq has the world’s
second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new
exploration will probably raise Iraq’s reserves to 2-300 billion barrels of
high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce, leading to a gold-rush of
profits for international oil firms in the post-Saddam era. The four giant
firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from
which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. They face companies
from France, Russia, China, Japan and elsewhere, who already have major
concessions. But in the post-war setting, with Washington running the show, the
US-UK companies expect eventually to overcome their rivals and gain the most
lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions, even trillions of
dollars in profits in the coming decades.
Oil, Currency and the
War on Iraq
It will not come as
news to anyone that the US dominates the world economically and militarily. But
the exact mechanisms by which American hegemony has been established and
maintained are perhaps less well understood than they might be. One tool used
to great effect has been the dollar, but its efficacy has recently been under
threat since Europe introduced the euro.
from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream?
stands to benefit greatly from the US led war on Iraq, primarily by getting rid
of an implacable foe in President Saddam Hussein and the threat from the
weapons of mass destruction he was alleged to possess. But it seems the
Israelis have other things in mind
An intriguing pointer to one potentially significant benefit was a report by
Haaretz on 31 March that minister for national infrastructures Joseph
Paritzky was considering the possibility of reopening the long-defunct
oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean port of Haifa. With Israel lacking
energy resources of its own and depending on highly expensive oil from Russia,
reopening the pipeline would transform its economy.
1,000 U.S. Souls Died for Oil?
September 13, 2004
The tragic milestone of 1,000
U.S. deaths in the Iraqi quagmire should cause introspection about why the
United States really went to war and whether it has been worth it. While the
Bush administration’s public justifications never really
added up, evidence exists that there was a hidden agenda behind the invasion of
Iraq: securing oil.
This unique volume compiles in one place a
history of US intervention against Iraq and the devastating consequences for
the people and the region. It shows the ways in which war today is a
continuation of that history, but also a radical leap to more direct military
control in Iraq and around the world. The “Bush Doctrine” is both built on our
imperial history and yet new and far more dangerous.
Real Reasons for the War With Iraq
Although completely unreported
by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet
shocking -- it is in large part an oil currency war. One of the core
reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing
further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum
towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to
pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its
2nd largest proven oil reserves.
Last Republican Hurrah
invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history. It
has the support of only two overlapping small groups: neoconservatives
infused with the spirit of 18th century French Jacobins who want to impose
on the rest of the world, and foreign policy advisers who believe that the primary aim
of U.S. foreign policy is to make the Middle East safe for Israel.
Bush neocons tried to connect Iraq to the 9/11
terrorism in order to justify an attack but couldn't get it done,
however much they kept implying that Saddam was complicit. When they failed,
they moved on to the
WMD lies. Their strenuous searching for a justification for attacking
Iraq indicates that their fallacious WMD claims were not the result of error.
In the end they got exactly the results they wanted. The neocons promoted
much of the most extreme WMD propaganda through their Office of Special Plans
and their touting of the deceptive Ahmed Chalabi. In short, all of the
"intelligence errors" enabled the neocon war party to mount
the attack on Iraq that they had so ardently sought for so long."
Neoconservatives a.k.a. neocons. Who are
they? Their influence on U.S foreign policy
The word neoconservative was a term that I was not
familiar with before delving into the issue of whether we were justified in
invading a sovereign country. The more I searched the more I became convinced
that many of these individuals by their actions appeared to show more
allegiance to a foreign country than they did to the U.S.A.
During the 2000 presidential election recount in
Florida one Democratic congressman seemed to monopolize the TV limelight. Robert Wexler
was on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC 24/7 accusing the Republicans of manipulating and
stealing the election.
His opinion of
President Bush changed after 9/11 when he became a staunch supporter for
the invasion of Iraq. His turn about piqued my curiosity. Why would a died in
the wool Democrat be so supportive of the president’s foreign policy of
pre-emption? Was it because he was a Jewish/American who believed that invading
Iraq would eliminate a country which was more of a threat to Israel than to the
South Florida's bellicose congressman carves up the
BY BOB NORMAN
Times Broward-Palm Beach
Democrat, whose district spreads from north Broward County to parts north of
West Palm Beach, has been one of the strongest supporters in Congress for
military action in Iraq.
really understand Wexler's motivations, though, you must know about
Turkey's relationship with Israel. Any friend of the Jewish state is a friend
of the 41-year-old Wexler's.
of its own interests in the region, principally oil and Israel, America has
helped foster the Ankara-Jerusalem alliance. And, lest our politicians lose
interest, Israel is pushing its key supporters in Congress -- like Wexler --
to advocate for Turkish interests in the United States. Wexler has performed
dutifully in that respect, sponsoring and cosponsoring numerous pro-Turkey
bills. The American Jewish establishment is also doing its part: Just
this past December 18, nine major Jewish groups -- including the American
Jewish Congress, B'nai B'rith International, and the Anti-Defamation League
-- wrote President Bush a letter asking that the administration provide Turkey
"debt forgiveness, trade concessions, and/or further International
Monetary Fund relief." In July, Congress authorized Bush to give the
country $228 million in aid.
is one thing; propaganda is another. In July, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz, another devout backer of Israel, traveled to Ankara and made
this amazing declaration: "I think a real test of whether a country is a
democracy is how it treats its minorities. And actually it's one of the things
that impresses me about Turkish history, the way Turkey treats its own
proves he's not willing to let the truth get in the way of a good war. He
must be familiar with Turkey's early-20th-century oppression of the Jews. And
for the past 80 years, Turkey has repressed its 15 million Kurds in horrendous
ways, not the least of which has been to ban their language and culture. When
Kurdish rebels rose against the military in 1984, the Turks beat down the
uprising during the next 15 years, killing 30,000 Kurds, destroying more than
3,000 Kurdish villages, and leaving 3 million Kurds homeless, according to
generally accepted figures.
Wexler, in his bullish
bid to help Israel and the West dominate the Middle East, seems oblivious to
such realities. In May 2001, when the congressman traveled to Turkey on a
diplomatic mission, he had war on his mind. "As Iraq's northern
neighbor," he said, "there cannot be an anti-Saddam Hussein strategy
without the full involvement of Turkey."
July, the House International Relations Subcommittee on Europe passed a Wexler-sponsored
resolution to commend Turkey and Israel. Wexler hailed it in a press release,
in which he called upon the Middle East "to follow the example set by
these two nations in promoting democracy, peace, and tolerance."
Hawking for Israel
South Florida reps push for war. But who are they
BY BOB NORMAN
Times Broward-Palm Beach
Wexler isn't a new
convert to Bush -- he's just an old loyalist to Israel, a country that, along
with a powerful Washington, DC., lobbying group called the American-Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is pushing the war on Iraq with a vengeance.
In essence, the Israeli lobby is urging big brother America to come out, flex
its military muscles, and make the Israel-American alliance the dominant power
in the Middle East.
orthodox Jew, Wexler has always been a Zionist hard-liner and has
received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from pro-Israel
interests during the past six years. And he's picked up a big stick for the
fight against Iraq. A member of the House committee on international relations,
lately he's been spending an inordinate amount of time traveling around the
country and the world promoting Israel and the war on Hussein.
last week, I asked Wexler the obvious question: Who, as you prepare to
send U.S. soldiers to war, are you really representing: South Florida or
get this straight," he answered. "I'm American. I'm 100 percent American.
I bleed American. Am I proud of my heritage? Yes. I support the state of Israel
and wholeheartedly support an unbreakable bond between the U.S. and Israel...
but there is nothing about my policy that is anything other than American. It
is not driven by Israel. At this point, it is supportive of President
believe in a strong alliance between the United States and Israel, but I also
believe that Israel's narrow interests have far too much influence on our
foreign policy. We need a balanced approach in the Middle East. If America
continues to tie itself almost solely to the tiny Jewish state as it thrashes
about in a sea of Muslim Arabs, we're asking for long and widespread warfare in
Wexler and several other Jewish Democrats in Congress, led by
Connecticut's Sen. Joe Lieberman and a gaggle of representatives from
California and New York, are spoiling for that fight. And because these same
politicians can usually be counted on to anchor the Democrats' opposition to
Bush, they have helped to destroy any hope of the party's reining in Dick
Cheney's dogs of war. Of course, a few Jewish members of Congress --
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chiefly -- have opposed the invasion.
