Site hosted by Build your free website today!





Oh what a tangled web he weaved when at first he practiced to deceive."


In this C-SPAN interview from April 15th, 1994 Dick Cheney reveals the reasons why invading Baghdad and toppling Saddam Hussein's regime wouldn't be a great idea because it would have caused a regional quagmire by breaking up Iraq into three pieces, with Kurdistan threatening the territorial integrity of Turkey, Shia Iraq falling prey to the Iranians, and Western Iraq going to the Syrians.


He also stipulates that "not very many" American soldiers' lives were worth losing to take out Saddam during the Gulf War.




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 changed everything".


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 nation (strong).

The 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 Bank(Paul 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 casting the blame for the failure on our military leaders. They cannot save their discredited and bloodstained ideology; they can only try saving certain individuals(Lewis 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 tried for dereliction of duty,   malfeasance in office and manslaughter in the second degree .

Read the following and decide for yourself if what I have found does or does not support my thesis.


The genesis of the war on Iraq


How the neocons hijacked the war on terror

Last update 5 / 22 / 08


“a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils”

George Washington


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.

In an 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 to-

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 as neoconservatives 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.


The following information contains many links to these neocons who played a significant role in taking the U.S. to war without considering the history of the region as well as the consequences of the war due to poor planning for post war security and the lack of an exit strategy.


I used Google as my search engine to do my research.


I realize that reading all that is put before you can become a daunting task. But don’t be turned off by it since the information posted here can not be absorbed in one, two or three hours but may take days of patient searching of some of the Google links that are posted.  This “blog” is meant to be a reference source about the neocons. It is up to you to read and decide whether what is put before you supports my opinion that the neocons many of whom are Jewish/Americans who, because of their dual loyalties, led the U.S. to war with Iraq.


I have included hypertext links (blue underlined text) and/or their url’s. Click on either one to go to the web page. Click on “back” to return to the home page. Best viewed in Internet Explorer.


I have laid out my presentation as follows:


1.      Falsehoods told by past presidents and the media to sway public opinion.

2.      Events and people leading up to the invasion of Iraq 2003. Setting the stage.

3.      The Issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

4.      Regime Change and Introducing Democracy to Iraq.

5.      What of the charge that It’s About Oil?

6.      Political Consequences and Fallout.

7.      Understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its relation to the Iraq war.

8.      The U.S. Media…… Objective or Subjective in reporting the news?

9.      Neoconservatives a.k.a. neocons. Who are they? Their influence on U.S foreign policy.

10  Are you anti-Semitic if you criticize Israel or U.S. policy toward Israel.

11  Anti –Semitism, Zionism etc.

12  Washington think tanks and organizations that have been complicit in following an agenda in their support of invading Iraq.

13  Pro Israel lobbies- AIPAC, JINSA etc.

14  Iraq - A historical perspective. 

15  Saudi Arabia – Ally, Friend or Foe?

16   Israel – Ally, Friend or Foe?

17  Arab propaganda.

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 .




Past presidents and the media who led us into war by lying to the American public.


Remember the Maine!


 The Spanish American war.


The brutality of the Spanish forces on the island of Cuba was dramatized in American newspapers, arousing a great deal of sympathy across the United States. This was depicted graphically in the newspapers of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, both of whom were eager for war with Spain. By means of one-sided and sensational reporting these newspaper barons popularised a fight for colonial plunder, the seizure of Cuba, the Philippines and other territories from the Spaniards. Hearst even sent the renowned artist Frederic Remington to Cuba to provide sketches for American newspaper readers of the revolution. When a disillusioned Remington wired Hearst, "Everything quiet. No trouble here. There will be no war. I wish to return." Hearst shot back the notorious reply, "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I will furnish the war." 


On the pretext of protecting American citizens, although in fact there was no such threat, the President ordered the battleship Maine to Key West, Florida, where it could sail to Cuba at a moment's notice. Then, when a group of conservative Spaniards attacked a Havana newspaper office on January 12, 1898, McKinley sent the Maine to Havana. The Spanish, very anxious to avert war, accepted U.S. explanations that the visit of the powerful warship was a "courtesy call." The ship's officers were treated with all possible respect Then, on February 15, just as the Maine prepared to leave Havana, a huge explosion tore apart the ship causing the deaths of two officers and 266 enlisted men, out of the 354-man crew. The Spanish helped to rescue the survivors and expressed great shock at the tragedy. 


To this day, no one knows for sure what caused the explosion. The Spanish certainly had no motive for provoking a war given the huge military and industrial strength of the United States. Without one shred of evidence, the American press assumed the Spanish were to blame. When Hearst heard the news of the explosion he declared, "This means war." The New York Journal carried a headline reading, "The War Ship Maine Was Split In Two By An Enemy's Secret Infernal Machine." The front page carried a drawing of the ship riding on top of mines with wires leading to a Spanish fort guarding the harbor. A commission hastily assembled by the United States concluded that a mine had indeed destroyed the ship. The assumption, though not explicitly stated, was that the Spanish were responsible. The slogan "Remember the Maine" became the battle cry of U.S. militarists. 


No proof of Spain's involvement has ever surfaced and various Courts of Inquiry have been unable to obtain evidence fixing the responsibility for the destruction of the Maine upon any person or persons. In August 1910, Congress authorized the raising of the Maine and directed Army engineers to supervise the work. A second board of inquiry appointed to inspect the wreck after it was raised reported that injuries to the ship's bottom were caused by an external explosion of low magnitude that set off the forward magazine, completing destruction of the ship. It has never been determined who placed the explosive. Technical experts at the time of both investigations disagreed with these findings, believing that spontaneous combustion of coal in the bunker adjacent to the reserve six-inch magazine was the most likely cause of the explosion on board the ship. An opinion reiterated in 1976 by Admiral Hyman G. Rickover in his book, How the Battleship Maine Was Destroyed. Using documentation gathered from the two official inquiries, as well as information on the construction and ammunition of the Maine, the experts concluded that the damage caused to the ship was inconsistent with the external explosion of a mine. The most likely cause, they speculated, was spontaneous combustion of coal in the bunker next to the magazine. 


The Vietnam war a.k.a Lyndon Johnson’s war


The Gulf of Tonkin Incident and Resolution

Tonkin Gulf Lie

The 1991 Gulf war

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspies 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 1991: "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."

Iraq, Iran, and September 11: A Chronology
by Jacob G. Hornberger, December 19, 2002

Glaspie 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 invade."

"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 America."



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

Some US assertions from the last war on Iraq still appear dubious.

| Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

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 opinion."



How the public relations industry sold the Gulf War to the U.S. -- The mother of all clients


US 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.


Hill & 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


A New Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

The Demon War


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.


The 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.



Remember 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 destruction.




Former Pentagon insider: 'When we lie about stuff,' people perish

A 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.

Enter 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."


Events 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 of war.

Yet, 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-


 "Historians will 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.

 Until 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.

Her book was followed by books by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. In the book Present 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 independent Europe.

The 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.

In the book The 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?

In it's Statement 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.

One of 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.

Another 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, Feith, Wurmser 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?


Another person is revisionist historian Stephen Sniegoski. This is what he says about Laurie Mylroie and the Iraq war-

"The 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.

The Mylroie 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.)

"The 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 United Nations?

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.”


Rumsfeld and 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 Clinton aide.

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 wrote to 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 Council."

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.


Bush 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. 

The president's 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

The "outsiders" 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 Pentagons Battle With Powell Heats Up
Saddam in the Crosshairs
by Jason Vest
November 21 - 27, 2001

WASHINGTON, 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 nowand 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. 

Why Unity Is Essential

By Zbigniew Brzezinski



Matters 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 Netanyahu.


That 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 Palestinians.


Will 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 president.

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

Nos. 33 & 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

Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East (Iraq was not alone)

Israel’s 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.


Mordechai Vanunu

Vanunu spent 18 years in an Israeli prison11 and a half of them in solitary confinementfor providing evidence of Israels nuclear arsenal to a British newspaper in 1986. I acted on behalf of all citizens and all of humanity, said Vanunu.

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 Australia.


Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction


Subsequent 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.



Where really are the weapons of mass destruction?


Iraq and the Gulf of Tonkin


By Arnaud de Borchgrave



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 beyond.

President 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."

Radio Address
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 United States."

"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 weapons."

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 agent."

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 been".



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 Greg Mitchell

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.


Paul Wolfowitz: Not just any optimist


Nov. 17, 2002

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 deep background.)

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 post-9/11 world.

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 entire Mideast.

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 pretty fast.

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 brutal dictatorship?

"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 War II]."

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 major newspapers.

Willful Blindness: The Bush Administration and Iraq


By Trudy Rubin, Worldview Columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer


This 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.


This 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.


And then when the WMDs

were not found the reason du jour to

invade  became Regime Change,Freedom,Democracy

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 place.



The deceit 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 Saddam.

"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 Its About Oil?

Well maybe


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


During 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 1917-18.


The 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 worlds richest person.



The French 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 British colony(2) renamed Iraq



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.

Oil from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream?

16 April 2003

Israel 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.

Have 1,000 U.S. Souls Died for Oil?

 September 13, 2004
Ivan Eland

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 administrations public justifications never really added up, evidence exists that there was a hidden agenda behind the invasion of Iraq: securing oil.

Speaking on "Oil, Power & Empire"

Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda


Larry Everest

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.

The 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.


Political Consequences and Fallout


Iraq: The Last Republican Hurrah

An 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 American exceptionalism 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.



The 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 U.S.?

Wexler's Travels

South Florida's bellicose congressman carves up the Middle East


New Times Broward-Palm Beach

The 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.

To 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.

Because 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.

Money 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 minorities."

Here Wolfowitz 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."

In 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 pushing for?


New 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.

An 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.

So 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 Israel?

"Let's 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 Bush."

I too 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 the region.

Unfortunately, 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.

Broward 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.

No such proof has been disclosed, but Deutsch says he fully expects it will be soon.

The 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."

And 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 world."

The Dogs of War


New Times Broward-Palm Beach

The people don't want to attack Saddam, but our elected representatives sure do

The 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.

It is important that concerned Americans learn about the machinations of these neocons so that they are better informed. I have placed this page on the WWW so that you the voter can do your research by exploring these links to GOOGLE searches and other sources on the WWW to get at the truth.


A word of caution:

Any criticism of - Israel, U.S. policy towards Israel, pro Israel Jewish/Americans, pro Israeli lobbies, think tanks etc. will in all likelihood brand the individual making the criticism as an anti-Semite including the author of this blog.


This is why I decided to bring up the subject of “anti-Semitism” in this blog so that the reader could better understand how the term is being used to squelch dialogue and discussion between two opposing points of view by a group who have historically supported freedom of speech. (See articles below by Prof. Norman Finkelstein)


Case’s in point-

Moran Said Jews Are Pushing War

The Poisoning of American Politics

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 Jews."

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 Hundreds.


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 Congress."


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 to conceal.

Moran Apologizes

Embattled 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 against Iraq.

Moran, 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.

The 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 Iraq.

Moran Must Resign


Edward I. Koch
Wednesday, March 12, 2003

Yesterday, 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.


Senator 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.


Led by 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.


With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel.


U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings took to the Senate floor Thursday to defend himself against charges he had written an anti-Semitic newspaper column.


I wont apologize for this column; I want them to apologize to me, the Charleston Democrat said of his critics. Talking about anti-Semitic. Theyre 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 Bushs desire to court Jewish voters were the reasons for the war in Iraq.


Gen. 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 Defense Douglas 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 in Iraq.

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.


So what is the story?

Why won't anyone say they are Jewish?

Article available by subscription to Adbusters

See Neocon Lineup below for the  list of names (with links) that appeared in the article ..


A lot of ink has been spilled chronicling the pro-Israel leanings of American neocons and fact that a the disproportionate percentage of them are Jewish. Some commentators are worried that these individuals – labeled ‘Likudniks’ for their links to Israel’s right wing Likud party – do not distinguish enough between American and Israeli interests. For example, whose interests were they protecting in pushing for war in Iraq?

Drawing attention to the Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game. Anyone who does so can count on automatically being smeared as an anti-Semite. But the point is not that Jews (who make up little more than 2 percent of the American population) have a monolithic perspective. Indeed, American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat and many of them disagree strongly with Ariel Sharon’s policies and Bush’s aggression in Iraq. The point is simply that the neocons seem to have a special affinity for Israel that influences their political thinking and consequently American foreign policy in the Middle East.




Magazine sparks outcry by 'outing' Jewish neo-cons

'Why won't anyone say they are Jewish?' article asks

By Scott Stinson
National Post

KALLE 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"


(Dont) Mention the word J**




Then again, you have a pro Israeli apologist such as Dennis Prager who asks –


Blame the Jews?

Dennis Prager

Some 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.

In all fairness, individuals such as Prager should be concerned since-

US Jews Could Pay High Price for Iraq War

by Ira Chernus

No one 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 line.

It won't 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?

These 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?

Comment 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 audience.

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.


Jewish Organizations Worried About Backlash for Iraq War


By Alan Cooperman
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.


The Backlash

An Open Letter to Paul Wolfowitz




Do 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.





Are 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?


Lets look at the example of former Illinois Congressman Paul Findley who during the 1980s 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

AIPAC, the powerful Israeli lobby was instrumental in Findleys defeat in the next election. Findley dared to speak out and he paid with his political future.



They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby
by Paul Findley


Editorial Reviews

The Washington Post
"Straightforward and valid."

Book Description
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 Israel.



The 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.


Read 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 Anti-Semitism

Edited 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 been enforced."

Abusing 'Anti-Semitism'


Ran HaCohen

September 29, 2003

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.


The rise of Jewish Anti-Semitism in Israel (I)
By Steven Plaut  

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 its adherents have played in the years leading up to the founding of Israel and to the present time.


(Unless 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 peace process.)


Since 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


Understanding the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict


This 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.


Middle East > Politics > Israeli-Palestinian Conflict


Has 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.


 Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
by Norman G. Finkelstein



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)


Stephen Sniegoski


 To 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 writes:


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 its morality.


However, 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." [4]


Israel and Palestine, Choosing Sides

Alison Weir
Founder and Executive Director of If Americans Knew
Consortium; September 15, 2004

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 reports.

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.

Robin Miller, 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


History of Zionism

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


But 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 seat.

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 nations subservience to Israel.


So, lets explore some web pages on the

topic of neocons so you can decide if  the

evidence is anecdotal or is it factual.


The Real Reason We're In Iraq

Harley Sorensen, Special to SF Gate

September 13, 2004


And common 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.)


Historically, 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?


The short answer is "oil." But that's not the whole story.


Briefly, we 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.


Not 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 at


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 democracy.


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 kill Americans.


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 all involved.


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.


Clearly, our government lied to us, and to the world, to get us into this war. That alone should tell us it's wrong.


 Neocon's 7-Year March to Iraq


Nine Most Effective Neocons in Starting War:


Cheney -Vice President

Rumsfeld, Sect. Defense

Wolfowitz-Under Rumsfeld

Feith-Under Wolfowitz

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 Born
June 1997.  PNAC, the neocon think tank that lobbied hardest for the war was founded by
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Abrams, and Podhoretz, among others.

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 Positioning
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 Israel.

January, 2001. Writing for,
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."

Cheney 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 eventually followed.


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 goal–Iraq.

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


Wolfowitz- Earliest 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 war.


Wurmser- Cheney’s Middle East advisor


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 the Board.


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.






They are 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 others. 



Most neoconservative defense intellectuals

have their roots on the left, not the right    


The weird men behind George W Bush's war


[Neocons] 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

Since 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 administrations 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 regionIran and Syria.

The Principals: Perle, Wolfowitz and Feith

One might 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 classified positions.


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.


Pro-Israel Lobby Has Strong Voice

By: Thomas B. Edsall


It's worse than you thought: pro-Israel influence on US policy

In 2003, the organization reported spending $1.28 million on lobbying.


The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties


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.


Dual-loyalty bias worries US Jews


Some 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 Capitol Hill.

"There 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 unanswered."

Foxman 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 Jews.

"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."

Indeed, 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.

Hoenlein said he gets complaints all the time from Jews claiming they've been denied access to security-sensitive posts because they are Jewish.

"There 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.

FBI spokeswoman Debbie Weierman said the bureau had no comment.

When 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.

And 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 Weissman.

AIPAC 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."

But 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.

"Things 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."

"What 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.

"It 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."

For now, Jewish organizational officials insist that AIPAC's troubles have not really affected them or their work.

"We 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."

Hoenlein 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."

Even if the two are indicted which some news reports based on anonymous sources have suggested is imminent that should not change anything, he said.

"Indictments are not convictions," Hoenlein said. "From what we know, it would be very hard to convict somebody for what has been said so far."

Underlying 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.

The analyst, Franklin, was arrested in May, posted bond and had a preliminary hearing in his case on Thursday.

He 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 forces.

While 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.

Even 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.

AIPAC officials say they have been reassured that the organization is not being investigated.

"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."





The Neocons in Power


By Elizabeth Drew

The 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 region.



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 political history.


Philosophers and kings

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.

Leo 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.

What would you do if you wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, but your intelligence agencies couldn't find the evidence to justify a war?


A 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.


The "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.



Leo Strauss, Conservative Mastermind

By Robert Locke
FrontPageMagazinecom  | May 31, 2002

IN 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.