County's own Jewish Democrat in Congress, Rep. Peter Deutsch, is another
near-fanatical, pro-Israel politician who expects to vote for military action
in Iraq and has publicly backed it. But he recently told me that Bush hasn't
yet met his "three-pronged test" for an invasion. Deutsch won't
support war until the president has proven that Saddam has nuclear weapons,
expects to use them on the United States, and is developing a delivery system
to carry out such an attack.
such proof has been disclosed, but Deutsch says he fully expects it will be
Washington, D.C.-based Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel has put both
Deutsch and Wexler in its "Hall of Shame" for their pro-Israel
voting records. Powerful lobbying groups like the American Jewish
Congress and AIPAC have "hijacked the agenda" with millions of
dollars in campaign contributions and powerful backers, alleges JPPI
founder Josh Ruebner, adding that politicians like Wexler are "representing
the government of Israel, absolutely. Most American Jewish members of Congress
are guilty of that."
it's a dangerous policy, according to Nidal Sakr, a Muslim political activist
from Miami Beach. Wexler and other liberal Jewish hawks are "clearly
serving foreign interests rather than the national interest they are supposed
to be serving," says Sakr, who runs a group called March for Justice.
"The U.S.-Israeli relationship is the largest threat to our national
security and the safety of our citizens. Our support for Israel and its crimes
against Palestinians that have been denounced again and again by the
international community and the United Nations fuels the anti-American
sentiments and feelings of hatred that are being compounded around the
The Dogs of War
BY BOB NORMAN
Times Broward-Palm Beach
The people don't want to attack Saddam, but our elected
representatives sure do
other two Democrats from Broward and Palm Beach counties, Peter Deutsch and
Robert Wexler, didn't surprise anyone when they supported the Toxic
Texan. Both are pro-Israeli hard-liners and high-flying hawks when it comes to
the Middle East (see "Hawking for Israel," September 26). They
weren't alone among Jewish House Democrats: a whopping 17 of 24 jumped on the
Bush-Cheney war machine.
Said Jews Are Pushing War
The Poisoning of
Patrick J. Buchanan
March 17 2003
Moran Said Jews Are Pushing War,"
ran the headline on page one. "Apology denies Anti-Semitism" ran the
subhead on the story.
Even a glance at that Washington Post,
and one knew Jim Moran, bad boy Irish congressman from Alexandria – who has had
more than his share of brawls, personal and political – had stepped
into it, big time. But while the headline was stark, what Moran said and the
context in which he said it, seem far less inflammatory.
Apparently, at an antiwar gathering of
120 folks at St. Anne's Episcopal Church on March 3, a woman arose, identified
herself as Jewish, and noted that while Christian churches opposed to war on
Iraq were represented there, her own faith was not.
Moran picked up on that and responded,
"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this
war with Iraq, we would not be doing this."
Now about this comment, it is, first,
wrong. We are going to war because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell are
convinced we must disarm Baghdad – and regime change is the only way to
effect it. Second, according to polls, the Jewish community is only about as
hawkish as the rest of the nation, with 59 percent supporting war.
But how was Moran's statement
"anti-Semitic"? According to my Webster's Seventh New
Collegiate Dictionary, an anti-Semite is "one who is hostile to or discriminates
against Jews." Moran says he answered as he did because the lady
identified herself as Jewish. Indeed, he went on to say to her, "The
leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change
the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."
An exaggeration, sure. But where is the
hatred or hostility toward the Jewish people in Moran's statement? Seeking
moral clarity, I waited for the Post's exegesis of Moran's remarks.
It did not disappoint. Rather than pour
oil on troubled waters, the Post editorial headline screamed, "Blaming the
Moran is "unfit for office,"
ranted the Post, as he is "perpetuating a stereotype of Jews as a unified
bloc steering the world in its own interest and against everyone else's."
The Post then put Moran's moral atrocity into a larger historical context:
"Over the centuries anti-Semites
have used this libel to distract attention from their own failings and to
instigate violence and discrimination against Jews. Mr. Moran's comment will be
used to concentrate the poison of anti-Semitism in many parts of the world
where it remains virulent and dangerous."
Oh, come off it. What Moran said was
wrong and insensitive – and he has apologized repeatedly – but from
reading the Post, one would think he was over at St Anne's passing out the
"Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and recruiting for the Black
As with Trent Lott, it is pile-on time.
Moran's own Democratic leaders, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Tom Daschle, denounced
him. Six Democratic colleagues, all Jewish, have urged his defeat. Six
rabbis called for his resignation. Sophie Hoffman, president of the Jewish
Community Council of Washington, called his words, "reprehensible and
anti-Semitic." Rabbi Jack Moline of Alexandria accused Moran of echoing
"the most scandalous rhetoric of the last century."
Such remarks about any minority group in
America," roared Moline, "whether African-Americans, Hispanics,
Muslims or others, are beyond inappropriate in the rhetoric of a member of
But hold on. Would it really be
outrageous to say that were it not for the Cuban community in Miami, America
would be easing the embargo on Cuba? Would it really be anti-Christian to say
that were it not for the Christian Right, the GOP would have abandoned its
pro-life and anti-cloning positions?
Is it really outrageous, reprehensible
and anti-Semitic to say that were it not for the power and influence of the
Israeli lobby and Jewish community, Israel would never have gotten $100 billion
in foreign aid in the last three decades?
The United States is about to launch a
pre-emptive war on a nation that has not attacked us, in accord with a
"doctrine" this president never declared while campaigning. This war
may lead to what its crazed enthusiasts are calling "World War IV,"
the "war on militant Islam."
The American people have a right to know,
before we are dragged into an Armageddon against Islam, who is pushing for this
war and what their motives, open or hidden, may be. And it is not Jim Moran who
is trying to stifle that debate It is a power elite who use smears like "anti-Semite"
to censor and blacklist anyone who stumbles too close to the truths they seek
Rep. James Moran is apologizing for claiming that the Jewish community was
pushing the country into war. But the Virginia Democrat's apology failed to
allay the increasing fears in some circles that Jews will be blamed for a war
a seven-term congressman representing a heavily Muslim and Arab-American
district in Washington's northern Virginia suburbs, made his controversial
remark March 3 during a speech in front of 120 people. He was condemned by the
White House and several congressional Democratic leaders. Six area rabbis and a
Washington Post columnist called on him to resign.
controversy comes at a time when Jewish community leaders are increasingly
alarmed by the willingness of mainstream media pundits to discuss the influence
of Israel and American Jews on the White House's Iraq policy. In
particular, pundits have highlighted the key role played by several Jewish
hawks in the Bush administration, the lobbying activities of Jewish groups and
the president's strong relationship with Prime Minister Sharon.
AIPAC, the most influential pro-Israel group in
Washington, lobbied last fall in favor of Bush's successful efforts to obtain
congressional authorization to use force against Iraq. Several other Jewish
organizations, responding to press queries at the time, expressed support for
the president's efforts to obtain a United Nations Security Council resolution
authorizing military action to disarm Iraq. Still, staffers in several congressional
offices told the Forward that they had not heard recently from Jewish groups on
Edward I. Koch
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
I responded to an article in The Washington Post which reported that
Congressman James P. Moran, D-Va., had told his Virginia constituents he held
the Jews responsible for the impending war against Iraq. My letter to him and
to Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi follow. Anti-Semitism must be
crushed with all our energy and in the same way we seek to crush racism.
Hollings stands by his column
Hollings, who retires in
January after 38 years in the Senate can tell it like it is without fear of
being intimidated by AIPAC and ADL.
Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a
domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to
spread democracy in the area.
Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's
policy to secure Israel.”
Sen. Fritz Hollings took to the Senate floor Thursday to defend himself against
charges he had written an anti-Semitic newspaper column.
won’t apologize for this column; I want them to apologize to me,” the Charleston Democrat said of his critics. “Talking about ‘anti-Semitic.’ They’re not getting by with it.”
Hollings, who retires in
January after 38 years in the Senate, went on to blame President Bush for the
war in Iraq. He said U.S. policy in the Middle East had unfortunately put
Israel in “terrible jeopardy.”
The Anti-Defamation League, a
prominent Jewish civil rights group, had taken Hollings to task for writing
that Israel and President Bush’s
desire to court Jewish voters were the reasons for the war in Iraq.”