Pentagons Office of Special Plans



They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabala small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagons 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.


Censored Stories


Neocons' plans for global domination top the annual list of stories ignored or downplayed by the mainstream media.

The neoconservative 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

None 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.


Iraq War Hawks Have Plans to Reshape Entire Mideast


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.


Conservatives' 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


Key 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.


Neoconservatives take Washington – Baghdad is next

"Like 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 funny."


Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?

Years before 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 Wolfowitz.

In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for the removal of Saddam Husseins 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.

Americas Neoconservatives

 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 conservatism."

Inter Press Neo - Con Archives

The 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

Contrary 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 generations.

Neocons Key figures

The U.S. Media…… Objective or Subjective in reporting the news?

The complicity of the media in supporting the neocon Iraq agenda can be understood in light of its 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: "STOP."


The Neocon line up

The following names were entered in a GOOGLE search using key words name neocon Iraq war or name-neo conservative


You 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 considered extremist.


Click on the names


Richard Perle


Paul Wolfowitz


Douglas Feith


I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby


William Kristol


Lawrence F. Kaplan


Kenneth M. Pollack

Jeffrey Bergner
Eliot Cohen
Midge Decter
Aaron Friedberg


 Hillel Fradkin

 Jeffrey Gedmin
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Eli S. Jacobs
Donald Kagan
Robert Kagan
Frederick Kagan
Charles Krauthammer
Martin Peretz
Norman Podhoretz
 Randy Scheunemann
 Gary Schmitt
William Schneider, Jr.
Richard H. Shultz 
Henry Sokolski
 Stephen J. Solarz
Leon Wieseltier
David Frum
Daniel Pipes
Bernard Lewis


Paula J. Dobriansky


Jonah Goldberg


Meyrav Wurmser


Dov Zakheim


Robert Zoellick


Max Boot


Irwin Stelzer

Phillip Zelikow
Kenneth Adelman
Elie Wiesel
Judith Miller
A number of Washington think tanks and organizations have been complicit in following an agenda in their support of invading Iraq. 

Top Neoconservative Think Tanks

Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA),


JINSA has a Two-Fold Mandate:

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.)

General James B. Davis, USAF (ret.)

Adm. Jerome Johnson, USN (Ret.)

LTG Paul G. Cerjan, USA (Ret)

David P. Steinmann, Chairman


More on JINSA (Disinfopedia)


From Wikipedia



American Enterprise Institute


AEI Scholars and Fellows

Washington Institute for Near East Policy


The Project for the New American Century
Signatories of 1997 Statement of Principles


The Project for the New American Century


The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)

Although MEMRI's viewpoint is pro-Israel, it is not the case that it contains no criticism of Israel or is monolithically anti-Arab.


Center for Security Policy

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 Bush administration.

Google Search Results Keywords"Center For Security Policy"


Hudson Institute

Herman Kahn (1922 - 1983) was founder of the Hudson Institute.


Neocon Publications

 Neo-Con Invasion
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.


Pro Israel lobby that has an inordinate amount of influence on U.S. foreign policy vis a vis the Palestinian / Israeli crisis.




President 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.



Speaking Out

Blow to Pro-Israel Lobby in U.S. by Paul Findley

By anyones 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.





Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to 2006 Congressional Candidates 
2005-2006 Cycle


2004 Top Ten Career Recipients of Pro-Israel PAC Funds

Pro-Israel PAC Contributions to 2004 Congressional Candidates


New Poll Shows American Suspicious of AIPAC Status


A 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 presidents 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 done below.


Those 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.


History of Iraq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Iraq: a 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 world.


 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 Revolution 1920


Local outbreaks 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.


Britain 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 over again

Published on 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.


Iraqis remember 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.





The 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.



An ancient civilization
The PowerPoint That Rocked the Pentagon
The LaRouchie defector who's advising the defense establishment on Saudi Arabia.


The Saudi Money Trail


Did Saudi Princess Give Money to 9/11 Hijackers?


Fissures in House of Saud

By Arnaud de Borchgrave



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.




Israel – Ally, Friend or Foe?


A Revisionist Historian’s Thesis


The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel


In the following essay The author attempts to flesh out that thesis and show the link between the war position of the neoconservatives and the long-time strategy of the Israeli Right, if not of the Israeli mainstream itself. In brief, the idea of a Middle East war has been bandied about in Israel for many years as a means of enhancing Israeli security, which revolves around an ultimate solution to the Palestinian problem.

Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 ...


THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.




Prior to 9/11, the FBI had discovered the presence of a massive spy ring inside the United States run by the government of Israel. This seems a harsh gratitude from a nation which obtains 10% of its annual budget from the American taxpayer, $3+ billion a year. Over the years, American taxpayers have been required to send Israel more than four times what the US spent to go to the moon.


Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?

Millions saw the horrific images of the World Trade Center attacks, and those who saw them won't forget them. But a New Jersey homemaker saw something that morning that prompted an investigation into five young Israelis and their possible connection to Israeli intelligence.





Israel Is Spying In And On The U.S.? Part 1

 BRIT HUME, HOST: It has been more than 16 years since a civilian working for the Navy was charged with passing secrets to Israel. Jonathan Pollard pled guilty to conspiracy to commit espionage and is serving a life sentence. At first, Israeli leaders claimed Pollard was part of a rogue operation, but later took responsibility for his work. 

Now Fox News has learned some U.S. investigators believe that there are Israelis again very much engaged in spying in and on the U.S., who may have known things they didn't tell us before September 11. Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron has details in the first of a four-part series.

Israel Is Spying In And On The U.S.? Part 2

 /SPAN>Tonight, in the second of four reports on spying by Israelis in the U.S., we learn about an Israeli-based private communications company, for whom a half-dozen of those 60 detained suspects worked. American investigators fear information generated by this firm may have fallen into the wrong hands and had the effect of impeded the Sept 11 terror inquiry. Here's Carl Cameron's second report.

Israel Is Spying In And On The U.S.? Part 3

BRIT HUME, HOST: Last time we reported on an Israeli-based company called Amdocs Ltd. that generates the computerized records and billing data for nearly every phone call made in America. As Carl Cameron reported, U.S. investigators digging into the 9/11 terrorist attacks fear that suspects may have been tipped off to what they were doing by information leaking out of Amdocs.

Israel Is Spying In And On The U.S.? Part 4

Carl Cameron has reported on a longstanding government espionage investigation. Federal officials this year have arrested or detained nearly 200 Israeli citizens suspected of belonging to an "organized intelligence-gathering operation." The Bush administration has deported most of those arrested after Sept. 11, although some are in custody under the new anti-terrorism law.



Jonathan Pollard


After years of denials, Israel finally admitted Pollard, a U.S. Navy civilian analyst, was not a "rogue agent," as it originally claimed, but a spy for Israeli intelligence.


Pollard caused enormous damage to U.S. national security. He gave Israel top-secret U.S. military intelligence and diplomatic codes; names of nearly 100 U.S. agents in the Mideast, who were then "turned" by Israel; NSA code-breaking techniques and targets; intercepts of foreign communications; and U.S. war-fighting plans for the Mideast.


According to CIA sources, Pollard provided Israeli intelligence with names of important American agents inside the former Soviet Union and Russia who had supplied information on East Bloc weapons and war plans.

How the agents' names were linked to the secrets they supplied - a major breach of basic intelligence security - remains a mystery.

Pentagon/Israel Spying Case Expands: Fomenting a War on Iran

Sunday, August 29, 2004

Juan Cole

J. Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan

Here is my take on the
Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal in the Pentagon.

It is an echo of the one-two punch secretly planned by the pro-Likud faction in the Department of Defense. First, Iraq would be taken out by the United States, and then Iran. David Wurmser, a key member of the group, also wanted Syria included. These pro-Likud intellectuals concluded that 9/11 would give them carte blanche to use the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv (not wars that really needed to be fought, but wars that the Likud coalition thought it would be nice to see fought so as to increase Israel's ability to annex land and act aggressively, especially if someone else's boys did the dying).


Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal


Important new details of the U.S.-Israeli espionage case involving Larry Franklin, the alleged Pentagon spy, two officials of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, and an intelligence official at the Embassy of Israel emerged last week. Two AIPAC officialswho have left the organizationwere indicted along with Franklin on charges of "communicating national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it." In plain English, if not legal-speak, that means spying.

But as the full text of the indictment makes clear, the conspiracy involved not just Franklin and the AIPAC officials, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, but at least several other Pentagon officials who played intermediary roles, at least two other Israeli officials, and one official at a "Washington, D.C. think tank." It's an old-fashioned spy story involving the passing of secret documents, hush-hush meetings and outright espionage, along with good-old-boy networking.



A Long History

Israeli Espionage Against the US


[This survey of Israeli spying on the US was compiled in 1997.]

The Washington Post reported in a front-page story on May 7th, 1997 that US intelligence had intercepted a conversation in which two Israeli officials had discussed the possibility of getting a confidential letter that then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher had written to Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. One of the Israelis had commented that they may get the letter from "Mega"-- apparently a codename for an Israeli agent within the US government.


"They Always Get What They Want"


Sometimes the act is simple theft. One official says, "Israelis were caught in the Pentagon with unauthorized documents, sometimes scooping up the contents of 'in boxes' on desk tops." He recalls that because of such activity a number of Israeli officials were told to leave the country, No formal charges of espionage have ever been filed, and Israel covered each such exit with an excuse such as family illness or some other personal reason: "Our government never made a public issue of it." He adds, "There is a much higher level of espionage by Israel against our government than has ever been publicly admitted,"

The official recalls one day receiving a list of military equipment Israel wanted to purchase, Noting that "the Pentagon is Israel's 'stop- and-shop,'" he took it for granted that the Israelis had obtained clearances. So he followed usual procedure by circulating it to various Pentagon offices for routine review and evaluation:


One office instantly returned the list to me with a note: 'One of these items is so highly classified you have no right to know that it even exists.' I was instructed to destroy all copies of the request and all references to the particular code numbers. I didn't know what it was. It was some kind of electronic jamming equipment, top secret. Somehow the Israelis knew about it and acquired its precise specifications, cost and top secret code number. This meant they had penetrated our research and development labs, our most sensitive facilities.


The Other Side of Deception:


A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad's Secret Agenda
by Victor Ostrovsky


Chapter 27 tells about the propaganda campaign against Saddam Hussein (p.247). Iraq targeted Iranian cities using information from American satellites. Pages 250-1 tell how a reporter (who knew too much) was lured into a fatal mission. Then there is the planted story of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction". Page 259 tells of the safest sanctuary around - an airport! Chapter 30 tells of President George Bush's visit to the Madrid peace talks, and the failed assassination attempt. Chapter 31 explains Robert Maxwell's partnership with the Mossad, and why he had to be silenced. It was not that he knew too much, but that he began to talk too much under pressure of bankruptcy. Chapter 31 ends the book with his tour of Europe to promote his first novel A problem occurred in Belgium; Victor knew of the corruption of the Belgian police force. Victor then realized that his connection in the Mossad was no longer reliable (p.290).


  Spy-scandal lobby blitz -AIPAC secures wide backing after secrets charges

This post has been removed from "The Hill" web page.

Lobbyists for an influential pro-Israel group launched into congressional overdrive when trails of a Pentagon spy scandal led to their Washington office.

Soon after media outlets reported on the scandal late last month, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbyists and their political liaisons across the country asked Democratic and Republican lawmakers to issue public statements in support of America
s premier pro-Israel group.

Charging anti-Semitism, lawmaker calls for new head of AIPAC spy probe

Guess who?

A US lawmaker demanded that the FBI official heading a Pentagon spy probe be replaced, alleging the agent has "a record of unfairly targeting Jews."

Congressman Robert Wexler made the charge in a letter to US President George W. Bush, calling for a probe into alleged anti-Semitic acts by David Szady, a senior FBI counterintelligence official leading the bureau's investigation of alleged espionage by the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). "I urge you to investigate Mr. Szady's purported anti-Semitic record ... and examine whether or not he should be leading this case," the letter released by the Florida Democrat's office.





The USS Liberty, with 294 men aboard, arrived near the Gaza Strip in the Eastern Mediterranean at 9:00 on the morning of June 8, 1967. This was the fourth day of the Arab-Israeli war later to be known as "The Six Day War."

USS Liberty

They do not want this matter investigated. They called me an

anti-Semite and a racist.

Refusal to Investigate Israels 1967 Attack on
USS Liberty a No-Brainer:One Legislators Story


Attack on the Liberty: Lifting the Fog of War

By David C. Walsh

The bare bones are these: The intelligence ship Liberty, AGTR-5, on June 8, 1967 was describing a slow, dogleg pattern a little less than 13 miles off the Egyptian coast in the Eastern Mediterranean. Without warning, rocket-firing Israeli jets, followed after an interval by torpedo boats, pummeled her to near-death; 821 separate holes would later be counted in the scorched superstructure.

An Israeli torpedo blew a 40-foot hole in the Libertys hull, devastating the cryptological spaces below decks and killing 25 U.S. National Security Agency technicians. The spy ships defensive armament comprised a mere four machine guns. These had been judged adequate, insofar as she was a noncombatant in international waters. The Israeli attack continued for an hour and a quarter. When the smoke cleared, 34 Americans were dead, another 172 lay wounded.

The story of the intelligence ship in a sense resembles the Liberty herself: both refuse to go down. The heartbreaking saga is kept afloat by mutually antagonistic partisansI dub them the deliberates and the accidentalists.


Arab propaganda

Trying to win the war for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people let alone the Muslim nations will be very difficult when they are exposed to web pages such as the one below. The Internet and satellite TV have made it easy for the pro Muslim media to spread their propaganda message. This is another problem that our chicken hawks did not take into account when they made the decision to invade Iraq. Warning: Graphic images of war.



Aljazeera has come a long way since it was launched in November 1996.


Today the channel that sent shockwaves through the whole Arab world from its very first day on air has become a global name which people, governments, and decision-makers cannot afford to ignore.


The Electronic Intifada (EI)


The Electronic Intifada (EI), found at, publishes news, commentary, analysis, and reference materials about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from a Palestinian perspective. EI is the leading Palestinian portal for information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its depiction in the media.


Why do they hate us?

by Joel Beinin

Why do they hate us? several reporters asked me in the days following the horrifying, criminal attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. In fact, they the great majority of Arabs and Muslims do not hate us, the American people. Americans who travel to the Arab or Muslim world are usually welcomed and treated with great generosity


However, many Arabs and Muslims who would never condone or commit acts of terror such as those perpetrated on Sept. 11 have become increasingly angered by the foreign policy of the United States government and its impact on the Middle East.


The criminal and fanatic fringe of political Islam elements like Osama Ben Laden and Al Qaeda organization has emerged from this broader anger, which has been brewing for many years. Yet because most Americans know so little about the Middle East, they do not know why our government's policies are so disliked.


The longest standing grievance is the Arab-Israeli conflict. This has been exacerbated by Israel's disproportionate use of force in attempting to suppress the Palestinian uprising over the last year, which has been extensively broadcast on Arab television


Mubarak: Arabs Hate U.S. More Than Ever|top|04-20-2004::09:25|reuters.html


Apr 20, 9:00 AM (ET)

PARIS (Reuters) - Arabs in the Middle East hate the United States more than ever following the invasion of Iraq and Israel's assassination of two Hamas leaders, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said in comments published Tuesday.


Mubarak, who visited the United States last week, told French newspaper Le Monde that Washington's actions had caused despair, frustration and a sense of injustice in the Arab world.

"Today there is hatred of the Americans like never before in the region," he said in an interview given during a stay in France, where he met President Jacques Chirac Monday.


He blamed the hostility partly on U.S. support for Israel, which assassinated Hamas leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi in a missile strike in the Gaza Strip Saturday weeks after killing his predecessor, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.


"At the start some considered the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred of the Americans. After what has happened in Iraq, there is unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it," Mubarak said.




A neocon whitewash?


We are beginning to see a neocon whitewash. There is not one mention of the words neocon or neoconservative in Robert Woodward’s book Plan of Attack. (see index) True, he uses the word conservative to describe William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer but does not associate them with neoconservatives.


Is it because the books’ publisher Simon and Schuster is owned by Viacom whose owner, Sumner Redstone (né Murray Rothstein), was recently described in the New York Times as the world's biggest media owner and since the word neocon is synonymous with Jewish /American and therefore those who use either word in describing these individuals are branded as anti-Semites? Or is it because Woodward is trying to deflect criticism from the neocons onto non Jewish / Americans in the administration now that the “peace keeping occupation” is facing some serious problems.




An Issue Too Hot for Fahrenheit?

By Ciro Scotti

At a Massachusetts political rally, Michael Moore leveled some well-deserved zingers at the media, while ducking a key question


DOUBLE STANDARD.  As already observed, the man has a zinging wit. And mostly he's right about the media drinking the Administration Kool-Aid on Iraq and being afraid to ask the tough questions. Many in the media were shameful weenies on Iraq, and maybe we do have tunnel vision about the electorate.

But Moore has a double standard about being duped about weapons of mass destruction. He defends John Kerry's vote to invade Iraq because the Democratic about-to-be-nominee like so many other Americans believed in the Commander-in-Chief. The press doesn't get that same pathetic pass.

And despite Moore's brilliant use of humor and pathos to deliver a political broadside, Fahrenheit is seriously flawed. A critic as tough as Michael Moore could make the case that the great auteur has foisted on the country an argument against U.S. involvement in Iraq that avoids the central reason behind the invasion. Talk about being chicken-hearted and missing the big story.

The film goes on about filial revenge and oil, but it never ventures onto really touchy turf -- namely the role of fiercely pro-Israel neocon hawks in convincing Bush to go to war. The elephantine Mr. Moore conveniently fails to mention that other pachyderm in the Democratic room. Why didn't Fahrenheit go there, Mr. Moore?


( Could it be that Rahm Emmanuel, former Clinton adviser, current congressman from Illinois, staunch supporter of Israel,  has a brother, Ari Emmanuel, who just happens to be Michael Moore's agent.)



Why Iraqis Rebel
By Daniel Pipes | April 13, 2004

Another neocon who was a proponent of invading Iraq is Daniel Pipes. Read his comments as to why the Iraqi people are against the liberators. Why didnt Pipes with his vast knowledge of  Muslim history pose these same arguments in opposing the invasion.


Iraqis do not feel they must accept guidance from the occupation forces. Rather, they immediately showed a determination to shape their countrys future.


As a predominantly Muslim people, Iraqis share in the powerful Muslim reluctance to being ruled by non-Muslims. This reluctance results from the very nature of Islam, the most public and political of religions.


This explains why one finds a consistently strong resistance to rule by non-Muslims through fourteen centuries of Muslim history. Europeans recognized this resistance and in their post-crusades global expansion stayed largely away from majority-Muslim territories, knowing these would awesomely resist their control.

This history suggests that the coalitions grand aspirations for Iraq will not succeed. However constructive its intentions to build democracy, the coalition cannot win the confidence of Muslim Iraq nor win acceptance as its overlord. Even spending US$18 billion in one year on economic development does not improve matters.

I therefore counsel the occupying forces quickly to leave Iraqi cities and then, when feasible, to leave Iraq as a whole.


The wars aftermath.

Civil War or Civil Society?

What went wrong.


The testimony of Drs. Toby Dodge and Juan Cole

Committee on Foreign Relations

April 20, 2004

Committee’s hearings on

The Iraq Transition: Civil War or Civil Society?”


“The second problem hampering the occupation is the CPA’s continuing lack of expert knowledge about the country they are trying to control. Within the CPA’s headquarters there are very few experts on Iraqi society, politics or economy.”


“In the run up to war Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki in a Senate hearing called for ‘hundreds of thousands’ of troops to guarantee order.” Toby Dodge


The biggest US failure in Iraq to date lay in American inability to understand the workings of Iraqi society.


The United States made a key strategic error in declining to post enough US troops to Iraq in the post-war period to establish good security. A country the size of Iraq probably required 400,000 to 500,000 troops to keep it orderly in the wake of the collapse of the state.

 Juan Cole


The Generals Speak Out


The Neo-Cons Have Had Their Day;
Now It's Time for a Clean Sweep'



Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (USMC-ret.), a four-star general, was Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command (1991-94), commanding the U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf after the 1991 war. He also served in the Vietnam War, as a battalion and brigade advisor with the Vietnamese Marines. He was interviewed by Jeffrey Steinberg on May 6, 2004.

EIR: I was at an event, where both Gen. [Anthony] Zinni [USMC-ret.] and Chas Freeman, former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, spoke, and this was about eight months before the outbreak of fighting, in March 2003, and they both basically thought that the real troubles would begin after the "hot phase" of combat, when American forces would be there as an occupying force. And they rejected the neo-con and Cheney thesis, that this would be a cakewalk and we'd be greeted as liberators.

What was your sense of the neo-con vision of what was going to happen in Iraq?

Hoar: Well I think that there were two problems: The first one was that they created a set of circumstances that didn't exist on the ground, and they were aided and abetted in this process by Ahmed Chalabi, who, to this day, is still on the U.S. government payroll. And Chalabi is a fraud. He was in the early 1990s, when I first came across him. Tony Zinni has spoken out against him, and got in a lot of trouble with [Sen.] Trent Lott [R-Miss.], for fighting to prevent the Congress from giving Chalabi's Iraqi Congress $94 million a few years ago.

Chalabi very quickly realized that the neo-cons wanted to hear certain things, and he obliged them, by giving them information, including planting erroneous intelligence All of the stories, from dancing in the streets, to the locations of weapons of mass destruction, were all fabrications. And the people in the government bought into this, and there's some evidence that they even cooked the books, with respect to intelligence information, so that they could cherry-pick unrefined information that had come to the United States, through intelligence sources, in order to make the case.

EIR: How significant a linkage do you see, between the Israel/Palestine situation, and the challenges on the ground in Iraq, and throughout the whole region?

Hoar: There's enormous significance. And there are many people in government and elsewhere in the United States that have attempted to decouple the inter-connectedness of these two issues. They are connected, because 1.2 billion Muslimsworldwide, but largely spread out between the Philippines and all the way across South Asia and North Africa to Moroccobelieve that the United States has unjustly taken the part of Israel, in the Palestine/Israel confrontation. Many of our activities in the region, including the invasion of Iraq, are connected to our support for Israel.

And so, when the President stands with Mr. Sharon, and makes statements that are patently not in congruence with the work of the Quartet and the Road Map that had been put together by the Quartetnamely, the United States, the EU, Russia, and Kofi Annan, UN Secretary Generalthat that is immediately read as another example of how the United States unjustly supports Israel. And in fact, the timing of it could not have been worse, given the internal unrest that exists right now in Iraq, and then, on top of that, the events of this maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners.

So, I think that the neo-conservatives had their day, by selling to the President the need for invasion of Iraq. I think it's now time for a clean sweepand it has been for some time, in my judgmentto get rid of these people. And, to see if we can put together a more coherent policy than has existed for the last couple years.


Gen. Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up'

(CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken military leaders of the past two decades.

From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.

Zinni spent more than 40 years serving his country as a warrior and diplomat, rising from a young lieutenant in Vietnam to four-star general with a reputation for candor.

Following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts -- special envoy to the Middle East.

But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll.

There has been poor strategic thinking in this, says Zinni. There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to stay the course, the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure.

Who specifically is he talking about?

Well, it starts with at the top. If you're the secretary of defense and you're responsible for that. If you're responsible for that planning and that execution on the ground. If you've assumed responsibility for the other elements, non-military, non-security, political, economic, social and everything else, then you bear responsibility, says Zinni. Certainly those in your ranks that foisted this strategy on us that is flawed. Certainly they ought to be gone and replaced.

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 Defense Douglas 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 in Iraq.

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.

Adds Zinni: I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.

Zinni said he believed their strategy was to change the Middle East and bring it into the 21st century.

Zinni, who now teaches international relations at the College of William and Mary, says he feels a responsibility to speak out, just as former Marine Corps Commandant David Shoup voiced early concerns about the Vietnam war nearly 40 years ago

It is part of your duty. Look, there is one statement that bothers me more than anything else. And that's the idea that when the troops are in combat, everybody has to shut up. Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle, and that rifle was malfunctioning, and troops were dying as a result, says Zinni.

Where is the exit strategy?


Former Navy Secretary Unleashes Tide of Iraq Criticism

“A critical question for citizens and journalists to ask the U.S. government right now is this: "Under what circumstances will the United States military withdraw from Iraq?"


Republican Congressman Says Iraq War Was Mistake

Wed Aug 18, 4:09 PM ET

Note: The Reuters article has since been removed from the WWW


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Breaking ranks with the White House and his Republican leaders in Congress, Rep. Doug Bereuter of Nebraska has said in a letter to constituents the U.S. military action in Iraq was a mistake.


The Iraq war was a "costly mess" with no quick way out, wrote Bereuter, vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a senior member of the House International Relations Committee.


"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action especially without a broad and engaged international coalition," he said in the letter dated Aug. 6.


Republican leaders in Congress have supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq on grounds that it had weapons of mass destruction that posed a danger to the United States. No stockpiles of such weapons have been found.

But Bereuter, who has resigned his seat in the House of Representatives to become president of the Asia Foundation, expressed dismay over the decision to go to war.


"The cost in casualties is already large and growing, and the immediate and long-term financial costs are incredible," he wrote, reflecting on his 2002 vote in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.


"Our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened," he added.

"Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."


The White House had no comment on the letter.



The truth is finally being told


Columnists such as John Farmer who do not fear the powerful Israeli lobby AIPAC and it’s minions are finally writing about the role of the neocons in leading us to war while others do not have the guts to tackle the subject for fear of being branded as anti-Semites.


The Neocons' War
Relax, because now we're allowed to talk about the real reason for the Iraq war


In detailing "the conservative crack-up" over the Iraq war, E. J. Dionne writes:

"The isolationist conservatives around Pat Buchanan cannot understand why we went to war in the first place and they opposed it from the beginning. These conservatives speak explicitly about the 'costs of empire,' much as the left does. They argue that globalism is really 'globaloney' and that being an empire is incompatible with being a republic."

Actually, that's not true. We "isolationists" conservatives and libertarians alike understand all too well why we went to war. As Pat Buchanan put it in the run-up to the invasion:

"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. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.

" They charge us with anti-Semitism i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a 'passionate attachment' to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what's good for Israel is good for America."

Buchanan named names, tracing the development of the "what's good for Israel is good for America" doctrine to the influential sect known as neoconservatives: ex-leftists who defected from the Democratic party in the 1960s and 1970s over the Vietnam War, and wormed their way into top GOP policymaking circles, eventually winding up in charge of George W. Bush's foreign policy.


From Swagger to Stagger


September 7, 2003


Does Mr. Bush ever wonder if the neocons duped him and hijacked his foreign policy? Some Middle East experts think some of the neocons painted a rosy picture for the president of Arab states blossoming with democracy when they really knew this could not be accomplished so easily; they may have cynically suspected that it was far more likely that the Middle East would fall into chaos and end up back in its pre-Ottoman Empire state, Balkanized into a tapestry of rival fiefs based on tribal and ethnic identities, with no central government so busy fighting each other that they would be no threat to us, or Israel.

The administration is worried now about Jordan and Saudi Arabia in the face of roiling radicalism.

Some veterans of Bush 41 think that the neocons packaged their "inverted Trotskyism," as the writer John Judis dubbed their rabid desire to export their "idealistic concept of internationalism," so that it appealed to Bush 43's born-again sense of divine mission and to the desire of Mr. Bush, Rummy and Mr. Cheney to achieve immortality by transforming the Middle East and the military.


Post Iraq war


Will Iran Be Next?

Those who have hoped that a U.S. military victory in Iraq would somehow bring about a more peaceful world are in for a rude awakening. The final resolution of this war and the U.S. occupation of Iraq will likely not be the end, rather, only the prelude to a succession of future crises: in Kashmir, Syria, North Korea, and Iran. This article will focus primarily on the latter case.

The ominous backlash of an attack against Iran

By David Hirst
Special to The Daily Star
Monday, September 13, 2004


When U.S. President George W. Bush first identified the two Middle East members of his "axis of evil," Iran clearly ranked as a far more formidable adversary than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.


But Bush went after the easier target instead. "Did we invade the wrong country?" now asks leading American commentator Charles Krauthammer, speaking for many neoconservative hawks as the U.S. refocuses on Iran. From their standpoint, it must surely look as if they did. For the neocons, overthrowing Saddam was to have been nothing if not regional in purpose, the opening phase of a grand design to "transform"' the entire Middle East. But such are the region's cross-border dynamics that success was never going to be assured even in one country unless it embraced others too.

Scott Ritter on attacking Iran



Is Israel planning to attack Iran?

Martin van Creveld IHT
Friday, August 20, 2004

Sharon on the warpath


JERUSALEM Ariel Sharon may be on the warpath again and the target is Iran. In the past, the Israeli prime minister has focused attention on Iran by claiming that it presents the greatest threat to Israel. More than once, defense officials in Jerusalem have said that Israel might attack Iran's nuclear facilities. In response, Iran's defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, warned that should Israel do so, his country would wipe out Israel.

The only country whose reaction to such a strike would carry great weight with Israel is the United States. Because Iran is suspected of supporting at least some of the insurgents in Iraq, many U.S officials might privately welcome an Israeli strike on Iran, just as they welcomed Israel's destruction in 1981 of the nuclear reactor that Saddam Hussein was building near Baghdad. With the United States now in the midst of a hotly disputed election campaign, if Sharon wanted to act, the time to do so would be between now and November.


In Iraq: The Neo-Con
Perpetual War Policy


by Carl Osgood

The entire so-called "War on Terrorism," with its associated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is, as EIR has shown, the product of a deliberate policy of perpetual war. That policy, formulated by a gang of neo-cons in the Bush Administration, is intended to take the world back to the condition it was in, prior to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which brought to an end nearly 150 years of destructive, bloody, religious warfare in Europe.

The present policy was elaborated in the now-infamous "Clean Break" document in 1996 written under the auspices of a Jerusalem-Washington think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Policy Studies (IASPS), for the just-elected Jabotinskyite, Benjamin Netanyahu, as prime minister of Israel. That document, authored by former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and a team of fellow neo-cons, called for: 1) the destruction of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, blaming them for every act of Palestinian terrorism, including the attacks from Hamas; 2) inducing the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq; 3) launching war against Syria after Saddam is overthrown; 4) parlaying the overthrow of the regimes in Syria and Iraq into the "democratization" of the entire Muslim world, including further military actions against Iran, Saudi Arabia, and even Egypt. In addition to Perle, the authors of "Clean Break" included Douglas Feith, now Undersecretary of Defense for Policy; David Wurmser, now an official in the office of Vice President Cheney; Wurmser's wife, Meyrav, of the Hudson Institute; Charles Fairbanks, Jr., and others.

It is no secret that the "Clean Break" document is the strategic doctrine of both the Bush 43 regime in the United States, and the Israeli government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Both have pursued it with glee, especially since the Sept. 11, 2001, irregular warfare attacks on New York and Washington. Since the Iraq invasion alone, in March 2003, Sharon has managed to completely sabotage the tepid U.S. effort at finding a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, to the point where he is now openly threatening to assassinate Arafat (as he already has done with numerous leaders of Hamas).

On the other side of the Atlantic, the U.S. has stepped up its diplomatic warfare against both Syria and Iran, with the passage and implementation of the Syria Accountability Act and the campaign against Iran's nuclear program. A pre-emptive strike on Iran, either by the U.S. or Israel, cannot be ruled out at this point, nor can an Israeli attack on Syria. That danger was underscored on Sept. 20 by reports that the U.S. was preparing to transfer 5,000 air-dropped bombs to Israel, under its military aid program. Included among the 5,000 bombs are: five-hundred 2,000-pound BLU-109s, designed to penetrate more than six feet of reinforced concrete, obviously ideal for attacking reactor containment buildings, and other nuclear facilities.

Nor have the neo-cons ignored Saudi Arabia, as shown by a Sept. 9 forum on that country at the Hudson Institute, home of Meyrav Wurmser. A panel that included British Arab Bureau agent Prof. Bernard Lewis, argued that the U.S. has to cut all ties with Saudi Arabia, including cutting off oil imports. National Review editor David Pryce-Jones, who, like Lewis is British, complained that "stability means the continuation of tyranny," and said that the only way to destroy tyranny is "through force of arms." Pryce-Jones praised the U.S. intervention in Iraq as the way to the future, and warned, "If we're not prepared to consider the occupation of Saudi Arabia or war on Iran, all of our good intentions [sic!] may pave the road to Hell."

These perpetual wars are not to be limited to Southwest Asia, either. They are to be spread to North Korea, and China, and perhaps even to Russia. As EIR reported last week ("Neo-Cons Knee Deep in Caucasus Provocations," by Jeffrey Steinberg), former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski is involved up to his ears in the ongoing provocations against Russia. Membership in Brzezinski's American Committee for Peace in Chechnya includes many of the neo-con leading lights behind Cheney's perpetual war policy: Perle and Fairbanks, as well as Michael Ledeen and Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and William Kristol, among many others. In a Sept. 20 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, in which he compared Russian President Vladimir Putin to Mussolini, Brzezinski issued a veiled warning that Russia must get out of the Caucasus and that the U.S. must help secure Russia's neighbors in order for "democracy to thrive" in Russia.

Ahmed Chalabi

How did he come to the attention of the U.S. government officials?


Tinker, Banker, Neocon, Spy
Ahmed Chalabi's long and winding road from (and to?) Baghdad

Issue Date: 11.18.02

The Chalabi Lobby
Almost to a man, Washington's hawks lavishly praise Chalabi. "He's a rare find," says Max Singer, a trustee and co-founder of the Hudson Institute. "He's deep in the Arab world and at the same time he is fundamentally a man of the West."

In Washington, Team Chalabi is led by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, the neoconservative strategist who heads the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. Chalabi's partisans run the gamut from far right to extremely far right, with key supporters in most of the Pentagon's Middle-East policy offices -- such as Peter Rodman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Michael Rubin. Also included are key staffers in Vice President Dick Cheney's office, not to mention Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former CIA Director Jim Woolsey.

The Washington partisans who want to install Chalabi in Arab Iraq are also those associated with the staunchest backers of Israel, particularly those aligned with the hard-right faction of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Chalabi's cheerleaders include the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). "Chalabi is the one that we know the best," says Shoshana Bryen, director of special projects for JINSA, where Chalabi has been a frequent guest at board meetings, symposia and other events since 1997. "He could be Iraq's national leader," says Patrick Clawson, deputy director of WINEP, whose board of advisers includes pro-Israeli luminaries such as Perle, Wolfowitz and Martin Peretz of The New Republic.