Zinni: 'They've Screwed UP
Zinni says he blames the Pentagon for what
happened. “I blame the civilian leadership of the Pentagon
directly. Because if they were given the responsibility, and if this was their
war, and by everything that I understand, they promoted it and pushed it
- certain elements in there certainly - even to the point of creating
their own intelligence to match their needs, then they should bear the
responsibility,” he says.
Zinni is talking about a group of
policymakers within the administration known as "the
neo-conservatives" who saw the invasion of Iraq as a way to stabilize
American interests in the region and strengthen the position of Israel. They
include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of
Feith; Former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle;
National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; and Vice President
Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Zinni believes they are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy
“I think it's the
worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody - everybody I talk to in
Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were
trying to do,” says Zinni.
“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives
who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you
know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when
you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn't criticize
who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds
are. And I'm not interested.”
what is the story?
Magazine sparks outcry by
'outing' Jewish neo-cons
'Why won't anyone say they are Jewish?' article asks
Lasn insists he is not anti-Semitic. The editor-in-chief of Adbusters
says he knew an article that purports to "out" a large number of
leading U.S. neo-conservatives as Jewish would be provocative, but he did not
expect the "visceral" reaction that has seen the B.C.-based
anti-consumerism magazine deluged with demands to cancel subscriptions.
"This has made me feel like
I am the victim," Mr. Lasn said in an interview from his Fraser Valley
home, adding he has never seen "this level of threatening phone calls,
this level of swearing, this level of cancelled subscriptions" in his
risk-taking company's 15-year history.
The flashpoint for the anger is
an article Mr. Lasn wrote in the current issue of Adbusters. "Why
Won't Anyone Say They Are Jewish?" posits that a disproportionate number
of leading U.S. neoconservatives are Jewish, a fact Mr. Lasn says is relevant
because "neo-cons seem to have a special affinity for Israel that
influences their political thinking and consequently American foreign policy in
the Middle East."
The implication is the United States is pro-Israel because
many of Washington's policy-makers are Jewish. Readers and critics have taken
particular umbrage at an accompanying list of what Adbusters calls
"the 50 most influential neo-cons in the U.S.," such as
Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and
deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz (left, with flag).
Twenty-six, including Mr. Wolfowitz, have black dots next to their names to
denote they are Jewish.
"It's an old tactic,"
said Ed Morgan, the Ontario chairman of the Canadian
Jewish Congress (CJC). "They were counting the number of Jews in the
U.S. Communist party back in the '50s. But it's still startling to see a list
and see an asterisk next to Jewish names. "Jewishness and a particular
political position do not equate," Mr. Morgan said. "The point is to
address issues of policy on their merits. Ethnicity is beside the point."
Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai
Brith Canada, said Adbusters "must have been short of news to look at
that kind of a thesis." He noted the administration of former president Bill
Clinton had several Jews in positions of influence, yet that administration
"bent over backwards" to appease Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
Mr. Lasn, however, is
unrepentant. The Adbusters Web site includes the original article, a selection
of positive and negative responses from the public and a follow-up piece from
the editor-in-chief that says if the list
"were a list of dentists or firefighters ... that
would indeed be offensive",but because the neo-cons "are the most
influential [sic] political/intellectual force in the world right now" it
is "necessary to put them under a microscope."
Expanding on that theme over the
telephone, Mr. Lasn said the U.S. neo-cons "are the most powerful group of
people in the world. They are intellectual thugs who have the power to start
wars and stop wars. So because this group is so powerful, we decided it's OK to
point out ... how it's 50% Jews."
Daniel Pipes, (right) director of the U.S. think-tank
Middle East Forum, is on the Adbusters list, with an asterisk. He said
the magazine's project is absurd "because of the implication that religion
defines politics." "There are plenty of leading Jews against the war
in Iraq. There are plenty who are neo-cons. It's no guide whatsoever to a
person's political leanings."
He also said the list is inaccurate,
both in identifying neo-conservatives and Jews. Lists that point out
"dangerous" high-profile Jews are nothing new, Mr. Pipes said, adding
he has found his name on many such compilations posted on the Internet. But it
is unusual for a magazine with the profile of Adbusters, which boasts a
circulation of 120,000 copies monthly -- two-thirds in the United States -- to
undertake such an endeavor.
Mr. Dimant said he is
particularly concerned that Adbusters purports to have shed light on the
"Jewishness" of its subjective list of influential Americans -- a
notion reminiscent of decades-old hatemongering theories about secret Jewish
cabals that control the media and world governments. "It's very hard to
run the world banking system and the foreign press from my little office in
Toronto," he said. Mr. Lasn dismisses such talk. "We are not going to
censor ourselves. We are not going to worry about people comparing it to unsavory
things from the past. "Our goal was to launch a debate. We hope it gets
even bigger than it is now." Mr. Morgan said the CJC will have a formal
response, although, "we have not determined what course of action we're
going to take"
Mention the word J**
Americans apparently believe that we are going to war with Iraq "because
of the Jews." Having written a book explaining anti-Semitism (Why the
Jews? The Reason for Anti-Semitism, Simon & Schuster , all I can do is
marvel at the durability of anti-Semitism and the eternality of the charge that
the Jews are responsible for everything anti-Semites fear.
all fairness, individuals such as Prager should be concerned since-
US Jews Could Pay High
Price for Iraq War
will ever know for sure whether these neo-cons (notably Paul Wolfowitz,
Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith) really promoted war with Iraq primarily
to help Israel. It is not very likely, as Keller say. If a war in Iraq
"goes bad," though, the truth will not matter. Americans will look
for scapegoats, and the organized Jewish community may be near the head of the
be just the organizations who will be blamed; it will be "the Jews."
That is certainly unfair. The organizations and their leaders are more
conservative than the whole Jewish population, especially on Israel and the
Middle East. While nearly all the leaders support a war in Iraq, polls
show that 40% or more of U.S. Jews are hesitant, at best, about war. But
the organizations and leaders always claim to speak for all American Jews. Why
shouldn't most American non-Jews believe them and assume all Jews are to blame?
Jewish groups and leaders have struggled hard to gain their enormous influence
on Middle East policy. They have largely achieved their aim. They,
and the many Jews who do support them, have had a free ride. They wield
great clout without any noticeable increase in anti-Semitism. Here's the irony.
If we have the war they want, and it "goes bad," the Jewish community
might pay a steep price in rising anti-Semitism. Are U.S. Jews really willing
to take this risk?
on Ilana Mercer's 'Blame the Jews'
By Kevin MacDonald
There is nothing inherently
implausible about hypothesizing that minority activist movements like neo-conservatism
would be willing to recruit some majority group members. It makes excellent
marketing sense to have at least some spokespeople who resemble the target
Mercer also argues that the
elected and senior appointed Bush administration officials, in the main not
Jewish, ought to be held responsible for the "administration's
blunders." This is true, but it does not in the least delegitimize
consideration of what motivated the administration's neoconservative members
and friends – who generally are Jewish.
Buchanan denies that his views are anti-Semitic and has not apologized
for them. "We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek
to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests.
. . . What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make
the world safe for Israel," Buchanan wrote in
the March 24 issue of the magazine he edits, the American Conservative.
you know what they're saying already? That the war in Iraq is being planned by
a cabal of extremist Jews. That it is the first part of a Zionist conspiracy to
redraw the map of the Middle East. That Israel stands to be the prime
beneficiary of this war. And it's not just the marginalized skinheads who are
saying this either. It's also mainstream folks who would swear up and down that
they don't have an anti-Semitic bone in their bodies.
you an anti-Semite
if you criticize Israel or the U.S, policy towards Israel or point to the
connection of Jewish/American neocons with U.S. policy vis a vis Israel and
their support of the invasion of Iraq?
Let’s look at the example of former Illinois Congressman Paul
Findley who during the 1980’s
began to doubt the wisdom of United States policy in the Middle East. He tried
to broker an agreement between Yasser Arafat under which the PLO would live in
peace with Israel. For his attempts at seeking a peaceful settlement to the
Palestinian/Israeli problem he was branded a “practicing anti-Semite”
the powerful Israeli lobby was instrumental in Findley’s defeat in the next election. Findley dared to speak out
and he paid with his political future.
Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby
by Paul Findley
Exposes the degree
to which pro-Israeli groups are able to suppress free debate, compromise
national secrets, and shape American foreign policy. Findley focuses on
individuals who have stood up to the pro-Israeli forces and brings out their
statements and observations on the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy toward
Holocaust is being invoked to squelch criticism of Israel and U.S. policy
towards Israel. The leading
Jewish/American neocons who promoted the Iraq war will eventually find
protection behind this façade (fence) as conditions in Iraq deteriorate.
“The Holocaust Industry” Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering
Professor Norman G. Finkelstein in an iconoclastic and controversial new
study moves from an interrogation of the place the Holocaust has come to occupy
in American culture to a disturbing examination of recent Holocaust
compensation agreements. It was not until the Arab-Israeli War of 1967, when
Israel's evident strength brought it into line with US foreign policy, that
memory of the Holocaust began to acquire the exceptional prominence it enjoys
today. Leaders of America's Jewish community were delighted that Israel was now
deemed a major strategic asset and, Finkelstein contends, exploited the
Holocaust to enhance this newfound status. Their subsequent interpretations
of the tragedy are often at variance with actual historical events and are
employed to deflect any criticism of Israel and its supporters.
The Politics of
by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair
"How did a term, once used
accurately to describe the most virulent evil, become a charge flung at the
mildest critic of Israel, particularly concerning its atrocious treatment of
Palestinians? Edited by Cockburn and St. Clair, the print and online journal
Counterpunch has become a must read for hundreds of thousands a month who no
longer believe anything they read in the mainstream press beyond the sports
scores. And on the subject of Israel and Palestine, of the Israel lobby in the
US, the current middle east crisis, and its ramifications at home and abroad,
Counterpunch has been unrivalled. Herein you'll find 18 of the finest essays
and articles (from 9 Jews and 9 Gentiles!). A lot of the names will be familiar
- Edward Said, Robert Fisk, Norman Finkelstein, Lenni Brenner, Uri Avnery, plus
the editors. Then, there's former CIA analysts Bill and Kathy Christison, the
trenchant and witty philosopher Michael Neumann, seasoned Capitol Hill staffer
George Sutherland, Will Yeoman's path-breaking essay on Israel and divestment,
Shaheed Alam who became a target of the fanatical Daniel Pipes and Israeli
journalist Yigal Bronner. Plus Kurt Nimmo, Bruce Jackson, Jeffrey Blankfort and
more. This, the first in the new Counterpunch series from AK Press, is a timely
anthology on how silence and complicity in crimes against a betrayed people has
The eve of the Jewish New Year is an
excellent occasion for what Jewish tradition calls Kheshbon Nefesh, or
soul-searching on so-called "anti-Semitism", which has now
become the single most important element of Jewish identity. Jews may believe
in God or not, eat pork or not, live in Israel or not, but they are all united
by their unlimited belief in anti-Semitism.
September 13, 2004
One of the great ironies of Jewish history is that the
secular Zionism of the nineteenth century was formulated precisely for the
purpose of offering an alternative to the assimilationism and Jewish
"self-hatred" of the Diaspora.
Zionism arose as a response to both assimilationism
and anti-Semitism. Who then could have dreamed that the fulfillment and
realization of Zionism would be accompanied by the emergence of the most
malignant manifestations of Israeli self-hatred and Jewish anti-Semitism, this
in the state of Israel and the land of Zion.
My thesis that the invasion of Iraq was
supported, influenced and promoted by the neocons who had the interests of
Israel in mind should be looked at in the context of the Palestinian / Israeli
conflict and the role that Zionism and it’s
adherents have played in the years leading up to the founding of Israel and to
the present time.
the Israel / Palestinian conflict is not resolved there will never be peace in
the Middle East. With the death of Yasser Arafat, Pres.
Bush has a golden opportunity to play an important role in the
some of these neocons have Zionist
leanings it is important to learn something about Zionism in order to
understand what is happening in the Middle East and why we invaded Iraq. The
following links attempt to shed some light on the subject
the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
site aims to provide authoritative information on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict without polemics. On the theory that less is more, we've scoured the
web and selected the best articles, maps and other materials. Links are
organized by subject and annotated, so you can find what you need quickly.
East > Politics > Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Israel made an honest effort to seek peace with the Palestinians? The author of
the following book lists the many obstacles that the Israeli government has
placed in the way on the road to a peaceful settlement. Read the “Background”
excerpts. By all means buy the book if you are seeking the truth and the other
side of the story that the US media is afraid to tell.
and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
From: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Background pp. xi – xii
“To resolve what was called the 'Jewish question' - i.e., the reciprocal challenges of
Gentile repulsion, or anti-Semitism, and Gentile attraction, or assimilation -
the Zionist movement sought in the late nineteenth century to create an
overwhelmingly, if not homogeneously, Jewish state in Palestine.! Once
the Zionist movement gained a foothold in Palestine through Great
Britain's issuance of the Balfour Declaration, the main obstacle to
realizing its goal was the indigenous Arab population. For, on the
eve of Zionist colonization, Palestine was overwhelmingly not Jewish
but Muslim and Christian Arab.
Across the mainstream Zionist spectrum, it was
understood from the outset that Palestine's indigenous Arab population would
not acquiesce in its dispossession. 'Contrary to the claim that is often
made, Zionism was not blind to the presence of Arabs in Palestine', Zeev
Sternhell observes. 'If Zionist intellectuals and leaders ignored the Arab
dilemma, it was chiefly because they knew that this problem had no solution
within the Zionist way of thinking. In general both sides understood
each other well and knew that the implementation of Zionism could be only at
the expense of the Palestinian Arabs.' Moshe Shertok (later Sharett)
contemptuously dismissed the 'illusive hopes' of those who spoke about a
"'mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common
interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between
the two fraternal peoples.'" 'There is no example in history', David
Ben-Gurion declared, succinctly framing the core problem, 'that a nation opens
the gates of its country, not because of necessity but because the nation which
wants to come in has explained its desire to it.”
'The tragedy of Zionism', Walter Laqueur wrote in his
standard history, 'was that it appeared on the international scene when there were
no longer empty spaces on the world map.' This is not quite right. Rather
it was no longer politically tenable to create such spaces:
extermination had ceased to be an option of conquest. Basically the Zionist
movement could choose between only two strategic options to achieve its goal:
what Benny Morris has labeled 'the way of South Africa' - 'the establishment of an apartheid
state, with a settler minority lording it over a large, exploited native majority' - or the 'the way of transfer' -
'you could create a
homogenous Jewish state or at least a state with an overwhelming Jewish
majority by moving or transferring all or most of
the Arabs out.”
War and expulsion (transfer)
understand why Israeli leaders would want a Middle East war, it is first
necessary to take a brief look at the history of the Zionist movement
and its goals. Despite public rhetoric to the contrary, the idea of
expelling (or, in the accepted euphemism, "transferring")
the indigenous Palestinian population was an integral part of the Zionist
effort to found a Jewish national state in Palestine. Historian Tom Segev
The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist
movement from its very beginnings, first appearing in Theodore Herzl's diary.
In practice, the Zionists began executing a mini-transfer from the time
they began purchasing the land and evacuating the Arab tenants....
"Disappearing" the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream,
and was also a necessary condition of its existence.... With few exceptions,
none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer — or
Segev continues, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly proclaim
their plan of mass expulsion because "this would cause the Zionists to
lose the world's sympathy." 
The most monumental cover-up in media history may be the one I’m
about to describe. In my entire experience with American journalism, I have
never found anything as extreme, sustained, and omnipresent.
Three and a half years ago, when
the current Palestinian uprising began, I started to look into Israel and Palestine.
I had never paid much attention to this issue before and so –
unlike many people – I knew I was completely uninformed about
it. I had no idea that I was pulling a loose piece of thread that would
steadily unravel, until nothing would ever be quite as it had been before.
When I listened to news reports
on this issue, I noticed that I was hearing a great deal about Israelis and
very little about Palestinians. I decided to go to the Internet to see what
would turn up, and discovered international reports about Palestinian children
being killed daily, often shot in the head, hundreds being injured, eyes being
shot out. And yet little of all this was appearing in NPR reports, the New
York Times, or the San Francisco Chronicle.