What makes Chalabi so attractive to the Washington war party? Most importantly, he's a co-thinker: a mathematician trained at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Chicago and a banker (who years ago hit it off with Albert Wohlstetter, the theorist who was a godfather of the neoconservative movement), a fellow mathematician and a University of Chicago strategist. In 1985, Wohlstetter (who died in 1997) introduced Chalabi to Perle, then the undersecretary of defense for international-security policy under President Reagan and one of Wohlstetter's leading acolytes. The two have been close ever since. In early October, Perle and Chalabi shared a podium at an American Enterprise Institute conference called "The Day After: Planning for a Post-Saddam Iraq," which was held, appropriately enough, in AEI's 12th-floor Wohlstetter Conference Center. "The Iraqi National Congress has been the philosophical voice of free Iraq for a dozen years," Perle told me.




Ahmad Chalabi pushed a tainted case for war. Can he survive the occupation?

Issue of 2004-06-07
Posted 2004-05-29


For years, he had been America’s staunchest Iraqi ally, and he had helped the Bush Administration make its case against Saddam, in part by disseminating the notion that the Baathist regime had maintained stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and was poised to become a nuclear power. Although Chalabi developed enemies at the C.I.A. who disputed his intelligence data and questioned his ethics, he forged a close bond with Vice-President Dick Cheney and many of the top civilians at the Pentagon, such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Under-Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, and Under-Secretary of Defense William J. Luti. Yet now that the occupation of Iraq appeared to be headed toward disaster, he said, many in the Administration had united in making him the scapegoat.


How Ahmed Chalabi Conned the Neocons

By John Dizard

May 4, 2004

Why did the neocons put such enormous faith in Ahmed Chalabi, an exile with a shady past and no standing with Iraqis? One word: Israel. They saw the invasion of Iraq as the precondition for a reorganization of the Middle East that would solve Israel's strategic problems, without the need for an accommodation with either the Palestinians or the existing Arab states. Chalabi assured them that the Iraqi democracy he would build would develop diplomatic and trade ties with Israel, and eschew Arab nationalism.

Neocons Forced to Face Reality

July 26, 2004


by Christopher Preble and Justin Logan


As American operations in Iraq continue to lose support from both the American and Iraqi people, the neoconservatives who engineered the war are on the defensive. There is a pervasive fear among neoconservatives in Washington of the resurgence of realism: a foreign policy that emphasizes the defense of vital national security interests and rejects values-based foreign interventions.


Realists acknowledge that other states can help us in the war on terrorism. But we hardly consider international support a panacea. After 9/11, virtually the entire world saw its interests converge into a united front against the type of terrorist attack suffered by the U.S. If European opposition to the war in Iraq had obstructed the pursuit of vital U.S. interests, realists would not have hesitated in proceeding without their support. The problem is that invading and occupying Iraq was never in America's interest. And why should we squander near-total international support for the war on terrorism absent a vital need?


Neoconservatives, by contrast, seem to revel in alienating historical allies. It is worth noting that even after all of the invective slung across the Atlantic, France still maintains troops in Afghanistan that are hunting for Osama bin Laden.


Donnelly and Serchuk claim that the proper strategy would "leverage [U.S.] hegemony in favor of the forces of political and economic liberalism in the greater Middle East." Who are these forces? Ahmed Chalabi, the man who promised an oil pipeline to Haifa and who now is alleged by the U.S. government to have betrayed U.S. interests to Iran? The real forces of political and economic liberalism in Iraq unfortunately lack the power and popular support to remake the country. The development of liberal society requires more than a few good men and institutions with familiar names, and even these cannot succeed when implanted by force.





A Failed 'Transition' is the most comprehensive accounting of the mounting costs of the Iraq war on the United States, Iraq, and the world. Among its major findings are stark figures about the escalation of costs in these most recent three months of "transition" to Iraqi rule, a period that the Bush administration claimed would be characterized by falling human and economic costs.

1. U.S. Military Casualties Have Been Highest During the "Transition": U.S. military casualties (wounded and killed) stand at a monthly average of 747 since the so-called "transition" to Iraqi rule on June 28, 2004. This contrasts with a monthly average of 482 U.S. military casualties during the invasion (March 20-May 1, 2003) and a monthly average of 415 during the occupation (May 2, 2003-June 28, 2004).

2. Non-Iraqi Contractor Deaths Have Also Been Highest During the "Transition": There has also been a huge increase in the average monthly deaths of U.S. and other non-Iraqi contractors since the "transition." On average, 17.5 contractors have died each month since the June 28 "transition," versus 7.6 contractor deaths per month during the previous 14 months of occupation.

3. Estimated Strength of Iraqi Resistance Skyrockets: Because the U.S. military occupation remains in place, the "transition" has failed to win Iraqi support or diminish Iraqi resistance to the occupation. According to Pentagon estimates, the number of Iraqi resistance fighters has quadrupled between November of 2003 and early September 2004, from 5,000 to 20,000. The Deputy Commander of Coalition forces in Iraq, British Major General Andrew Graham, indicated to Time magazine in early September that he thinks the 20,000 estimate is too low; he estimates Iraqi resistance strength at 40,000-50,000. This rise is even starker when juxtaposed to Brookings Institution estimates that an additional 24,000 Iraqi resistance fighters have been detained or killed between May 2003 and August 2004.

4. U.S.- led Coalition Shrinks Further After "Transition": The number of countries identified as members of the Coalition backing the U.S.-led war started with 30 on March 18, 2003, then grew in the early months of the war. Since then, eight countries have withdrawn their troops and Costa Rica has demanded to be taken off the coalition list. At the war's start, coalition countries represented 19.1 percent of the world's population; today, the remaining countries with forces in Iraq represent only 13.6 percent of the world's population.


Take note as these neocons begin to appear on TV (Richard Perles one hour interview on C-SPAN  05/09/04 followed by Robert Kagan, Ken Adelman and Laurie Mylroie three weeks later) and write op-ed pieces trying to explain away their participation in the decision making process and their influence in the media etc. in leading the U.S. to war.


Comments made by the neocons now

that they were wrong in sending

our men and women to war.

a.k.a  C.Y.A.




Stretched Thin

By Frederick W. Kagan

Sunday, April 18, 2004; Page B07


All these failures flowed from a greater failure of understanding. This administration came to office with a belief that war is all about destroying targets, that ground forces are unnecessary and that technology is supreme. Much to our sorrow, we have experienced the fact that none of those beliefs are true. Wars of regime change cannot be fought mainly with missiles. Ground forces that can interact with people, perform police functions and maintain order must be present in large numbers during and after hostilities. Excessive haste in withdrawing the inadequate numbers of troops the United States sent to Iraq has only exacerbated these problems.


The people to blame for Sept. 11 are Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. The people to blame for our failures since then are Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration -- as well as the many critics who have urged even greater defense reductions and those who seek to score cheap political points rather than addressing the real issues.


Note: Not one mention of the names of neocons who were the primary movers and shakers for the war.


Too Few Troops

From the April 26, 2004 issue: Resolve alone won't bring success. We need a military and political strategy that maximizes our odds of winning in Iraq.
by Robert Kagan and William Kristol
04/26/2004, Volume 009, Issue 31

Unfortunately, resolve alone won't bring success. Neither will well-delivered statements by the president. The problem in Iraq is not poor public relations, or a lack of will. Rather, it is the failure of policymakers at the highest levels to fashion a military and political strategy that maximizes the odds of success. That is what has been missing ever since Saddam's statue fell a little over a year ago.

The mere fact that violence has increased recently in Iraq is not by itself grounds for criticizing the administration's handling of the war. No sensible person believed that the effort to build a democratic Iraq would be without cost and dangers. No reasonable person expected administration officials and military commanders, either in Washington or in Baghdad, to be able to exercise unerring mastery over an inherently complex and always explosive situation.

Nor is the news from Iraq all bad. Several weeks ago we argued optimistically (perhaps too optimistically) that things were looking better, and we still believe there is much in Iraq to be gratified by: continued peaceful cooperation among Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish leaders, despite many disagreements; an economy that seems to be improving; the fact that a large majority of Iraqis, as documented in polls, say their future is promising, reject political violence, and support an ongoing American presence. And much of Iraq remains, at the moment, relatively peaceful. All this is important progress.

Yet this progress can be undone. And while we certainly do not hold the administration responsible for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq, it is clear that there have been failures in planning and in execution, failures that have been evident for most of the last year. Serious errors have been made--and made, above all, by Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon. The recent violence in Iraq has confirmed that the level of American military forces has been too low to accomplish the president's mission ever since the invasion phase of the war ended last April.

On Thursday, the secretary of defense announced a three-month extension in tours of duty for about 20,000 troops in Iraq. This did not increase the number of troops on the ground, but it did undo a planned drawdown in military strength from 135,000 to 115,000, thereby maintaining current combat strength. But leaving 20,000 troops in Iraq for an additional three months will almost certainly not be enough. Close observers of the conflict in Iraq, civilian and military alike (military, of course, speaking off the record), say that at least two additional divisions--at least 30,000 extra troops--are needed in Iraq just to deal with the current crisis. Even more troops may well be needed to fully pacify the country. And it would be useful to have as many of those troops as possible there sooner rather than later.

The Defense Secretary We Have

 By William Kristol

(Another example of Neocon Chutzpa)

Wednesday, December 15, 2004; Page A33

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

-- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a town hall meeting with soldiers at Camp Buehring in Kuwait, Dec. 8.

Actually, we have a pretty terrific Army. It's performed a lot better in this war than the secretary of defense has. President Bush has nonetheless decided to stick for now with the defense secretary we have, perhaps because he doesn't want to make a change until after the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. But surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term.

Contrast the magnificent performance of our soldiers with the arrogant buck-passing of Rumsfeld. Begin with the rest of his answer to Spec. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Army National Guard:

"Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe -- it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment. I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip."

So the Army is in charge. "They" are working at it. Rumsfeld? He happens to hang out in the same building: "I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working on it hard at the Pentagon. . . . And that is what the Army has been working on." Not "that is what we have been working on." Rather, "that is what the Army has been working on." The buck stops with the Army.

Hawk Finds a Goat

by Trudy Rubin

December 5, 2004


As fighting continues in Iraq 20 months after the fall of Baghdad, with more U.S. troops en route, some of the war's biggest proponents are putting out a new story line to deflect blame.

Heaven forefend that those responsible should accept the blame for the gross mismanagement of postwar Iraq (and give us hope of wiser policies down the line). No, instead we see a shameless passing of the buck.

Iraq's troubles are the fault of Colin Powell, the State Department, and the CIA, says Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Review Board. Perle is one of the most active of the neoconservatives whose thinking shaped the handling of the postwar.

Last week Perle told Fox television's Bill O'Reilly that Iraq's problems should be laid at Powell's door.

I know you thought that it was Powell who lost out in the battle with the Pentagon over Iraq. So listen up to Perle's argument, which goes like this:

The United States made a big mistake after Iraq was liberated by not handing the "keys" over to Iraqis to run their own country. There was "an umbrella group of opposition figures" to whom U.S. officials could have handed power, meaning the group headed by the Pentagon's favorite exile leader, Ahmed Chalabi.

"Instead," Perle says, "we embarked on what became an extended occupation. That was fundamentally mistaken."

Whose fault was this? "It was Secretary Powell and some others who wanted the extended occupation," Perle insists.

There is more.

Perle says that before the war, the Department of Defense wanted to "train thousands of Iraqis to go in with us so that we wouldn't be the aggressor, we wouldn't be the occupying power."

Those proposals were blocked by the State Department and the CIA, and poor Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was "never able to get approval for the political strategy that might... have saved us from much of the subsequent misery."

Now for a reality check.

Yes, it would have been wise for the administration to midwife a transitional Iraqi government before the election - provided that it left half of the seats open for Iraqis inside the country.

I argued for such a policy in my column and followed this story in Washington, London and Iraqi Kurdistan, just before the war, where exile groups were meeting.

So why didn't it happen?

It didn't happen because Pentagon civilian leaders (Perle included) were interested only in a transitional government headed by Chalabi. But Chalabi had alienated all the other exile groups, including Kurds and Shiites, that had once been part of his umbrella group.

The State Department, the CIA, and key members of the National Security Council - which means the White House - had all concluded by the autumn of 2002 that Chalabi was an unreliable leader. Despite the illusions held by Pentagon officials (who appear to hold them still), he had no base inside Iraq. There was no obvious Iraqi exile to anoint as a transitional leader before the war, no parallel to Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai.

But had the Pentagon worked in tandem with State, had the White House devised a coherent policy for the postwar period, the United States could have encouraged Iraqi exile groups to agree on a transitional governing body that would have stepped in after Baghdad's fall.

Instead, Pentagon officials pursued their Chalabi illusion, airlifting him into Iraq behind U.S. troops. Iraqis never welcomed him back, as anyone could have predicted. With no Iraqi leadership in sight, U.S. officials had to step into the vacuum.

Blame the Pentagon or White House incoherence for the ensuing occupation and its problems, not Powell.

As for the bit about the Pentagon wanting to train "thousands of Iraqis" to take over Iraqi security - this is outright baloney. Yes, the Pentagon did want to train some Iraqis, and in fact some hundreds of exiles were assembled at a NATO base in Hungary. But this was never meant to be, nor could it have been, a fighting force.

These were mostly overweight exiles, with no recent combat experience, who were meant to play a limited role helping out U.S. troops. Few of them ever made it to Iraq.

When the Pentagon airlifted Chalabi into southern Iraq, he did bring with him around 600 militiamen who proclaimed themselves the Free Iraqi Forces (FIF). But these were mostly a pickup army he recruited in northern Iraq just before the war. Once back in Baghdad, FIF fighters developed a reputation for stealing cars.

It was never possible for the Pentagon to train an exile army from scratch just before the war. This cannot serve as an excuse for the failure to send enough troops to provide stability after the fall of Baghdad.

Perle is still selling the same kind of illusions about Iraq that led the United States into the current Iraq mess. We won't get out until there is a coherent White House policy that focuses on real facts.

And the second Bush team won't have Powell around to blame.




Neocons join the lynch mob for ‘arrogant’ Rumsfeld

November 28, 2004

THE American defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, should be sacked, according to a growing chorus of conservative commentators who want him replaced by a figure with wider appeal.

In a seemingly innocuous Thanksgiving message to readers last week, William Kristol, the neoconservative editor of The Weekly Standard magazine, slipped in a surprise demand for Rumsfelds dismissal.

What remains to be done is to announce new leadership for the department of defense, wrote Kristol. This, surely, would be an important opportunity for a strong, Bush-doctrine-supporting outsider, someone who of course would be a team player, but someone who could also work with the military and broaden support for the presidents policy.

Boiled down, this meant: almost anybody but Rumsfeld, whose performance has not always matched his swagger. His failure to install enough troops on the ground after last years invasion of Iraq has upset American generals and alienated supporters of the war.

I am allergic to Rumsfeld, said Ralph Peters, a former lieutenant-colonel and robust media champion of the war on terror. We did a great thing in Iraq, but we did it very badly.

He is an extremely talented man but he has the tragic flaw of hubris. His arrogance is unbearable. My friends in uniform just hate him.

The calls for Rumsfeld to be dismissed have intensified since the departure was announced of his cabinet rival, Colin Powell, the secretary of state. With the liberal-leaning Powell being the first to go, conservatives no longer see the need to hold back their opinions.

The defense secretarys job security has not been enhanced by allegations that he lobbied to scupper the intelligence bill in Congress last week against President George W Bushs wishes. Rumsfeld made little secret of his opposition to the bills plan for the national intelligence director to be given sweeping powers over the $40 billion intelligence budget, 80% of which is currently controlled by the Pentagon.

Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, who first worked with Rumsfeld in the 1970s, are known to feel loyal to the architect of the swift military victories in Afghanistan and initially in Iraq. There is a feeling that he deserves to remain in place until after the Iraqi elections in January.

Unlike Powell, Rumsfeld lacks an obvious replacement. Robert Novak, the right-wing pundit, believes Paul Wolfowitz, the neoconservative deputy defense secretary, is a good possibility who has been subjected to a healthy dose of reality about the limits of American power.


Neocons pin Iraq on Rumsfeld

December 23, 2004



In the bowels of the Pentagon, the colleagues and subordinates of Donald Rumsfeld were not upset by Republican senators who were sniping at him. Instead, they complained bitterly about a call for his removal by a private citizen with no political leadership position: William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard. His position was, in effect, a declaration of war by the neoconservatives against the secretary of defense.

The capital's feeding frenzy over Rumsfeld's fate did not begin until Kristol's Dec. 12 op-ed column in the Washington Post. While critical senators did not get to the point of demanding Rumsfeld's removal, Kristol did. He said the troops in Iraq ''deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have.'' A firm declaration by a prominent Republican activist turned journalist who is the clarion of neo-conservatism counts for more than equivocation by U.S. senators.