There was also little historic
background and context in the stories, so this, too, I began to fill in for
myself, reading what has turned into a multitude of books on the history and
other aspects of the conflict. I attended presentations and read international
The more I looked into all this,
the more it seemed that I had stumbled onto a cover-up that quite possibly
dwarfed anything I had seen before. My former husband had been one of the
founders of the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR), an institution known
for its powerful exposés. He and CIR have won numerous well-deserved awards
from Project Censored from the very beginning of its creation.
Nevertheless, the duration and violence of the injustice I was discovering, and
the extent of its omission and misrepresentation – even in
Project Censored itself, seemed unparalleled.
a freelance writer in New Orleans, writes with integrity, clarity and passion
on issues of social justice. Visit his web page to learn more about the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict.
Middle East Resource Guide
Zionism and anti-Semitism
For many American Jews, anyone who writes disapprovingly of
the policies of Ariel Sharon and of his Dionysian neo-conservative
backers in Washington is evidence of "classic anti-Semitism." The
mere reference to "neo-cons" is interpreted to mean an attack
against a "Jewish cabal."
Zionism and Judaism –
Let Us (NETUREI KARTA) Define Our Terms
first we must ask a simple question. Why has the lie, which equates Judaism and
Zionism, triumphed? Why, has what is so demonstrably false, captured the
citadels of Western public opinion? And, in the end, what can we do about it?
History is invariably written by those who emerge victorious from its
struggles. In the case of the Zionist/Palestinian struggle of the past century
this factor immediately places the Israeli state, its
propagandists and international apologists, in the ideological driver’s
Second, the suffering of the Jewish people in the Second World War in Europe
created extraordinary sympathy among the peoples of the earth and it was this
sincere and commendable sympathy that has been
incessantly exploited by the Zionist propaganda machine since 1945.
Last, Zionist propagandists are always given to bullying tactics and
censorship. It is very helpful in this regard to read former Congressman
Findley’s book, They Dared to Speak Out. It is the sorry record of the immense
resources that the Zionist lobby invested in destroying the careers of
politicians all across the United States who had voiced some qualms about
this nation’s subservience to Israel.
So, let’s explore some
web pages on the
neocons so you can decide if the
evidence is anecdotal
or is it factual.
The Real Reason We're In Iraq
Sorensen, Special to SF Gate
September 13, 2004
sense tells that we didn't attack Iraq because Saddam is a brutal dictator. He
was a brutal dictator back in the days when we played footsie with him as he
fought Iran. (Do a Google image search for Rumsfeld and Saddam, and you'll find
pictures of Rummy and Saddam shaking hands.)
the United States has always been friendly with brutal dictators if it's to our
financial advantage. Currently, there are other dictators afoot; Saddam wasn't
the only one.
And anyone who
can read knows that Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
So why did we
go to war with Iraq?
answer is "oil." But that's not the whole story.
went to war with Iraq because an influential group of conservatives (now known
as "neo-cons") convinced President George W. Bush that it was
in America's best interests to conquer Iraq as a first step toward dominating
the oil-producing nations in the Middle East and eventually the world.
insignificantly, these same neo-cons wanted to eliminate Iraq as a threat to
their darling ally, Israel. Their plan is laid out in detail on the Web
So we invaded
Iraq not to save ourselves from weapons of mass destruction, not to rid the
world of a brutal dictator and not to avenge the murders of Sept. 11. We
invaded Iraq because Bush and his pals think America should rule the world.
That's why we
can't win. The rest of the world isn't going to let us win. The rest of the
world might admire us, but they do not want to be dominated by us.
And that's why
we should get out of Iraq today. Not tomorrow, not next week, not a year from
now, but today.
Try as we may,
we are not going to turn Iraq into a model democracy. The Sunnis don't want
democracy. The Shiites don't want a democracy. The Kurds don't want a
The Saudis do
not want a new democracy as a neighbor. Nor do the Kuwaitis. Nor do the Syrians.
None of the countries in that region with despotic rulers want us to succeed.
And don't think for a moment they're above slipping terrorists into Iraq to
The plan to
conquer Iraq was half-baked from the start. Our troops were not properly
trained or equipped to do the job given them. (Sent to the desert in jungle
fatigues? Not given body armor? Completely untrained in handling prisoners?)
There was no
"exit plan" because we never intended to exit. The plan was, and is,
to build military bases in Iraq and stay there forever as cock of the walk in
the Middle East.
Many of our
European friends, who have a sense of history, knew better than to get involved
in such a fool's mission
Bush may be the
idealist other people think he is, but his grandiose plan for controlling the
world has at least one fatal flaw: it depends, childlike, on the good will of
Yet, not even
the U.S., the alleged "good guy" in this mess, has demonstrated
purity. Our leaders see Iraq as a place to make money. So Bush & Co. have
set up their friends to cash in on the rebuilding of Iraq, a job that should be
done (for pay) by the people who built it in the first place: Iraqis.
We can't win in
Iraq. Hardly anybody wants us to. The longer we stay there, the more Iraqi
children end up maimed or dead, the more of our young men and women die.
government lied to us, and to the world, to get us into this war. That alone
should tell us it's wrong.
Nine Most Effective Neocons in Starting War:
Rumsfeld, Sect. Defense
Perle-Defense Policy Board
Libby-Cheney’s chief of staff
Wurmser Cheney’s Mideast Advisor
Abrams-Security Council, Mideast
Podhoretz-President’s Medal of Freedom
Phase 1: The Focus on Israel
In early 1996 at IASPS, a “Jerusalem-based think tank with
an office in Washington.” Wurmser, Feith, Perle and others wrote a report for the new
Israeli prime minister, calling the removal of Saddam from power "an
important Israeli strategic objective." Perle flew to Israel and
presented the report to Netanyahu.
December, 1996. In Commentary Magazine, Podhoretz explained that Iraq was a
threat to Israel because of its Scud missiles--this thinking seems
to be the origin of the WMD rationale. Wurmser, however, wrote a report
saying the danger of Iraq was that it was “crumbling” and was likely to be
taken over by Syria or Iran, so pre-emptive action was needed.
Phase 2: Joining Forces—PNAC is
June 1997. PNAC, the neocon think tank that lobbied
hardest for the war was founded by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,
January 1998. PNAC’s first public statement, an open letter to Clinton
(from Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Perle, etc.) urged necessary
“military steps”... “for removing Saddam's regime from power” to protect, our
troops, Israel, and moderate Arab states from the “possibility” of Saddam
acquiring the capability to deliver possible WMD. In May it wrote a similar
letter to Senator Lott.
Phase 3: Theory, Planning and
March 1999. Wurmser publishes his book on Iraqi regime change
"Iraq's strategic importance to the US derives from a source beyond the
pernicious, extortionist character of Saddam's regime. Iraq occupies some of
the most strategically blessed and resource-laden territory of the middle east.
... Iraq also has large, proven oil reserves, water, ..." Wurmser also
notes that Iraq threatens its neighbors, but in so saying, mentions only
January, 2001. Writing for OurJerusalem.com, Wurmser argues "Instead,
Israel and the United States should ... strike fatally, not merely disarm, the
centers of radicalism in the region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad,
Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza. That would [prove] fighting with
either the U.S. or Israel is suicidal."
fights for and gets Rumsfeld, the rest of the neocon team follows.
May 2001. Reuel Gerecht, the Director of the Middle East Initiative, at PNAC,
publishes “Liberate Iraq” in the neocon magazine
“The Weekly Standard.” He says Chalabi is more informed than the CIA, and Bush
is retreating, and lays out a strategy for war quite similar to the one
Phase 4: 9/11 and the
Team Swings into Action
September 19, 2001. Rumsfeld calls a 19-hour meeting
of Defense Policy Board (Perl, Wolfowitz, Feith, Chalabi, etc.). A letter is written, but
published by PNAC in Washington Times (Sept. 20). It contains only two sentences on Bin
Laden and Afghanistan, but large paragraphs on (1) Iraq (with Iran and Syria)
and (2) Hezbollah as well as a paragraph on Israel and Palestine. One week
after 9/11, the neocons focused almost entirely on Iraq and threats to Israel,
did not mention Al Qaeda, and used Osama only as a stepping stone to their real
May 2003. Wolfowitz says “The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the
U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that
everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction.” Then four days
later, "The war in Iraq was impressively quick and successful."