Rumsfeld's civilian colleagues at the Pentagon are furious because they consider Kristol a manipulative political operative, critiquing the war in Iraq after years of promoting it. But his criticism has a broader base. Kristol long has called for big-government conservatism, which on the international sphere involves proactively pursuing democracy around the world. He and the other neocons do not want to be blamed for what has become a very unpopular venture in Iraq. Thus, it is important to get the word out now that the war in Iraq has gone awry because of the way Rumsfeld fought it.

Rumsfeld is often bracketed with the neocons, but that is incorrect. In a long political career that dates back to his election to Congress in 1962, he has not even been associated with the traditional conservative movement. In the run-up to the attack on Iraq, he was not aggressively pressing intervention by force of arms, but instead was shaping a military response to fit President Bush's command. >

Rumsfeld did name Richard Perle, one of the foremost neocon voices calling for regime change in Baghdad, as chairman of the part-time Defense Policy Board. Also named to the board was Kenneth Adelman, an old friend of Rumsfeld's who is identified as a neocon. Adelman gained notoriety by promising that the conquest of Iraq would be a ''cakewalk.'' Indeed, rejoicing over the quick rout of Saddam Hussein's army, Adelman wrote that cakewalk -- a word always rejected by Rumsfeld -- turned out to be a correct description.

With the bloody occupation of Iraq under way, Adelman's demeanor changed in his frequent appearances on CNN's ''Crossfire'' (where I often was a co-host). His mood became more subdued. The garish, American flag necktie that Adelman wore as he urged war on Iraq was retired, as he somberly began to criticize (while never mentioning Rumsfeld by name).

On April 30, Adelman said a ''miscalculation'' had been made in war planning because the operation in Iraq ''has gone worse than we expected a year ago.'' On June 28, he said ''there were failures,'' adding that the purge of Baath Party members and ''the dismissal of the army was something that we could have done a lot better.'' On Nov. 8, he said failure to clean insurgents out of Fallujah was ''a bad decision.''

Unlike Adelman, Kristol pinned defects in war-fighting tactics directly on Rumsfeld. In a Weekly Standard essay of Nov. 17, 2003 (written with his frequent collaborator, Robert Kagan), Kristol assailed Rumsfeld for sending insufficient troops to Iraq. ''Rumsfeld remains dogmatically committed to a smaller force,'' he wrote.

Thus, the neocon message is that the war was no mistake but has been badly conducted. While Adelman does not blame his friend Rumsfeld, the accountability of the secretary of defense is implicit. Kristol's call for Rumsfeld's dismissal removes culpability for those who beat the drums to go to war.

Getting rid of Rumsfeld does not answer agonizing questions. Was the change of regime in Baghdad worth going to war? Could Saddam have been removed from power by other means? Is the use of U.S. military power to topple undemocratic regimes good policy?

There are no clear answers. To say simply that all would be well in Iraq, save for Don Rumsfeld, only begs these questions.



White man's burden


Source: Haaretz English edition.

Tue., May 11, 2004  Iyar 20, 5764  Israel Time:  15:57  

Haaretz was founded in Jerusalem in 1919 by a group of Zionist immigrants, mainly from Russia.

It is an independent daily newspaper with a broadly liberal outlook both on domestic issues and on international affairs.


Read the op-ed by Shavit and note how he absolves the neocons of  blame for their role in getting us into the war and cites American combination of anxiety and hubris as the primary reason why we went into Iraq.

What Chutzpah!


By Ari Shavit

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical.


In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history.


Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. Still, it's not all that simple, Friedman retracts. It's not some fantasy the neoconservatives invented. It's not that 25 people hijacked America. You don't take such a great nation into such a great adventure with Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard and another five or six influential columnists. In the final analysis, what fomented the war is America's over-reaction to September 11. The genuine sense of anxiety that spread in America after September 11. It is not only the neoconservatives who led us to the outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very American combination of anxiety and hubris.


Fighting the Wrong War


Note that not one mention was made about the neocons role in invading Iraq.

 From the January 17, 2005 issue: What Rumsfeld's defenders don't want to admit.
by Frederick W. Kagan
01/17/2005, Volume 010, Issue 17


CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN INCLINED TO defend Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld because many of his critics oppose him for executing a war they don't like, or because these critics' true target is a president they despise. It is quite possible to support President Bush and the war in Iraq and still find fault with Rumsfeld, however. Indeed, some of us find fault with Rumsfeld precisely because we do support the president and the war.

Rumsfeld has much to recommend him, to be sure. He took firm control of a Pentagon that was largely drifting and gave it clear direction. He focused on the importance of military transformation and made it a going concern rather than a conversation piece, as it had been for much of the Clinton presidency. When the nation was attacked, he oversaw two successful military operations in response.

But Rumsfeld has much to answer for, as well. Claims that there are no serious problems with military policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, or with the equipment our soldiers have, or with the number of troops available, are childish and damaging to efforts to identify and solve real problems.

Rumsfeld's defenders are now deflecting all criticism from him onto the Clinton administration, Congress, and the military service chiefs. Take the most serious criticism leveled at Rumsfeld--that he has refused to expand the American military in order to enable it to deal with the strain the current missions are imposing upon our men and women in uniform. The chief of the Army Reserve, in a December 20 memo leaked last week, warned that the Reserve "is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force." Rumsfeld's defenders assure us he is not responsible. Only Congress can approve an increase in military end-strength; Rumsfeld has never opposed increasing the armed forces; more troops in Iraq wouldn't help anyway. These are the arguments deployed in behalf of the secretary of defense.

Unfortunately, they are evasions. It is of course true that the military underwent a dramatic reduction starting at the end of the Cold War under the first President Bush. The pace of that reduction accelerated during the Clinton years, and by the mid-1990s some of us were already warning that it had gone too far. By 1996, the military had reached its current size, a modest increment below the reduced strength Bush I had originally called for.

George W. Bush took office declaring that "help is on the way," however, and military observers hoped that meant an increase in defense budgets and force sizes. Defense spending has increased, to be sure, although the huge bulk of the increase went to paying for transformation and for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There has been no significant increase in the size of the military. According to the Department of Defense Annual Report of 2004, the Active Army rose from 482,170 men and women in 2000 to 488,640 in 2003, while the Total Army (including the National Guard and Reserves) fell from 1,208,642 in 2000 to 1,176,223 in 2003. Although the actual strength of the force is somewhat higher than these authorized figures (there are perhaps around 500,000 in the Active Army today), that increase is temporary and is due in part to a policy of preventing certain soldiers and officers from leaving the force when they wish to do so. In no sense can Rumsfeld claim to have rushed aid to the Army in any way that is helpful in the current crisis.

He has, in fact, consistently and vociferously opposed congressional attempts to offer such aid. In February 2003, he declared, "we will come back and ask for an end-strength increase at any moment that we believe it is in the interests of the armed forces. At the present time we do not have evidence that suggests that's the case." In October 2003, he discouraged Congress from "going into the taxpayers' pockets for a 10,000-person increase, when there's no analytical work that supports it." He added, "Those who argue that the end-strength should be increased, I think, have an obligation to say, 'Where do you want to take the money out of?' What are we going to take it out of? If you increase the Army end-strength by 10,000, are you going to take it out of the Navy or the Air Force or the Marines? Are we going to take it out of research and development and our future? Are we going to take it out of the future combat system or the helicopters or whatever?" In January 2004, he explained, "A permanent increase in end-strength would require cuts elsewhere in the defense budget . . . crowding out funding for various types of transformational capabilities that can allow us to do more with the forces that we currently have." In September 2004, he added, "We have not supported an [increase] in permanent end-strength by statute. . . . And the reason for that, very simply, is we don't need to do that."

In each case, Rumsfeld has added that he would support an increase in end-strength if it were needed, but that he saw no need for it. He has argued consistently that it would be better to "rearrange" the active and reserve components of the Army, and he has argued for increasing use of civilian contractors to free up soldiers for combat duties. While claiming that a permanent increase in end-strength would take too long to complete to be useful, he has admitted the obvious--that "rearranging" the Army, active and reserve, is also a process that takes many years. He has not admitted another obvious problem with this approach--that the civilianization of military positions has increased the number of contractors in a combat zone where the enemy specializes in kidnapping and beheading people unable to defend themselves.

Congress has not been the problem here. Nor is it fair to blame Clinton entirely for this problem. Clinton downsized the military excessively, to be sure, and left an Army obviously too small for the missions it faced. But Rumsfeld has been in office for four years. If he had begun to address this problem four years ago, the Army could have been considerably expanded by now.

Neither is it true that more troops would not have helped the situation in Iraq. Victor Davis Hanson, the most eloquent of Rumsfeld's defenders, claims that "offensive action, not troop numbers alone, creates deterrence; mere patrolling and garrison duty will always create an insatiable demand for ever more men and an enormously visible American military bureaucracy." But troop numbers on the ground make offensive action by some of them easier to order More significantly, the Iraqi insurgency is so weak that the rebels dare not face our troops in open combat. They are not centrally organized. Offensive action in the traditional sense, therefore, is virtually impossible. Patrolling, garrison duty, and training Iraqi military forces alone can win this conflict. This takes boots on the ground.

With more troops in Iraq during and immediately after the war, we would have been able to do the following things that we did not do:

* Capture or kill thousands of Iraqi soldiers who were at that time still concentrated in combat units and had not yet melted back into the countryside with their weapons and their skills.

* Guard the scores of enormous ammunition dumps from which the insurgents have drawn the vast majority of their weapons, ammunition, and explosives.

* Secure critical oil and electrical infrastructure that the insurgents subsequently attacked, setting back the economic and political recovery of Iraq.

* Prevent the development of insurgent safe havens in Najaf and Falluja, or at least disrupt them at a much earlier stage of formation.

* Work to interdict the infiltration of foreign fighters across Iraq's borders.

If the U.S. Army had begun expanding in 2001, we would have been able to:

* Establish reasonable rotation plans for our soldiers that did not require repeatedly extending tours of duty beyond one year.

* Avoid the need to activate reservists involuntarily.

* Dramatically reduce the frequency with which soldiers return from one year-long tour only to be sent immediately on another.

* Let the troops that would still have been overstrained know that help really was on the way.

The U.S. military did not do these things because of Rumsfeld's choices. He chose to protect a military transformation program that is designed to fight wars radically different from the one in which we are engaged. He chose to protect Air Force and Navy programs that are far less urgent and under far less strain during the current crisis rather than augmenting the service carrying the lion's share of the load. He chose to focus on high-tech weapons technologies that are virtually useless to the troops now in Iraq rather than providing them sooner with the basic requirements of their current mission--including armored Humvees, body armor, and a regular complement of armored vehicles. Even the deployment of Stryker light armored vehicles, which many now tout as a major contribution to the fighting in Iraq, was not Rumsfeld's initiative, but that of General Eric Shinseki. Shinseki was the Army chief of staff whom Rumsfeld drove out of office, partly for correctly predicting that Operation Iraqi Freedom would require more than the handful of units that Rumsfeld and his staff were willing to send.

It is not that Rumsfeld's decisions were without a rationale. The secretary of defense simply chose to prioritize preparing America's military for future conventional conflict rather than for the current mission. That position, based on the hope that the current mission would be of short duration and the recognition that the future may arrive at any moment, is understandable. It just turns out to have been wrong.

Hanson reminds us that American forces in World War II, and in many other conflicts, had to fight with imperfect weapons and under imperfect conditions. All quite true. But in no previous American war has the chief of the military administration refused to focus on the war at hand, preferring programs that could not help soldiers then in the fight to survive and win. Even Robert McNamara, engaged in a "sideshow" war in an otherwise irrelevant theater, did not imagine that he could focus his efforts on preparing to meet the Red Army in the Fulda Gap at the expense of supporting our troops in Indochina.

Rumsfeld's attitude has already led to a series of mistakes that have made a difficult situation more difficult. It has put the administration on the defensive about its conduct of a policy that is vital to America's national interest. It has distracted attention from the problem of winning the current war--our most important priority today bar none. These problems don't result from the liberal media or the antiwar crowd making a ruckus about nothing. They result from Rumsfeld's stubborn adherence to a wrongheaded policy. Surely, with the election safely over, there is no longer any need to protect the architect of these mistakes.

Frederick W. Kagan is a military historian and coauthor of While America Sleeps.



According to Prof. Freedman in the article below-

“Rumsfeld cannot complain that he was the victim of poor advice, because the only advice he appears to trust is his own.”


Freedman seems to contradict himself in the following statement-


Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, famously observed that he found it "hard to conceive" that it would take "more forces to provide stability in a post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army." He was sadly mistaken. He and Rumsfeld accepted claims that the Iraqi people would welcome the Americans as liberators and showed a remarkable lack of prudence or even curiosity about the ways in which the invasion could turn sour.

Rumsfeld's Legacy: The Iraq Syndrome?

 By Lawrence Freedman

Sunday, January 9, 2005; Page B04

Just as Vietnam became McNamara's War, Iraq has become Rumsfeld's War.

From the outset, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has inserted himself in almost every aspect of the campaign, from military strategy to postwar planning, and served as the war's public face. In doing so, he's claimed that one of the advantages of such centralized control was that there was a clear point of accountability.

Now he is being held to account and facing a formidable indictment: rejecting a top general's advice on the force levels that would be needed to restore order to Iraq after Saddam Hussein's regime had been toppled; dismissing State Department advice and plans on postwar reconstruction; failing to realize the seriousness of the early looting and chaos; supporting the disbanding of the Iraqi army without regard to the likely consequences of turning loose thousands of armed and angry unemployed soldiers; and inviting a public relations disaster by circumventing the laws of war to facilitate the indefinite holding and periodic torturing of prisoners. More recently, Rumsfeld has been rebuked for his dismissive treatment of soldiers anxious about inadequate equipment and for adding insult to injury by having a machine sign his condolence letters to bereaved families.

In countering these charges, Rumsfeld cannot complain that he was the victim of poor advice, because the only advice he appears to trust is his own. This was evident from the moment he arrived at the Pentagon and is one reason why comparisons with President Lyndon B. Johnson's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, are apt and illuminating. And just as McNamara left behind the "Vietnam syndrome," when Rumsfeld departs, his bequest may well be an "Iraq syndrome."

At first glance there appears to be little in common between McNamara -- the brash, relatively young, number-crunching corporate manager of the 1960s -- and Rumsfeld, the relatively old, former wrestler and veteran political bruiser of the 2000s. But they share some traits: When it came to the defense budget, both were leery of military advice, which they believed favored certain weapons programs for institutional as much as strategic reasons. And they carried their suspicions forward into operations, leading both to be accused of arrogance Air Force Gen. Thomas White famously chastised McNamara's Pentagon for being full of "pipe-smoking, tree-full-of-owls" defense intellectuals, much as uniformed officers today disparage the intellectuals surrounding Rumsfeld.

The irony is that for three decades, American interventionists like those surrounding Rumsfeld have been laboring to overcome the Vietnam syndrome and its reluctance to get involved in overseas wars. And now, in their hour of seeming triumph, having waged a war that was largely supported by Americans despite the perils, these interventionists have much to fear. That's because whenever Rumsfeld finally packs up his office at the Pentagon, he will leave behind an even more burdensome Iraq syndrome -- the renewed, nagging and sometimes paralyzing belief that any large-scale U.S. military intervention abroad is doomed to practical failure and moral iniquity.

In 1991, two days before the Persian Gulf War ended, the first President Bush wrote in his diary: "It's surprising how much I dwell on the end of the Vietnam syndrome." For the elder Bush and others who saw the Vietnam syndrome acting as a drag on American foreign and defense policy, the best remedy was to show that the country had learned how to use force effectively. After U.S. forces had evicted Saddam Hussein's invading army from Kuwait, the president said, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all."

The interventionists in the younger Bush's administration couldn't have wished for a better proving ground than another Iraq war, where they would demonstrate not only that the United States would have no trouble sweeping aside a third-rate army but also that it could use its military might to transform a country, not just contain it. This war would pursue the most ambitious foreign policy goals, replacing a dangerous and tyrannical regime with one that was both friendly and democratic.

Now, however, the optimism with which the administration entered Iraq in March 2003 has been severely dented. At best, current strategy promises to keep the lid on a grim situation, in the hope that the enemy will get exhausted before the American people do. At worst, the United States may be forced to withdraw, leaving a country embroiled in civil war and a haven for terrorists. A new standard for foreign policy debacles will then have been set, always to be invoked as the best argument for caution when contemplating the use of force.

Unlike Vietnam, a war of containment, Iraq was supposedly a war of preemption. So the Iraq syndrome poses an even more serious challenge to U.S. policy than the Vietnam syndrome did, because it calls into question not only the wisdom of intervention but the integrity of U.S. intelligence and judgment about what poses a direct threat to U.S. national security.

Particularly damaging for the Bush administration is the allegation that it finds itself in the current mess because it ignored the basic lesson drawn from Vietnam. McNamara (and the aides Colin Powell once called the "slide-rule prodigies") came under attack for failing to leave the conduct of any military campaign to the generals. The conservative critique goes one step farther: Rather than accept the brutal but compelling logic of overwhelming force, McNamara and his top aides placed unwarranted confidence in rarefied academic concepts of graduated response.

But this time, the meddler-in-chief is Rumsfeld. As another Thomas White, fired by Rumsfeld as secretary of the Army in May 2003, complained in an interview on PBS last August, Rumsfeld "micromanages, over controls, can be intimidating, almost abusive. He tends to stifle communication, overworks things that he ought to delegate."

But what should the role of the defense secretary be? In a book called "Supreme Command," published just before the Iraq war, Eliot Cohen, a member of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board and a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, challenged the post-Vietnam view that civilian leaders, once they define their objectives, should step back and let the military professionals work out the best way to meet them. Cohen argued that successful war requires civilian leaders who are prepared to challenge military judgments. For civilian interventionists, Cohen's book was refreshing, because during the 1990s it was the uniformed officers, many of them Vietnam veterans like Secretary of State Powell, who had become cautious about sending American soldiers off to war in Somalia, the Balkans or the Middle East.

The principle of civilian participation in operational decisions should really not be controversial. If it has become so, it is because civilian-military relations have acquired an adversarial character, for reasons that go deeper than Iraq.

With the Cold War at its most tense, the Kennedy administration found military views as reckless as they were confused. During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK's generals dismissed all policies other than an invasion of Cuba as tantamount to appeasement. To the civilians, it seemed that the generals did not really want to accept responsibility for military operations, because they always presented stark alternatives -- either the massive use of force, if necessary including nuclear weapons, or nothing at all. When they were urged by Kennedy to prepare for a more subtle counterinsurgency campaign in Vietnam, their enthusiasm was well contained. They saw little point in a "hearts and minds" campaign and, when given the chance, they reverted with some relief back to "search and destroy."

After Vietnam, the military steered as clear as possible from operations that depended in any way on winning over local populations. If there were to be future wars, they insisted , only overwhelming force should be used (a view that came to be associated with Powell when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). Indeed in doctrine, training and contingency planning, the military's dominant focus was major war. The Persian Gulf War was taken as confirming the validity of this approach. By contrast, the painful withdrawals from Beirut in 1984 and Somalia a decade later were seen as demonstrating the folly of getting drawn into messy civil wars.

These events, along with the wars in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, encouraged the view that the best way to keep popular support for operations was to keep casualties to a minimum. This meant that force protection was the first priority in any operation, and this could be achieved if the U.S. contribution was confined to air power. The Army was for proper wars; lesser operations such as peacekeeping were best left to allies or, in the case of counterterrorism, to the CIA.

When Rumsfeld took over the Pentagon, he did not disagree with the Army's reluctance to get involved in nation-building, but he was still exasperated During his first term as secretary of defense under President Gerald Ford in the mid-1970s, he had been an early enthusiast for what was called even then the "revolution in military affairs," looking to combine new information technologies with precision munitions as a means of gaining a comparative edge in regular war. He was appalled to discover how much the forces were still fixated on preparing for big wars and purchasing high-profile weapons platforms rather than developing smaller, nimbler forces geared to the actual contingencies he thought they were likely to face.

Rumsfeld's "transformation agenda" put him on a collision course with the generals. Rumsfeld followed his instincts and initially could claim vindication in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, the problems came as the wars took on a more irregular character. In Afghanistan, much of the al Qaeda leadership, including Osama bin Laden, managed to get away, and in Iraq a swift occupation gave way to a protracted and bloody insurgency.

More troops on the ground would have helped. For postwar Iraq, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki made the case for a deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops. Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, famously observed that he found it "hard to conceive" that it would take "more forces to provide stability in a post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army" He was sadly mistaken. He and Rumsfeld accepted claims that the Iraqi people would welcome the Americans as liberators and showed a remarkable lack of prudence or even curiosity about the ways in which the invasion could turn sour.

Rumsfeld's management style has left him with few supporters and vulnerable to the charge that everything that has gone wrong in Iraq is because he ignored military advice.

Rumsfeld's fault lay less in his readiness to challenge military views -- which often deserved challenging -- but in asking the wrong questions. It is certainly not the case that if only military advice had been followed in Iraq, everything would have been well. In reality the blame for the morass should be shared, for the fault also lies in the U.S. military's insistence on preparing for wars they would prefer to fight rather than those they might need to fight.

The shortage of troops, which meant that they were spread too thinly, aggravated a problem that had deeper roots. U.S. training and doctrine provided little preparation for the demands of irregular war, and the importance of thinking through the local political consequences of military engagements. Instead it was the domestic political consequences of American casualties that made force protection such a priority and led to a cavalier attitude toward Iraqi casualties.

The starting point for the American troubles was that in the process of liberating the Iraqi people, U.S. forces killed far too many of them. When combined with Abu Ghraib and Rumsfeld's tendency to dismiss in an off-hand, "stuff happens" way any criticisms of the developing mayhem in Iraq, it is not surprising that Arab skepticism about U.S. intentions has grown.

Iraq is not an experiment that future U.S. governments will care to repeat. For the moment, even this administration is unable to repeat it, because there are no ground forces to spare for major campaigns elsewhere. Unless it proves possible to gain the upper hand against the insurgents, a bungled war will leave the United States weaker and not stronger. The confidence in American power that led to war being initiated without direct provocation has been shaken. Whenever the possible use of force is raised again, assurances will be sought that this will not be "another Iraq." And future interventionists will worry about how to shake off the Iraq syndrome.

Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at King's College London, is the author of "Kennedy's Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam" (Oxford University Press).


President Bush just doesnt get it!

The president's still got a paper bag over his head!

Mr. Wolfowitz, who devised the debacle in Iraq, is kept on, while Brent Scowcroft, Poppy Bush's lieutenant who warned Junior not to go into Iraq, is pushed out as chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. That's the backward nature of this beast: Deceive, you're golden; tell the truth, you're gone.

January 9, 2005
New York Times


Defining Victory Down




The president prides himself on being a pig-headed guy. He is determined to win in Iraq even if he is not winning in Iraq.

So get ready for a Mohammedan mountain of spin defining victory down. Come what may - civil war over oil, Iranian-style fatwas du jour or men on prayer rugs reciting the Koran all day on the Iraqi TV network our own geniuses created - this administration will call it a triumph.

Even for a White House steeped in hooey, it's a challenge. President Bush will have to emulate the parsing and prevaricating he disdained in his predecessor: It depends on what the meaning of the word "win" is.

The president's still got a paper bag over his head, claiming that the daily horrors out of Iraq reflect just a few soreheads standing in the way of a glorious democracy, even though his commander of ground forces there concedes that the areas where more than half of Iraqis live are not secure enough for them to vote - an acknowledgment that the insurgency is resilient and growing. It's like saying Montana and North Dakota are safe to vote, but New York, Philadelphia and L.A. are not. What's a little disenfranchisement among friends?

"I know it's hard, but it's hard for a reason," Mr. Bush said on Friday, a day after seven G.I.'s and two marines died. "And the reason it's hard is because there are a handful of folks who fear freedom." If it's just a handful, how come it's so hard?

Then the president added: "And I look at the elections as a - as a - you know, as a - as - as a historical marker for our Iraq policy."

Well, that's clear. Mr. Bush is huddled in his bubble, but he's in a pickle. The administration that had no plan for what to do with Iraq when it got it, now has no plan for getting out.

The mood in Washington about our misadventure seemed to grow darker last week, maybe because lawmakers were back after visiting with their increasingly worried constituents and - even more alarming - visiting Iraq, where you still can't drive from the Baghdad airport to the Green Zone without fearing for your life.

"It's going to be ugly," Joe Biden told Charlie Rose about the election.

The arrogant Bush war council never admits a mistake. Paul Wolfowitz, a walking mistake, said on Friday he's been asked to remain in the administration. But the "idealists," as the myopic dunderheads think of themselves, are obviously worried enough, now that Mr. Bush is safely re-elected, to let a little reality seep in. Rummy tapped a respected retired four-star general to go to Iraq this week for an open-ended review of the entire military meshugas.

Mr. Wolfowitz, who devised the debacle in Iraq, is kept on, while Brent Scowcroft, Poppy Bush's lieutenant who warned Junior not to go into Iraq, is pushed out as chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. That's the backward nature of this beast: Deceive, you're golden; tell the truth, you're gone.

Mr. Scowcroft was not deterred. Like Banquo's ghost, he clanked around last week, disputing the president's absurdly sunny forecasts for Iraq, and noting dryly that this administration had turned the word "realist" into a "pejorative." He predicted that the elections "have the great potential for deepening the conflict" by exacerbating the divisions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. He worried that there would be "an incipient civil war," and said the best chance for the U.S. to avoid anarchy was to turn over the operation to the less inflammatory U.N. or NATO.

Mr. Scowcroft appeared at the New America Foundation with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, who declared the Iraq war a moral, political and military failure. If we can't send 500,000 troops, spend $500 billion and agree to resume the draft, then the conflict should be "terminated," he said, adding that far from the Jeffersonian democracy Mr. Bush extols, the most we can hope for is a Shiite-controlled theocracy.

The Iraqi election that was meant to be the solution to the problem - like the installation of a new Iraqi government and the transfer of sovereignty and all the other steps that were supposed to make things better - may actually be making things worse. The election is going to expand the control of the Shiite theocrats, even beyond what their numbers would entitle them to have, because of the way the Bush team has set it up and the danger that if you're a Sunni, the vote you cast may be your last.

It is a lesson never learned: Matters of state and the heart that start with a lie rarely end well.



Jewish American influence on U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel

The total American population of Jewish/Americans is no more than 2.2% and perhaps less, depending on how we define who is a Jew.

As was stated above American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat and many of them disagree strongly with Ariel Sharon’s policies and Bush’s aggression in Iraq. The point is simply that the neocons seem to have a special affinity for Israel that influences their political thinking and consequently American foreign policy in the Middle East.


Will Congress adopt a more even-handed approach in the Israeli  / Palestinian conflict?

Some answers:


Congressional Fever of Israel-Fealty Intensifying

By Shirl McArthur

While both Republican and Democratic members of Congress have for decades engaged in an unseemly competition for Jewish-American votes and contributions, usually by expressing their continual and blind support for Israel, this past spring has seen them figuratively falling all over each other to convincingly express their fealty to Israel and commitment to causes seen as of interest to Jewish Americans. This is at least partially because many political pundits see President George W. Bushs abandonment of even a pretext of even-handedness in Arab-Israeli matters as eroding Democrats traditional advantage in American Jewish electoral and financial support. This premise is questionable, however, becauseas other pundits point outmany American Jews are drawn to the Democratic Party because of issues unrelated to Israel, and many others do not see the current Israeli governments policies as being in Israels long-term interest.

AIPACs annual conference has long attracted large numbers of members of Congress from both parties to express their undying support for Israel, but this years meeting seemed to garner an even greater outpouring of congressional support, with more than half the members of Congress attending at least one function. Both House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) apparently bought into Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharons attempts to link the U.S. global campaign against terrorism with Israels attempts to crush the Palestinian people. They either do not see or do not care that it is precisely this linkage between U.S. military actions in the Middle East and Israeli actions in Palestine that cause most people in the Middle East to be suspicious of American motives and objectives in the region.

When Sharon Says Jump Bush Says How High?


You may have heard that Israel is calling the shots in Americas foreign policy, and have asked yourself, why are there so many Jews in the Bush administration, and what are they doing there?


The Prisoner of Sharon


The president must understand that what Sharon and the neoconservative War Party are slavering for is what the latter call "World War IV," a war with America and Israel on one side, and all the enemies of Israel in the Arab and Islamic world on the other a war that could bring down every pro-American regime in the region and usher in the war of civilizations the president has sought since Sept. 11 to avoid.



Professor Kevin MacDonald and Jewish influence.

Kevin MacDonald is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach.


Understanding Jewish Influence I

Background Traits for Jewish Activism



Beginning in the ancient world, Jewish populations have repeatedly attained a position of power and influence within Western societies. I will discuss Jewish background traits conducive to influence: ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness, with most of the focus on ethnocentrism. 


Understanding Jewish Influence II

Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism

The history of Zionism illustrates a dynamic within the Jewish community in which the most radical elements end up pulling the entire community in their direction. Zionism began among the most ethnocentric Eastern European Jews and had explicitly racialist and nationalist overtones. However, Zionism was viewed as dangerous among the wider Jewish community, especially the partially assimilated Jews in Western countries, because it opened Jews up to charges of disloyalty and because the Zionists’ open racialism and ethnocentric nationalism conflicted with the assimilationist strategy then dominant among Western Jews.


Understanding Jewish Influence III

Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement

Over the last year, there has been a torrent of articles on neoconservatism raising (usually implicitly) some difficult issues: Are neoconservatives different from other conservatives?  Is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it “anti-Semitic” to say so?



Is the solution..


Liberating America From Israel  ???

by Paul Findley


Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express this conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe the catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during the past 35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until Israel withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

The U.S. lobby for Israel is powerful and intimidating, but any determined president-even President Bush this very day-could prevail and win overwhelming public support for the suspension of aid by laying these facts before the American people:


How far can the neocons influence succeed in gaining control of U.S. foreign policy.

Let us look back in history for some examples of Jewish influence


How Jews played a prominent role in the ideological formulation and actualization of two of the three political movements of the twentieth century.

The Latest Link in the Chain of Jewish Radicalism

Arieh Stav

Nativ Index

“The Jews played a prominent role in the ideological formulation and actualization of two of the three main fascist movements of the twentieth century – Soviet Communism and Italian Fascism. With Lenin’s death in January 1924, three Jews and a Georgian took control of Russia: Lev Bronstein, Grigory Radomilski, Lev Rosenfeld, and Joseph Dzugashvilli. They are better known by their Soviet names – respectively: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin. The heads of the CHEKA, the NKVD, and up to the KGB were mostly Jews, from Moses Solomonovitch Uritzky to Genrikh Yagoda to Andropov. Yakov Ginzburg (Sverdlov), who supervised the expulsion of the Czar’s family to Yekaterinburg in the Ural Mountains and their slaying there, as well as the commander of the unit that carried out the slaughter, who shot the Czar in the forehead from a range of zero, one Yakov Yurovski – were Jews.

The proportion of Jews involved in the creation, planning, and management of the Gulag Archipelag and forced-labor camps was much higher than their proportion in the Party elite, where in any case they held a considerable part of the key positions. Names such as Aron Solts, Yacov Rappoport, Lazar Kogan, Matvei Berman, and Naftaly Frenkel still strike terror in the hearts of Gulag veterans. The role of Lazar Kaganovitch in the organization of the camps for people who were kidnapped for slave labor, and also in the “collectivization” process that brought the death of millions, is among the most notorious.

Jews such as Angelica Balabanoff had a decisive influence on the formation of the spiritual world of Mussolini in his leftist-anarchist period. Another example is that of Margareta Sarfatti (who edited Gierarchia, el Duce’s fascist organ). Five Jews (A. Finzi, J. Pontremoli, A. Jarach, E. Jona, C. Sarfatti) were among the founders of the fascist nucleus of the “War Organization” (Fasci di combattimento) in March 1919. Those who formulated the socio-economic concept of Italian fascism – “the state of corporations” – both on the ideological and practical levels, were predominantly Jews. Thus, for example, Guido Jung, finance minister and a senior member of the Supreme Fascist Council. Thus also Guido Arias, the senior ideologue of the socio-economic concept of fascism; L. Toeplitz, the chief banker of Italy; and Otto Herman Kahan, a great admirer of el Duce and one of the pillars of banking and American philanthropy. The hard-core of Mussolini’s economic advisers strictly consisted of three Jewish senators (H. Ancona, A. Luria, T. Meyer). Indeed, not for nothing did Alfred Rosenberg call Mussolini “Judenknecht” (Jewish lackey).

As one would expect, the common denominator of all these groups was (and remains) a sweeping hostility toward Zionism.”


(And this is where these leftist’s differ from the present day neocons who as is reported here had their roots in the left  and are supporters of Likudnik’s and  Zionism’s goal of transfer.)

 However, the neocons approach in gaining influence in the halls of government is somewhat similar to the leftist’s mentioned in the Arieh Stav editorial.




They're Back: Neocons Revive
the Committee on the Present Danger,
This Time against Terrorism


By Jim Lobe | July 21, 2004

Editor: John Gershman, Interhemispheric Resource Center

Foreign Policy In Focus


A bipartisan group of 41 mainly neoconservative foreign-policy hawks has launched the latest incarnation of the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), whose previous two incarnations mobilized public support for rolling back Soviet-led communism but whose new enemy will be global terrorism.


The new group, whose formation was announced at a Capitol Hill press conference July 20, said its single mission will be to advocate policies intended to win the war on global terrorismterrorism carried out by radical Islamists opposed to freedom and democracy.


Neocon Kenneth M. Pollack is at it again  , first Iraq now Iran


The Persian Puzzle :


The Conflict Between Iran and America

With balanced tone and insight, Pollack explains how the United States and Iran reached this impasse; why this relationship is critical to regional, global, and U.S. interests; and what basic political choices are available as we deal with this important but deeply troubled country.


These Are Their Ends


Patrick C. Doherty

August 05, 2004

The commissions and the chaos have put the lie to the Bush administration's shifting rationales for war. What the media are not asking, however, is if these aren't the reasons, what are?'s Associate Editor Patrick Doherty says there are three interconnected reasons: oil, Israel, and military transformation.

So just why did Bush choose war?

From the evidence before us today, there is no one single reason. Rather, there are three converging and tightly interwoven reasons: oil, Israel and military transformation. The Cheney energy strategy required Iraqi oil; AIPAC and the Christian right wanted to weaken the Arab world to strengthen Israel; and Don Rumsfeld wanted to expedite the transformation of the U.S. military.