More neocon background:
PNAC - Project for the New
American Century. Neocon foreign and defense policy think tank. Includes: Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, Abrams, and Podhoretz.
JINSA- The Jewish Institute
for National Security Affairs is committed to explaining the link between US.
national security and Israel’s security. Served on Advisory Board: Cheney
(1994), Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle.
Rumsfeld- Cheney’s pick
for Secretary of Defense
critique of Bush I's decision to leave Saddam in Power. Time magazine's
"godfather" of the 2nd Iraq war. Served under Cheney in first Iraq
Wurmser- Cheney’s Middle
Feith- Undersecretary of
Defense (to Wolfowitz) for policy
Perle- Rumsfeld’s pick for
chairman of Defense Policy Board. Forced to step down as chairman, but still on
Libby- Cheney’s Chief of
Staff. Wrote controversial “Defense Planning Guidance” with Wolfowitz in 1992
for Cheney. Wolfowitz and Libby were upset that Bush 1 did not remove Saddam.
Abrams- Top Mideast advisor
on the National Security Council. Author of Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive
in a Christian America. Son-in-law of Podhoretz. Pled guilty to making false
statements to Congress.
Podhoretz- Now retired
editor of Commentary, the magazine of the American Jewish Committee. Received
Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004, Current focus is the war on terrorism.
Calling it world war four, he predicts it will last for generations.
This is not a complete list of neocons who have played a key role in starting
the Iraq war, but these may be the nine most important players.
specifically represented by Richard Perle, Bill Kristol &
Richard Brooks (WEEKLY STANDARD), Paul Wolfowitz, Fred Barnes, Morton
Kondracke, Charles Krauthammer, Frank Gaffney (former aid to Richard Perle
and WASHINGTON TIMES columnist), Robert Kagan (Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace), columnist Cal Thomas, a dispensationalist, and
neoconservative defense intellectuals
have their roots on the left, not the right
The weird men behind George W Bush's war
are products of the largely Jewish-American Trotskyite movement of the 1930s
and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and
1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no
precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud
party's tactics, including preventive warfare such Israel's 1981 raid on Iraq's
Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for
"democracy" They call their revolutionary ideology
"Wilsonianism" (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really
Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud
strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination
for people such as the Palestinians.
Serving Two Flags:
Neocons, Israel and the Bush Administration
By Stephen Green
9/11, a small group of “neoconservatives” in the administration have
effectively gutted—they would say reformed—traditional American foreign and
security policy. Features of the new Bush doctrine include the pre-emptive use
of unilateral force, and the undermining of the United Nations and the
principle instruments and institutions of international law...all in the cause
of fighting terrorism and promoting homeland security.
Some skeptics, noting the neo-cons’ past academic and professional associations,
writings and public utterances, have suggested that their underlying agenda is
the alignment of U.S. foreign and security policies with those of Ariel Sharon
and the Israeli right wing. The administration’s
new hard line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict certainly suggests that, as
perhaps does the destruction, with U.S soldiers and funds, of the military
capacity of Iraq, and the current belligerent neocon campaign against
the other two countries which constitute a remaining counterforce to Israeli
military hegemony in the region—Iran
The Principals: Perle, Wolfowitz and
wonder how, with security histories like these, Messrs. Bryen and Ledeen have
managed to get second and third chances to return to government in highly
The explanation is that they,
along with other like-minded neoconservatives, have in the current Bush
administration friends in very high places. In particular, Bryen and Ledeen
have repeatedly been boosted into defense/security posts by former Defense
Policy Council member and chairman Richard Perle (who recently quietly resigned
his position), Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.
As previously mentioned, in
1981 Perle, as DOD assistant secretary for international security policy (ISP),
hired Bryen as his deputy. That same year, Wolfowitz, then head of the State
Department Policy Planning Staff, hired Ledeen as a special adviser. In 2001
Douglas Feith, as DOD Under Secretary for Policy, hired or approved the hiring
of Ledeen as a consultant for the Office of Special Plans.
Lobby Has Strong Voice
worse than you thought: pro-Israel influence on US policy
In 2003, the
organization reported spending $1.28 million on lobbying.
Administration's Dual Loyalties
by KATHLEEN and
former CIA political analysts
"Dual loyalties" has
always been one of those red flags posted around the subject of Israel and the
Arab-Israeli conflict, something that induces horrified gasps and rapid
heartbeats because of its implication of Jewish disloyalty to the United States
and the common assumption that anyone who would speak such a canard is ipso
facto an anti-Semite. (We have a Jewish friend who is not bothered by the term
in the least, who believes that U.S. and Israeli interests should be identical
and sees it as perfectly natural for American Jews to feel as much loyalty to
Israel as they do to the United States. But this is clearly not the usual
reaction when the subject of dual loyalties arises.)
Foxman using the “AS” words to hide behind when the issue of “Dual Loyalties”
is brought up.
bias worries US Jews
Jewish officials are more concerned about the US authorities' apparent interest
in snaring two America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) staffers in an
alleged spy scandal than with the future of AIPAC or their own efforts in
are a lot of questions to ask: Why all this energy, all this effort?" said
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), relating
to the disclosures that Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin allegedly shared top
secret intelligence information with two high-level AIPAC staffers. "It's
a very broad investigation in terms of the persons interviewed. Why engage in a
sting vis- -vis Jewish institutions? There are a lot of questions
suggested that the FBI's interest in AIPAC may point to underlying bias, and a
suspicion among US authorities that Jews in America are more loyal to Israel
than to the US. That is especially troubling to the ADL, because the
dual-loyalty charge carries with it anti-Semitic overtones for many American
"One out of three Americans believes that American Jews
are more loyal to Israel than the United States. That's a classic anti-Semitic attitude," Foxman said.
"Washington is not immune."
Foxman and Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of
Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations suggested, this might factor
into decisions to reject US Jews for foreign-service jobs –
something American Jews have complained about for some time.
said he gets complaints all the time from Jews claiming they've been denied
access to security-sensitive posts because they are Jewish.
have been reports of people being denied security clearance again, and whether
it's related to this or not we can't tell," Hoenlein said.
spokeswoman Debbie Weierman said the bureau had no comment.
AIPAC brought 5,000 supporters to its annual policy conference in Washington
three weeks ago, the organization sought to demonstrate publicly that its work
would not be hampered by the controversy surrounding the two ex-AIPAC officials
caught up in a spy scandal.
to all outward appearances, it seemed that the group was not suffering much
fallout from the disclosure that Franklin allegedly handed over intelligence
information to AIPAC research director Steven Rosen and Iran analyst Keith
moved quickly to fire the two, paid for lawyers to defend them against any
possible espionage charges and announced to conference delegates that, in the
words of executive director Howard Kohr, "Your presence here today sends a
message to every adversary of Israel, AIPAC and the Jewish community that we
are here and here to stay."
behind this veneer of strength, officials at Jewish groups that work with
Capitol Hill say they are monitoring closely a situation that could change if
Rosen and Weissman are indicted. There is some concern that if they are
criminally charged, a high-profile espionage trial, similar to the Jonathan
Pollard case, could stoke fears among some in America, including US officials,
that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the US.
did not turn out exactly as predicted," said Neil Goldstein, executive
director of the American Jewish Congress. "They said there is nothing to
it; it'll all go away. Clearly, they've taken actions now that belie that, and
clearly there are things that are still going on."
can I tell you? It has us all nervous," said David Zweibel, executive vice
president for government and public affairs at Agudath Israel of America.
is in general a time of some nervousness about our relationships on Capitol
Hill and, more generally, in federal Washington," Zweibel said.
Nevertheless, he allowed, "There has not yet been any tangible sign of
pulling back or reluctance or anything in terms of ongoing relationships."
now, Jewish organizational officials insist that AIPAC's troubles have not
really affected them or their work.
have not been impacted, to the best of our knowledge," said Foxman.
"Nothing has changed vis- -vis Congress. We meet on many issues, including
the Middle East."
echoed that sentiment. "Operationally, I would say that it has not
impacted in any way that we can discern," he said. "I think the community
should stand by AIPAC and Rosen and Weissman, who have served the community and
made great contributions."
if the two are indicted – which some news reports based on
anonymous sources have suggested is imminent – that
should not change anything, he said.
are not convictions," Hoenlein said. "From what we know, it would be
very hard to convict somebody for what has been said so far."
Jewish groups' continued support for AIPAC is the conviction many share that
Rosen and Weissman were set up in an FBI sting operation that hinged upon the
cooperation of a Pentagon analyst who already was in trouble with the law for
disclosing top secret information related to America's national defense.
analyst, Franklin, was arrested in May, posted bond and had a preliminary
hearing in his case on Thursday.
is charged with leaking top secret information to two men –
said to be the AIPAC staffers – at an Arlington, Virginia restaurant on
June 26, 2003, as well as with breaking FBI rules on the handling of classified
documents. The information Franklin allegedly shared with the AIPAC staffers –
who are not mentioned by name in any of the indictments against Franklin –
related to potential attacks on US and Israeli agents in Iraq by Iranian-backed
Franklin, a 25-year veteran of the Department of Defense, seems to have broken
the law by disclosing classified information that could be used "to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation," it
is not at all clear that Rosen and Weissman broke any laws by receiving it.
though they reportedly relayed that information to an Israeli Embassy official –
so far, the most damning piece of information against them –
they also notified the White House and reportedly have said that they were
unaware the information was classified.
officials say they have been reassured that the organization is not being
"It's been told
consistently it's not a target of this," said Nathan Lewin, the Washington
lawyer AIPAC hired to deal with the case. "Whatever the government does
with regard to this investigation, it is not directed at AIPAC."
word "neoconservative" originally referred to former liberals and
leftists who were dismayed by the countercultural movements of the 1960s and
the Great Society, and adopted conservative views, for example, against
government welfare programs, and in favor of interventionist foreign policies.
A group of today's "neocons" now hold key positions in the Pentagon
and in the White House and they even have a mole in the State Department.
It is really a conflict between the neoconservatives, who
are largely responsible for getting us into the war against Iraq, and those
they disparagingly call the "realists," who tend to be more cautious
about the United States' efforts to remake the Middle East into a democratic
In the context of
the United States, it refers to a right-wing movement of
former political leftists. As Michael Lind has observed,
"Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left,
not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of
the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into
anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind
of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or
Jun 19th 2003
From The Economist print edition
A strange waltz involving George
Bush, ancient Greece and a dead German thinker
FROM the moment George Bush
moved into the White House, the search has been on for the man (or woman) who
is pulling his strings. Is the puppeteer Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld? Karl
Rove or Condoleezza Rice? Big Oil or old-time religion? Each has had their
spell in the spotlight. But now all are forgotten in the fuss about the most
surprising suspect of all: Leo
Strauss, a political philosopher who died in 1973 and wrote such
page-turners as “Xenophon's Socratic Discourse”.
Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
By Jim Lobe,
AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2003.
Many neoconservatives like Paul
Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use
deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.
would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence
agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war?
follower of Leo Strauss may just hire the "right" kind of men to get
the job done -- people with the intellect, acuity, and, if necessary, the
political commitment, polemical skills, and, above all, the imagination to find
the evidence that career intelligence officers could not detect.
"right" man for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, suggests
Seymour Hersh in his recent New Yorker article entitled 'Selective
Intelligence,' was Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans (OSP)
-- an agency created specifically to find the evidence of WMDs and/or links
with Al Qaeda, piece it together, and clinch the case for the invasion of Iraq.
Strauss, Conservative Mastermind
By Robert Locke
FrontPageMagazinecom | May 31,
CONTEMPORARY American intellectual life, there is only one school of
conservative intellectuals that has taken root in academia as a movement. They
are the Straussians, followers of the late Leo Strauss (1899-1973). The hostile
New Republic referred to Straussians as "one of the top ten gangs of the
millennium." Strauss is an ambiguous, sometimes even troubling, figure,
but he is essential to the conservative revival of our time and he offers the
intellectual depth we are so desperately in need of.
Office of Special Plans
call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal—a small
cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. In the past year, according to former and present Bush
Administration officials, their operation, which was conceived by Paul
Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has brought about a crucial change
of direction in the American intelligence community. These advisers and
analysts, who began their work in the days after September 11, 2001, have
produced a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public
opinion and American policy toward Iraq.
for global domination top the annual list of stories ignored or downplayed by
the mainstream media.
blueprint for U.S. military domination is hardly a secret. A group called the
Project for a New American Century--a think tank founded by hawks who now hold
prominent jobs in the White House--released a version of it three years ago
of the major news media in this country have reported on this document or on
the fact that Bush is so closely following its script.
While many of the
hawks are under the wing of Wolfowitz, several conservatives hold
influential positions in Cheney's office and in the State Department. During
the Clinton administration, many of them served with far-right,
defense-oriented think tanks such as the Center for Security Policy and the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
Uncivil War Over Iraq
Frum "repeatedly refers to his own Jewishness.
It is hard to recall any previous presidential aide so engrossed with his own
ethnic roots. Frum is more uncompromising in support of Israel than any
other issue, raising the inescapable question of whether this was the real
reason he entered the White House."
Invading Iraq: Converging
u.s. and Israeli Agendas
people in Bush administration are on record as strong supporters of Israel and
of regime change in Iraq, among them: Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of
Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz,
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Doug Feith, Under Secretary, Arms
Control and International Security, John R. Bolton, senior director on Middle
Eastern affairs on the National Security Council, Eliot Abrams.
Bob Hope and Bing Crosby, a pair of rightist factions in the Bush administration
are hoping to take the United States on the road to Baghdad. Unlike the beloved
Hope-Crosby 'road' pictures, however, the adventure in Iraq is not going to be
1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?
George W. Bush entered the White administration of House, and years before the
Sept. 11 attacks set the President George W. direction of his presidency, a
group of influential Bush. neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam
Hussein out of power.
The group, the
Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its
supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the
Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul
In open letters to
Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for the
removal of Saddam Hussein’s
regime from power and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle
East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.
And in a report just before the
2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the
shift would come about slowly, unless there were some catastrophic and
catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.
Neoconservatives are former
liberals (which explains the "neo" prefix) who advocate an aggressive
unilateralist vision of U.S. global supremacy, which includes a close strategic
alliance with Israel. Let's start with one of the founding fathers of the
extended neocon clan: Irving Kristol. His extensive resume includes waging culture
wars for the CIA against the Soviet Union in the early years of the Cold War
and calling for an American "imperial" role during the Vietnam War.
Papa Kristol, who has been credited with defining the major themes of
neoconservative thought, is married to Gertrude Himmelfarb, a neoconservative
powerhouse on her own. Her studies of the Victorian era in Britain helped
inspire the men who sold Bush on the idea of "compassionate
Inter Press Neo - Con
overall IPS mission
Its main objective shall be to contribute to development by
promoting free communication and a professional flow of information to
reinforce technical and economic co-operation among developing countries.
All in the Neocon Family
to appearances, the neoconservatives do not represent a political movement, but
a small, exclusive club with incestuous familial and personal connections.
What do William Kristol, Norman
Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, and Robert Kagan have in common? Yes, they are all
die-hard hawks who have gained control of U.S. foreign policy since the 9/11
attacks. But they are also part of one big neoconservative family -- an
extended clan of spouses, children, and friends who have known each other for
Neocons Key figures
U.S. Media…… Objective or Subjective in reporting the
The complicity of the media in
supporting the neocon Iraq agenda can be understood in light of it’s
support of Israel in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the Middle East.
As can be seen from this list of lists, the entire anti-Israel
contingent of the punditocracy does not add up to a single George Will
or William Safire, much less a Wall Street Journal or US News. It remains to be seen whether unqualified
support for all of Israel's actions is really in that tortured nation's best
interest in the long run. Sometimes the
bravest and most valuable advice a trusted friend can give is:
Neocon line up
following names were entered in a GOOGLE search using key words “name
– neocon – Iraq –
war” or “name-neo
will soon notice a pattern of association of these Jewish Americans with neocon
thought i.e.; invading Iraq and support of Israel. Granted, that some of the
Google search links are of a questionable source but select those that are not
Click on the names
Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Eli S. Jacobs
William Schneider, Jr.
Richard H. Shultz
Stephen J. Solarz
A number of Washington think tanks and organizations have been complicit in following an agenda in their support of invading Iraq.