A Neocon update


We are an isolated and reviled nation. We are tyrants to others weaker than ourselves. We have lost sight of our democratic ideals. Thucydides wrote of Athens' expanding empire and how this empire led it to become a tyrant abroad and then a tyrant at home. The tyranny Athens imposed on others it finally imposed on itself. If we do not confront our hubris and the lies told to justify the killing and mask the destruction carried out in our name in Iraq, if we do not grasp the moral corrosiveness of empire and occupation, if we continue to allow force and violence to be our primary form of communication, we will not so much defeat dictators like Saddam Hussein as become them.


Remember the reason given to the American public for the invasion of Iraq ?……. WMD!!!!!!

Search for Banned Arms In Iraq Ended Last Month
Critical September Report to Be Final Word

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A01

The hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein. The top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley.

In interviews, officials who served with the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) said the violence in Iraq, coupled with a lack of new information, led them to fold up the effort shortly before Christmas.

Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons, and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States.

Bush has expressed disappointment that no weapons or weapons programs were found, but the White House has been reluctant to call off the hunt, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are well hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small.

Duelfer is back in Washington, finishing some addenda to his September report before it is reprinted.

"There's no particular news in them, just some odds and ends," the intelligence official said. The Government Printing Office will publish it in book form, the official said.

The CIA declined to authorize any official involved in the weapons search to speak on the record for this story. The intelligence official offered an authoritative account of the status of the hunt on the condition of anonymity. The agency did confirm that Duelfer is wrapping up his work and will not be replaced in Baghdad.

The ISG, established to search for weapons but now enmeshed in counterinsurgency work, remains under Pentagon command and is being led by Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Joseph McMenamin.

Intelligence officials said there is little left for the ISG to investigate because Duelfer's last report answered as many outstanding questions as possible. The ISG has interviewed every person it could find connected to programs that ended more than 10 years ago, and every suspected site within Iraq has been fully searched, or stripped bare by insurgents and thieves, according to several people involved in the weapons hunt.

Satellite photos show that entire facilities have been dismantled, possibly by scrap dealers who sold off parts and equipment to buyers around the world.

"The September 30 report is really pretty much the picture," the intelligence official said.

"We've talked to so many people that someone would have said something. We received nothing that contradicts the picture we've put forward. It's possible there is a supply someplace, but what is much more likely is that [as time goes by] we will find a greater substantiation of the picture that we've already put forward."

Congress allotted hundreds of millions of dollars for the weapons hunt, and there has been no public accounting of the money. A spokesman for the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency said the entire budget and the expenditures would remain classified.

Several hundred military translators and document experts will continue to sift through millions of pages of documents on paper and computer media sitting in a storeroom on a U.S. military base in Qatar.

But their work is focused on material that could support possible war crimes charges or shed light on the fate of Capt. Michael Scott Speicher, a Navy pilot who was shot down in an F/A-18 fighter over central Iraq on Jan. 17, 1991, the opening night of the Persian Gulf War. Although he was initially reported as killed in action, Speicher's status was changed to missing after evidence emerged that he had ejected alive from his aircraft.

The work on documents is not connected to weapons of mass destruction, officials said, and a small group of Iraqi scientists still in U.S. military custody are not being held in connection with weapons investigations, either.

Three people involved with the ISG said the weapons teams made several pleas to the Pentagon to release the scientists, who have been interviewed extensively. All three officials specifically mentioned Gen. Amir Saadi, who was a liaison between Hussein's government and U.N. inspectors; Rihab Taha, a biologist nicknamed "Dr. Germ" years ago by U.N. inspectors; her husband, Amir Rashid, the former oil minister; and Huda Amash, a biologist whose extensive dealings with U.N. inspectors earned her the nickname "Mrs. Anthrax."

None of the scientists has been involved in weapons programs since the 1991 Gulf War, the ISG determined more than a year ago, and all have cooperated with investigators despite nearly two years of jail time without charges. U.S. officials previously said they were being held because their denials of ongoing weapons programs were presumed to be lies; now, they say the scientists are being held in connection with the possible war crimes trials of Iraqis.

It has been more than a year since any Iraqi scientist was arrested in connection with weapons of mass destruction. Many of those questioned and cleared have since left Iraq, one senior official said, acknowledging for the first time that the "brain drain" that has long been feared "is well underway."

"A lot of it is because of the kidnapping industry" in Iraq, the official said. The State Department has been trying to implement programs designed to keep Iraqi scientists from seeking weapons-related work in neighboring countries, such as Syria and Iran.

Since March 2003, nearly a dozen people working for or with the weapons hunt have lost their lives to the insurgency. The most recent deaths came in November, when Duelfer's convoy was attacked during a routine mission around Baghdad and two of his bodyguards were killed.


The Whole Truth About The Iraq War

Robert Greenwald -  87 minutes:  Windows Media

An impressive roster of experts is assembled to provide a generally withering commentary on the quality of evidence and possible motivations of the Neo-conservatives who provided the momentum and muscle behind America's venture into preemptive war. Among them are veteran CIA analysts and operatives, military officers, diplomats, politicians, arms inspectors, and U.S. and British government officials. The fig leaf of the possibility of an honest mistake on the matter of WMDs is stripped away; what is left is the stark and disturbing anatomy of deliberate deceit.


Our Inscrutable Iraq Policy:

 Why We Did It, What To Do Now, and What Happens Next

by Karen Kwiatkowski (Lt. Col. Retired)

The following is the text of a talk originally given in November 2004 for the University of Virginia, Charlottesville at a public event sponsored by the UVA Students for Individual Liberty. Versions were also presented at public events sponsored by Libertarians at Virginia Tech (September 2005) and the Appalachian School of Law (October 2005).


·         A little about me and my perspective on the war on Iraq
o        What the Pentagon senior civilian staff and the President were saying about Iraq did not match the intelligence I’d been looking at regularly for over four years. Furthermore, it did not pass the logic test.
o        I moved my retirement date up a few months and just after I retired, in July 2003, Knight-Ridder newspapers published an op-ed where I discussed the functional isolation of the policy-makers, their cross-agency cliques of likeminded ideologues, and the groupthink that afflicted them in the rush to war.




February 27, 2006


Moment of Truth Neocons jump ship

Justin Raimondo


One has only to look at the headlines coming out of Iraq to see that the moment of truth has arrived: the Iraqi government is warning of an "endless civil war"; mosques across Iraq, including the "Golden Mosque" in Samarra, were targeted in a wave of sectarian attacks, and 60 were killed in just one day, including two U.S. soldiers; and the Pentagon is reporting that not a single Iraqi battalion can stand on its own, while insurgent attacks are at an all-time high. Heck, even George W. Bush is admitting that everything is not coming up roses.


Not Bill Kristol, however: according to the little Lenin of the neocons,

"We have not had a serious three year effort to fight a war in Iraq, as opposed to laying the preconditions for getting out."


And all this time you thought American troops were fighting and dying in a deadly serious way. Alas, you were wrong, because, you see, the Bush administration was never serious about implementing the neocon agenda of "liberating" the entire Middle East by force of arms. The fact that they are even talking about getting out standing down as the Iraqis stand up, as the president puts it is proof enough of that. The neoconservatives' goal has never been to end the war, but to extend it. All this time, they have been urging the administration "Faster, please!" yet the slowdown is perceptible, and, given the present brick wall we have run up against, bound to become more noticeable. There is now a bipartisan consensus that the war in Iraq or at least our direct involvement in it must be allowed to run down. Where the "debate" if it can be called that takes place is around the question of just how to accomplish that.


In their extremism on this question, the neocons stand out, isolated and alone: No pasaran! Like the Third Period Stalinists of the 1930s, however, their allies and sympathizers are having a hard time swallowing the party line, and there are significant defections in the ranks. The most important is William F. Buckley, Jr., the former enfant terrible of the conservative movement and founder of National Review magazine, the literary hub of right-wing activism since the late 1950s. In a piece for NR, the "pope" of the American Right declared:


"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. … Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols."


The fabric of Iraqi society is crumbling in the grip of America's iron fist, an eventuality predicted in this space and by anyone with even a perfunctory knowledge of the region. And now that the inevitable has come to pass, all the former optimists, the beaters of the war drums, are pounding out a different tune. The air is filled with their confessions, their disappointment, their regrets, melding with the anguished cries of the wounded and dying on the battlefields of Iraq in a melody of pain and remonstrance. Buckley consoles himself with the thought that a few uniquely evil and powerful "ice men" are responsible for frustrating the "latent" desire of the Iraqis to turn their country into a replica of Kansas. After all, who could have known that what Buckley calls the "postulates" wouldn't work in this case? As he puts it:


"One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.

"The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymakers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.

The first postulate is based on
what? The answer is: nothing. Neither the history of the region, nor the proximity of Iraq to Iran, is taken into account by this axiom, which seems merely a projection of the American penchant for normalcy. In universalizing characteristics that may perhaps be unique to Americans, we have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of our hollow "victory" and visited ruin upon our own interests and prestige, wrecking an entire country in the process.


I question the reality of the second postulate: according to various accounts of the internal policymaking debate during the run-up to the invasion, no one in the government predicted the insurgency, let alone devised a plan for coping with it. They all thought it would be, as one neocon apparatchik enthused, a "cakewalk." Since Buckley was complicit in that delusion, and allowed his magazine to be taken over by the devotees of this fever dream, he is in no position to recognize any of this, and, besides, the question is now what to do about it:


"The administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism."


In short: keep the faith. The Democratist faith, that is. Just because the Iraqi experiment in social engineering has imploded into what one American general calls the worst strategic disaster in our history is no reason to abandon the interventionist dogma that we can and should export "democracy" at gunpoint. Buckley's phraseology masks the real issue: while the failure in Iraq doesn't prove that "violence and anti-democratic movements always prevail," what it does prove is that interventionism leads to unintended and potentially horrific consequences and that the "blowback" from our efforts is likely to prove deadlier and far costlier than staying home and minding our own business in the first place.


We are losing, avers Buckley, on account of our humanitarianism, embodied in our reluctance to use such "interventionist measures" as were deployed against Hitler and Hirohito: we are not quite ready, in short, to punish those ungrateful and rebellious objects of our "liberation" by duplicating the bombing of Dresden or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Kristol would call this faintheartedness, and the lack of these sorts of measures lies behind his imputation of a lack of "seriousness" on the part of the U.S. Buckley quails at such a prospect, but Kristol doesn't flinch from implicitly calling for mass murder. It is the main difference between "mainstream" conservatism and its mutant offspring of the neoconservative persuasion.



Speaking of mutant offspring, the neocon theoretician Francis Fukuyama, whose famous thesis that capital-H History has "ended" was the leitmotif of neoconservative thought in the early 1990s, has also defected from the ranks of the War Party, albeit proclaiming his own innocence in the process. Without so much as mentioning that his name adorned the various joint statements put out by the neocons in the run-up to war, he now seeks to separate himself from the implosion of the neoconservative vision in Iraq and the disaster unfolding:


"As we approach the third anniversary of the onset of the Iraq war, it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention itself or the ideas animating it kindly. By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadist terrorists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at. The United States still has a chance of creating a Shi'ite-dominated democratic Iraq, but the new government will be very weak for years to come; the resulting power vacuum will invite outside influence from all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran. There are clear benefits to the Iraqi people from the removal of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and perhaps some positive spillover effects in Lebanon and Syria. But it is very hard to see how these developments in themselves justify the blood and treasure that the United States has spent on the project to this point."


The only proper reaction to this is: Now he tells us?


Like Buckley, there is no acknowledgment of his own personal error or responsibility, no apology for misleading his readers and those who took and still take him seriously. There is only an effort to save the "postulates" that regulated their delusionary dogma. Fukuyama stands in fear of a recent Pew poll that portends a return by the American people to "isolationism," defined by the pollsters as a policy of "minding our own business." Heaven forfend that such a commonsense policy should ever prevail! The mere prospect has Buckley and Fukuyama on the barricades, poised to defend the interventionist faith.


After naming neoconservatism as the one political tendency most responsible for leading us down the path to war – albeit not naming himself as prominent among them – Fukuyama avers:


"The problem with neoconservatism's agenda lies not in its ends, which are as American as apple pie, but rather in the overmilitarized means by which it has sought to accomplish them. What American foreign policy needs is not a return to a narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulation of a 'realistic Wilsonianism' that better matches means to ends. "


It is hard to see how one could "overmilitarize" the invasion of Iraq: when Fukuyama signed statements, including newspaper advertisements, calling for the U.S. to invade, what, exactly, did he have in mind? That kind of excuse-making exudes the isolation of these Deep Thinkers from the actual material reality of the policies they recommend. This is what we mean by "chickenhawks" not necessarily those who, like Dick Cheney, "had other priorities in the '60s than military service," but those who lack the courage to face the reality of the policies they are advocating.


There is much more to be said of Fukuyama's disingenuous and highly self-exculpatory non-confession, but that will have to wait for another day. Let us cut to the chase, however, and examine his own explanation for the split in the neoconservative ranks that has now separated him from his erstwhile comrades. It all began, he writes, with a misunderstanding and misapplication of his "End of History" thesis:


"'The End of History,' … presented a kind of Marxist argument for the existence of a long-term process of social evolution, but one that terminates in liberal democracy rather than communism. In the formulation of the scholar Ken Jowitt, the neoconservative position articulated by people like Kristol and Kagan was, by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support."


When Fukuyama published his "endist" piece in The National Interest, he was congratulated by, I think, Irving Kristol for importing Hegel into the discussion of foreign policy. Now the neocons have good reason to regret that particular innovation: it has given their schismatic protégé the ideological cover he needs to slink away from the scene of the crime, leaving them to take all the blame. The forces of capital-H History, says Fukuyama, move with imperceptible slowness: the Leninist Kristol (Junior) and his neocon cadre were too impatient, too militaristic, too Bolshevik in their methods. Leave it to Fukuyama and more mild-mannered Mensheviks like Buckley to cobble together a more "realistic Wilsonianism" that will serve the War Party in its future endeavors.


The problem with neoconservatism – which is, today, almost exclusively concerned with foreign policy issues – is not its means but its ends. Aside from being doomed to failure, the very idea of America as a "benevolent world hegemon" is inherently subversive of the national character and our system of constitutional limited government. At this point, the Buckley-Fukuyama project of saving neoconservatism from itself has probably come too late to have any appreciable effect on the American peoples' reconversion to the dreaded doctrine of "isolationism." The neocons cannot save their discredited and bloodstained ideology; they can only save certain individual neocons from spending a good deal of time behind bars. And I can see that Fukuyama, at any rate, while renouncing neoconservatism, has joined the effort to save one of its chief practitioners – one Scooter Libby – from being sent from the White House to the Big House.


In the end, these guys are sticking together in the knowledge that if they don't, they will most certainly hang together.


The U.S. administration be it Republican or Democrat should heed the words of our founding father in dealing with Israel and other nations.

Washington's Farewell Address 1796

“a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils”

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it . It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.


A warning to all freedom loving Americans . As long as US foreign policy favors and aids Israel in its war against the Palestinians there will never be peace in the Middle East. I have set forth my thesis that US foreign policy has been greatly influenced by a group of neoconservatives to the detriment of our people. Unless the American public wakes up to this fact and unless the Republicans and Democrats throw off the yoke of the powerful Israeli lobby in this country we will never have peace. We must be vigilant and as voters informed about these neocons who seek to lead our great country along the path to destruction. As one radio talk show host says. LETS BE HEARD!


People say that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein, but removing him from power was never the reason for a pre-emptive war. The American people and the world were told of imminent danger – a growing nuclear program and stockpiles of chemical and nerve agents and Saddam’s connection with 9/11. To date our troops have found nothing and it’s not because they didn’t look hard enough. The decision to invade Iraq based on faulty intelligence lies solely with the president who has yet to account for his miscalculations and rush to war and the major problems facing us in postwar Iraq.


The blood of our young men and women is on the hands of these neocons.


I pray for the safety of our troops in Iraq. As members of the military they serve under the Commander In Chief. I support them but not the CIC's policies that put them in harms way. As a citizen of the USA I have that freedom to do so unfortunately our troops do not.



It is regrettably clear that the American and British governments are preparing for war, this time against Iran. It is equally clear that the American and British people believe neither that their governments should start another war, nor that this particular war would be in their nations' best interests. Moreover, the public hasn't heard any serious debate about the reasons for and against another war, so nothing like a national consensus exists. And it is unclear exactly who is pushing us into this ill-advised war.


Nevertheless, we can surmise that five major causal factors are pushing the Anglo-Americans toward war against Iran: (a) Big Oil (e.g., Bush, Cheney and Rice are former oil-company executives who know that Iran holds 10% of the world's known oil reserves, and that any pipeline from the new Central Asian oilfields would have to run directly through Iran to be shipped from the Mediterranean Sea to England and the eastern USA); (b) the American military-industrial complex and its war-profiteering investors (e.g, Halliburton and the Carlyle Group); (c) the American Religious Right (e.g., to satisy their evangelical pro-war, end-times vision of a reconstituted "Greater Israel"); and (d) Israel and its pro-Israel lobby in America (e.g., AIPAC and JINSA, to satisfy their Zionist visions of Israeli dominance in the region without any real concessions).