Neoconservative Think Tanks
Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs (JINSA),
JINSA has a
1. To educate the American public about
the importance of an effective U.S. defense capability so that our vital
interests as Americans can be safeguarded; and
2. To inform the American defense and
foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in
bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.
JINSA Advisory Board Note the number of
ex US military brass
Lt. Gen. Anthony Burshnick, USAF (Ret.)
B. Davis, USAF (ret.)
Adm. Jerome Johnson, USN (Ret.)
LTG Paul G.
Cerjan, USA (Ret)
David P. Steinmann, Chairman
More on JINSA
Washington Institute for Near East
Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
viewpoint is pro-Israel, it is not the case that it contains no criticism of
Israel or is monolithically anti-Arab.
A very influential organization with the
Center for Security Policy is the Center's National
Security Advisory Council, whose members hold senior positions with the
Search Results Keywords"Center For Security Policy"
Herman Kahn (1922 - 1983) was founder of the Hudson Institute.
by Samuel Francis
August 5, 1996
Not only at Commentary and The Public Interest,
but also at National Review, The American Spectator, The
Weekly Standard, The New Republic and the Wall
Street Journal editorial pages, as well as at the Heritage Foundation, the
American Enterprise Institute, and other leading conservative think-tanks,
neo-conservative influence became routine.
Neo-conservatives also began taking over
the tax-exempt foundations that had provided funding for most of the
conservative organizations. These foundations, smaller than the Establishment
liberal giants like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, had been established
by wealthy conservative families to serve philanthropic goals. But in the 1980s
neo-conservatives succeeded in taking over many of their administrative
functions, using their positions to re-direct the funds which the foundations dispensed
- turning off the spigot to conservative groups they deemed not
"credible" and turning it on for those they favored.
Israel lobby that has an inordinate amount of
influence on U.S. foreign policy vis a vis the Palestinian / Israeli
Speaks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee AIPAC
May 18, 2004
AIPAC is doing
important work I hope you know that. In Washington and beyond, AIPAC is calling
attention to the great security challenges of our time. You're educating
Congress and the American people on the growing dangers of proliferation.
You've spoken out on the threat posed by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
You've always understood and warned against the evil ambition of terrorism and
their networks. In a dangerous new century,
your work is more vital than ever.
More often than
not, the politician who tried to face down the American Israel Public Action
Committee came out the worse for it.
Pro-Israel Lobby in U.S. by
By anyone’s standard,
AIPAC is one of the most powerful and intimidating lobbies in Washington and certainly
the most influential in foreign policy. In practical terms, it exists for one
purpose: to assure the enactment of legislation favorable to Israel. To that
end, it helps elect supporters of Israel and defeat its critics. It is as
thoroughly political as Congress itself.
PAC Contributions to 2006 Congressional Candidates
new Council for the National Interest/Zogby poll commissioned after the
publication of reports that AIPAC was being investigated
for espionage shows that Americans of all backgrounds and ages strongly
believe it acts as a foreign agent for the Israeli government and should be
registered as a foreign agent and lose its tax exempt status.
The poll found 61% "strongly or somewhat agree" that AIPAC should be
asked to register as a foreign agent and lose its tax exempt status, while only
12% strongly or somewhat disagree that it should. 27% were unsure on the issue.
A majority of people within almost every subgroup agrees. This includes 77% of
18-29-year-olds, 72% of Hispanics, and approximately two-thirds of independent
voters, 50-64-year-olds, residents of the West region, Catholics, single
adults, parents of children under 17, and men.
15% of Jewish Americans "strongly agreed" and 15% "strongly
disagreed" with the statement that AIPAC should register as an agent of a
foreign government and thereby lose its tax exempt status. However, 60% were
unsure. Three times as many "Born Again Christians" agreed with the
results than disagreed, with almost one-third unsure. These are the traditional
pro-Israel bases of the Republican Party.
Iraq a historical perspective
The question has been asked why did the
president’s advisors fail to consult with
historians who specialized in Arabic studies to learn about the history of the
region before making the decision to invade. What is troubling is that Britain
had suffered a defeat in Iraq after world war one trying to bring peace to the
region. One would only have to GOOGLE key words to learn about Iraq such as was
who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
My son will be twelve on September 27. If
he had been born in 1964, the year of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, he would
have turned eighteen in 1970, the height of US troop strength. My son, unlike
the son of George I, would have been drafted to fight in a war that most
recognize as illegitimate. Americans who fought bravely and died in the rice
patties of Southeast Asia were betrayed by the President, the Congress and the
People of the United States in 1964. All three had a patriotic duty to question
the lies of the day, but they sat by and did nothing.
I hope that Americans learn their
history. I do not want my son to die in an unjust quagmire without end.
the free encyclopedia.
century of war and rebellion
Since the state of Iraq was created early
this century, the working class in the area have suffered brutal exploitation
and repression at the hands of the rival ruling class groups competing for
power. As if dealing with these home grown gangsters wasn't enough, they have
also faced the bullets and bombs of the global capitalist powers (especially
Britain and America) seeking to control the oil wealth of this part of the
Meanwhile opposition political organizations such as the Iraqi
Communist Party and the Kurdish Democratic Party have consistently made deals
with both Iraqi regimes and the global powers at the expense of those who they
claimed to be leading in resistance to the state. Despite all this, the working
class has shown itself a force to be reckoned with, toppling governments and
sabotaging war efforts. This brief chronology charts some of the key moments in
a century of war and rebellion.
The Great Iraqi
against British rule had occurred even before the news reached Iraq that the country
had been given only mandate status. Upon the death of an important Shia mujtahid
(religious scholar) in early May 1920, Sunni and Shia ulama temporarily put
aside their differences as the memorial services metamorphosed into political
rallies. Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting, began later in that month; once
again, through nationalistic poetry and oratory, religious leaders exhorted the
people to throw off the bonds of imperialism. Violent demonstrations and
strikes followed the British arrest of several leaders.
Tried First. Iraq Was No Picnic Then.
The public, the distinguished military
analyst wrote from Baghdad, had been led "into a trap from which it will
be hard to escape with dignity and honor."
"They have been tricked into it by a
steady withholding of information," he said. "The Baghdad communiqués
are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have
been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows."
He added: "We are today not far from
a disaster." Sound familiar? That was T. E. Lawrence — Lawrence of Arabia —
writing in The Sunday Times of London on Aug. 22, 1920, about the British
occupation of what was then called Mesopotamia. And he knew. For it was
Lieutenant Colonel Lawrence and the intrepid British adventuress Gertrude Bell
who, more than anyone else, were responsible for the creation of what was to
become Iraq. A fine mess they made of it, too.
Iraqi Whispers Mull
Repeat of 1920s Revolt déjà vu all
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq -
Whispers of "revolution" are growing louder in Baghdad this month at
teahouses, public protests and tribal meetings as Iraqis point to the past as
an omen for the future.
1920 as one of the most glorious moments in modern history, one followed by
nearly eight decades of tumult. The bloody rebellion against British rule that
year is memorialized in schoolbooks, monuments and mass-produced tapestries
that hang in living rooms.
territory of modern Iraq is roughly equivalent to that of ancient Mesopotamia,
which fostered a succession of early civilizations. The history of Mesopotamia
began with the civilization of the Sumerians,
who emigrated from the highlands of Iran and northern Anatolia in about 3000
BC. Two kingdoms, Sumer and Akkade, combined in about 2350 BC to form one
nation under King
Sargon of Agade. In about 2000 BC the Amorites
assumed control. Their king, Hammurabi,
made Babylon a famous city (see Babylonia),
though he is best known for his code of laws.
After his death came invasions by the Hittites and
then by the Kassites,
who formed the Kingdom of Assyria about 1350 BC. The Kassites originally had
their capital at Ashur, but they moved it in 720 BC to Nineveh, opposite the
modern city of Mosul.
The PowerPoint That Rocked the Pentagon
LaRouchie defector who's advising the defense establishment on Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi Money Trail
Did Saudi Princess Give Money to
in House of Saud
Since 1979, the Wahhabi
establishment has spent an estimated $70 billion on Islamist missionary work,
ranging from the funding of some 10,000 madrassas in Pakistan to the
construction of thousands of mosques and seminaries and community centers all
over the Muslim and Western worlds. Jihad, or holy war, against Western
heathens was the fundamentalist creed.