Contrastingly, Iran's "nuclear weapons program" is NOT a major causal factor, but rather is a mere pretext, for war. Every serious Middle Eastern analyst knows that: Bush and Blair have presented no hard evidence whatsoever to prove that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons; and even if the Iranians were doing so, they would be at least 10 years away from producing a single nuke. In short, there's ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons anytime in the foreseeable future, and Iran definitely does NOT posses any nuclear weapons right now, so it is UTTERLY INCAPABLE of using nukes to pose an imminent threat to the USA, the UK, or any Mideastern nation.


Harvard University's JFK School Of Government recently published a directly relevant research paper by Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. Their 81-page study concludes: that the USA's pro-Israel lobby exercises grossly disproportionate influence on American foreign policy; and that the powerful pro-Israel lobby was a major causal factor in persuading the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Furthermore, there is substantial evidence that the pro-Israel lobby is a significant causal factor that is pushing the USA toward another war against Iran. It is noteworthy that the "pro-Israel lobby" includes both causal factors (c) and (d) above (i.e., Christian fundamentalists as well as Jewish fundamentalists).


It's obvious that Americans need a free and fair-minded national debate that addresses at least three crucial questions (because they are NOT merely academic): (1) Is the pro-Israel lobby a major causal factor in persuading the US government to attack Iran; (2) If not, what are the major causal factors that are pushing the US government to attack Iran; and (3) In either case, is it truly in America's national interests - as opposed to Israel's national interests or the Corporatocracy's war-profiteering interests - to unnecessarily commence an unjust and illegal war of aggression against Iran?



The Israel Lobby


John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt


For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the Israel Lobby. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country in this case, Israel are essentially identical.


Is It Possible to Have a Civilized Discussion About the Role of Israel in American Foreign Policy?


The Storm over the Israel Lobby"




We wrote 'The Israel Lobby' in order to begin a discussion of a subject that had become difficult to address openly in the United States (London Review of Books, 23 March). We knew it was likely to generate a strong reaction, and we are not surprised that some of our critics have chosen to attack our characters or misrepresent our arguments. We have also been gratified by the many positive responses we have received, and by the thoughtful commentary that has begun to emerge in the media and the blogosphere. It is clear that many people--including Jews and Israelis--believe that it is time to have a candid discussion of the US relationship with Israel. It is in that spirit that we engage with the letters responding to our article. We confine ourselves here to the most salient points of dispute.


One of the most prominent charges against us is that we see the lobby as a well-organized Jewish conspiracy. Jeffrey Herf and Andrei Markovits, for example, begin by noting that 'accusations of powerful Jews behind the scenes are part of the most dangerous traditions of modern anti-Semitism' (Letters, 6 April ). It is a tradition we deplore and that we explicitly rejected in our article. Instead, we described the lobby as a loose coalition of individuals and organizations without a central headquarters. It includes gentiles as well as Jews, and many Jewish-Americans do not endorse its positions on some or all issues. Most important, the Israel lobby is not a secret, clandestine cabal; on the contrary, it is openly engaged in interest-group politics and there is nothing conspiratorial or illicit about its behavior. Thus, we can easily believe that Daniel Pipes has never 'taken orders' from the lobby, because the Leninist caricature of the lobby depicted in his letter is one that we clearly dismissed. Readers will also note that Pipes does not deny that his organization, Campus Watch, was created in order to monitor what academics say, write and teach, so as to discourage them from engaging in open discourse about the Middle East.


Several writers chide us for making mono-causal arguments, accusing us of saying that Israel alone is responsible for anti-Americanism in the Arab and Islamic world (as one letter puts it, anti-Americanism 'would exist if Israel was not there') or suggesting that the lobby bears sole responsibility for the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. But that is not what we said. We emphasized that US support for Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories is a powerful source of anti-Americanism, the conclusion reached in several scholarly studies and US government commissions (including the 9/11 Commission). But we also pointed out that support for Israel is hardly the only reason America's standing in the Middle East is so low. Similarly, we clearly stated that Osama bin Laden had other grievances against the United States besides the Palestinian issue, but as the 9/11 Commission documents, this matter was a major concern for him. We also explicitly stated that the lobby, by itself, could not convince either the Clinton or the Bush administration to invade Iraq. >b>Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence that the neo-conservatives and other groups within the lobby played a central role in making the case for war.


At least two of the letters complain that we 'catalogue Israel's moral flaws', while paying little attention to the shortcomings of other states. We focused on Israeli behavior, not because we have any animus towards Israel, but because the United States gives it such high levels of material and diplomatic support. Our aim was to determine whether Israel merits this special treatment either because it is a unique strategic asset or because it behaves better than other countries do. We argued that neither argument is convincing: Israel's strategic value has declined since the end of the Cold War and Israel does not behave significantly better than most other states.


Herf and Markovits interpret us to be saying that Israel's 'continued survival' should be of little concern to the United States. We made no such argument. In fact, we emphasized that there is a powerful moral case for Israel's existence, and we firmly believe that the United States should take action to ensure its survival if it were in danger. Our criticism was directed at Israeli policy and America's special relationship with Israel, not Israel's existence.


Another recurring theme in the letters is that the lobby ultimately matters little because Israel's 'values command genuine support among the American public'. Thus, Herf and Markovits maintain that there is substantial support for Israel in military and diplomatic circles within the United States. We agree that there is strong public support for Israel in America, in part because it is seen as compatible with America's Judaeo-Christian culture. But we believe this popularity is substantially due to the lobby's success at portraying Israel in a favorable light and effectively limiting public awareness and discussion of Israel's less savory actions. Diplomats and military officers are also affected by this distorted public discourse, but many of them can see through the rhetoric. They keep silent, however, because they fear that groups like AIPAC will damage their careers if they speak out. The fact is that if there were no AIPAC, Americans would have a more critical view of Israel and US policy in the Middle East would look different.


On a related point, Michael Szanto contrasts the US-Israeli relationship with the American military commitments to Western Europe, Japan and South Korea, to show that the United States has given substantial support to other states besides Israel (6 April). He does not mention, however, that these other relationships did not depend on strong domestic lobbies. The reason is simple: these countries did not need a lobby because close ties with each of them were in America's strategic interest. By contrast, as Israel has become a strategic burden for the US, its American backers have had to work even harder to preserve the 'special relationship'.


Other critics contend that we overstate the lobby's power because we overlook countervailing forces, such as 'paleo-conservatives, Arab and Islamic advocacy groups . . . and the diplomatic establishment'. Such countervailing forces do exist, but they are no match--either alone or in combination--for the lobby. There are Arab-American political groups, for example, but they are weak, divided, and wield far less influence than AIPAC and other organizations that present a strong, consistent message from the lobby.


Probably the most popular argument made about a countervailing force is Herf and Markovits's claim that the centerpiece of US Middle East policy is oil, not Israel. There is no question that access to that region's oil is a vital US strategic interest. Washington is also deeply committed to supporting Israel. Thus, the relevant question is, how does each of those interests affect US policy? We maintain that US policy in the Middle East is driven primarily by the commitment to Israel, not oil interests. If the oil companies or the oil-producing countries were driving policy, Washington would be tempted to favor the Palestinians instead of Israel. Moreover, the United States would almost certainly not have gone to war against Iraq in March 2003, and the Bush administration would not be threatening to use military force against Iran. Although many claim that the Iraq war was all about oil, there is hardly any evidence to support that supposition, and much evidence of the lobby's influence. Oil is clearly an important concern for US policymakers, but with the exception of episodes like the 1973 Opec oil embargo, the US commitment to Israel has yet to threaten access to oil. It does, however, contribute to America's terrorism problem, complicates its efforts to halt nuclear proliferation, and helped get the United States involved in wars like Iraq.


Regrettably, some of our critics have tried to smear us by linking us with overt racists, thereby suggesting that we are racists or anti-Semites ourselves. Michael Taylor, for example, notes that our article has been 'hailed' by Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke (6 April). Alan Dershowitz implies that some of our material was taken from neo-Nazi websites and other hate literature (20 April). We have no control over who likes or dislikes our article, but we regret that Duke used it to promote his racist agenda, which we utterly reject. Furthermore, nothing in our piece is drawn from racist sources of any kind, and Dershowitz offers no evidence to support this false claim. We provided a fully documented version of the paper so that readers could see for themselves that we used reputable sources.


Finally, a few critics claim that some of our facts, references or quotations are mistaken. For example, Dershowitz challenges our claim that Israel was 'explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship'. Israel was founded as a Jewish state (a fact Dershowitz does not challenge), and our reference to citizenship was obviously to Israel's Jewish citizens, whose identity is ordinarily based on ancestry. We stated that Israel has a sizeable number of non-Jewish citizens (primarily Arabs), and our main point was that many of them are relegated to a second-class status in a predominantly Jewish society.


We also referred to Golda Meir's famous statement that 'there is no such thing as a Palestinian,' and Jeremy Schreiber reads us as saying that Meir was denying the existence of those people rather than simply denying Palestinian nationhood (20 April). There is no disagreement here; we agree with Schreiber's interpretation and we quoted Meir in a discussion of Israel's prolonged effort 'to deny the Palestinians' national ambitions'.


Dershowitz challenges our claim that the Israelis did not offer the Palestinians a contiguous state at Camp David in July 2000. As support, he cites a statement by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and the memoirs of former US negotiator Dennis Ross. There are a number of competing accounts of what happened at Camp David, however, and many of them agree with our claim. Moreover, Barak himself acknowledges that 'the Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign territory except for a razor-thin Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem . . . to the Jordan River' This wedge, which would bisect the West Bank, was essential to Israel's plan to retain control of the Jordan River Valley for another six to twenty years. Finally, and contrary to Dershowitz's claim, there was no 'second map' or map of a 'final proposal at Camp David'. Indeed, it is explicitly stated in a note beside the map published in Ross's memoirs that 'no map was presented during the final rounds at Camp David.' Given all this, it is not surprising that Barak's foreign minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, who was a key participant at Camp David, later admitted: 'If I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David as well.'


Dershowitz also claims that we quote David Ben-Gurion 'out of context' and thus misrepresented his views on the need to use force to build a Jewish state in all of Palestine. Dershowitz is wrong. As a number of Israeli historians have shown, Ben-Gurion made numerous statements about the need to use force (or the threat of overwhelming force) to create a Jewish state in all of Palestine. In October 1937, for example, he wrote to his son Amos that the future Jewish state would have an 'outstanding army . . . so I am certain that we won't be constrained from settling in the rest of the country, either by mutual agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or by some other way' (emphasis added). Furthermore, common sense says that there was no other way to achieve that goal, because the Palestinians were hardly likely to give up their homeland voluntarily. Ben-Gurion was a consummate strategist and he understood that it would be unwise for the Zionists to talk openly about the need for 'brutal compulsion'. We quote a memorandum Ben-Gurion wrote prior to the Extraordinary Zionist Conference at the Biltmore Hotel in New York in May 1942. He wrote that 'it is impossible to imagine general evacuation' of the Arab population of Palestine 'without compulsion, and brutal compulsion'. Dershowitz claims that Ben-Gurion's subsequent statement--'we should in no way make it part of our programme'--shows that he opposed the transfer of the Arab population and the 'brutal compulsion' it would entail. But Ben-Gurion was not rejecting this policy: he was simply noting that the Zionists should not openly proclaim it. Indeed, he said that they should not 'discourage other people, British or American, who favor transfer from advocating this course, but we should in no way make it part of our programme'.


We close with a final comment about the controversy surrounding our article. Although we are not surprised by the hostility directed at us, we are still disappointed that more attention has not been paid to the substance of the piece. The fact remains that the United States is in deep trouble in the Middle East, and it will not be able to develop effective policies if it is impossible to have a civilized discussion about the role of Israel in American foreign policy.


John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt University of Chicago & Harvard University.

This letter originally appeared in the London Review of Books.



Finally...The Pentagon has come to realize who the real enemy is.


The Pentagon Office of Special Plans under Douglas Feith was responsible for fabricating intelligence to support the invasion of Iraq. Lt.Col. Karen Kwiatkowski while working at the OSP observed the treasonous activities of Feith and his Israel supporters.


Karen Kwiatkowski reported that a phalanx of Israeli generals marched into Feith's office before the Iraq war, without signing in as regulations required. Feith organized the "Office of Special Plans," also staffed largely with JINSA and other rightwing Zionist activists, which cherry-picked intelligence so as to make a (false) case for the Iraq war.



AIPAC spy-trial backlash: Pentagon security clearances revoked

More pendulum swings. Douglas Feith, former no. 3 at the Pentagon, Richard Perle, who served on a Pentagon Advisory board, and former undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz have all been the subject of investigations for their ties to Israel, according to Stephen Green, writing in Counterpunch. Even though the three were subject to repeated investigations, they continued to get Defense Department jobs. The following may signal the proverbial chickens coming home to roost. From the Jerusalem Post, May 18:

Israeli ties impair US security clearance

US citizens who have ties to Israel or an Israeli-American dual citizenship encounter difficulties in obtaining security clearance from the Pentagon and are dealt with in a manner similar to that of Americans who have ties with hostile nations.

A new study published last month examines the decisions concerning clearance requests by Americans with ties to Israel and finds that in many cases the applicants are questioned on the issue of dual loyalty. The government, in at least three cases, cited the Larry Franklin case, in which a Pentagon analyst allegedly gave classified information to two former staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as a case that supports the claim that individuals with ties to Israel cannot be trusted with security clearance.

The study was first reported in the New York Sun this week.

Sheldon I. Cohen, a Virginia-based lawyer who conducted the study said that he found that ties with Israel are treated more severely then those with other countries which are known to be allies of America.

"My impression," he told The Jerusalem Post, "is that the government views Israel in a tougher way than other non-hostile countries, such as Sweden, Britain or France, and in a way which is similar to that of hostile countries like China."

Attorney David Schoen of Atlanta, who is now representing a Lockheed-Martin employee who lost his clearance due to ties with Israel, said he believes that Americans with Israeli citizenship are singled out by the Pentagon on issues of security clearance

Schoen's client, a 53-year-old engineer who holds both US and Israeli citizenship and whose mother and sister live in Israel, was informed that his clearance was revoked due to "foreign preferences," since he holds an Israeli passport, and "foreign vulnerability," because he has relatives in Israel. When Schoen asked the government representative to see a list of countries in which having family members would create a "foreign vulnerability," he was told there is no such list.

The judge in the case refused to enter as evidence the Franklin-AIPAC indictment and a decision is expected next month. Meanwhile, the employee was fired by Lockheed-Martin.

According to the study, since 1996, the year in which the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), which adjudicates security clearance issues, began making its decisions public, there were 47 cases involving Israel and 29 of them were denied clearance.

In the cases brought to the appeals board, the government argued that ties of the applicant with Israel, either by dual citizenship, holding an Israeli passport or having close family members in Israel, should serve as a disqualifying factor due to "foreign preference" or "foreign influence."

The government attorneys raised, when the cases came to discussion, several references that would portray Israel as a country trying to obtain American secrets, among them the Jonathan Pollard case, a five-year-old report that puts Israel in a list of countries that conduct industrial espionage in the US and lately also the AIPAC-Franklin case.

The protocols of DOHA reveal that Americans with dual Israeli citizenship are frequently asked questions regarding their loyalties to the US and Israel. "The appeal board used the hypothetical situation of an applicant being asked to disclose classified information, not for the purpose of harming the United States, but to either increase the security of Israel so his family in Israel could live in peace and safety, or to reduce threats to the lives of Israeli military personnel, which might include the applicant's sister and brother," the report reads.

In one case, an applicant who was born in Israel and later became a US citizen was asked hypothetically if he would take up arms against Israel if the US would require him to do so. He said he could not conceive of such a situation and could not see himself taking up arms against Israel. The appeals board denied his request for clearance based on "foreign preference."

Cohen said that from his experience, Israel is the only country that these hypothetical questions are asked about. "It's a dirty question. It's a catch-22 situation - whatever you answer will be the wrong answer," he said.

Pentagon sources who are aware of the issue confirmed that ties with Israel are seen as a problem when requesting security clearance and that even elderly family members living in Israel are seen at times as a reason to revoke or deny clearance.

In a recent community meeting at a Washington synagogue, Baruch Weiss, an attorney representing Keith Weissman, one of the AIPAC defendants, noted that the case is now being used to deny clearances from people who have ties with Israel and said this is one of the aspects of the case that should alarm the Jewish community.



Why did president Bush commute the sentence of Lewis Libby?

Scooter commutation is a neocon job

Three explanations come to mind.


     The first is that Bush capitulated to intense pressure from the neoconservative commentariat led by The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard.


     To these folks, Scooter is no felon. Scooter is a hero. In the neocon network, Scooter was the pivot man in the veep’s office moving the cherry-picked intel on Saddam’s WMD, Saddam’s nukes, Saddam’s ties to 9/11 and al-Qaeda to a collaborationist press as determined as he was to smash Iraq and Iran, secure Israel and control the Middle East.


     So what if Scooter lied to cover up the White House campaign to carve up Joe Wilson? If Scooter did it, good Straussian that he is, he did it for the highest of motives in the noblest of causes.


     To the neocons, Scooter is, in Ahmed Chalabis phrase, a hero in error, one of the boys. And as they saved him from the slammer, they will not stop until they secure him a pardon - to which Bush has now opened the door.