The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
The Legacy of United States Interventionism
What Iraq teaches us
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Fallujah

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The following in an edited version of a paper I presented two weeks ago in a debate on the topic “When should the US use force abroad and what lessons should we learn from America’s use of force in Iraq and how should those lessons inform decisions on future military missions abroad?”

There are really two questions here – when is the use of force justified in the context of the key word “abroad” and what have Americans learned regarding overseas interventions from the Iraq experience. As a foreign policy adviser for Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, I lean in a non-interventionist direction, but that is at least somewhat due to that fact that recent interventions have not worked very well and have in fact increased the number of enemies rather than reduce them while also killing nearly 7,500 American soldiers and more than a million inhabitants of the countries Washington has become entangled with. One might also reasonably argue based on post 9/11 developments that destabilizing or attacking other countries consistently makes bad situations worse and has a tendency to allow problems to metastasize. This is sometimes referred to as blowback.

Nevertheless, anti-intervention does not necessarily mean anti-war when war becomes the only option to protect vital interests, but armed conflict cannot be entered into lightly. There is in fact a simple answer to when to use force: it is to defend the United States itself against a clearly defined threat to the country or to a genuine vital interest. Indeed, unless a vital interest is threatened the U.S. has no right to intervene anywhere. And how to use force is also simple: it is up to Congress to declare war as required by the Constitution. But the Constitution of the United States did not envision major deployments of American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen overseas, nor did it consider the existence of more than 1,000 military bases worldwide. Indeed, the U.S. has not faced a domestic armed threat since Pancho Villa raided New Mexico in 1916, so it is necessary to consider war-making in a contemporary context.

Those who see America’s future wars as taking place “abroad” are to be sure recognizing the geographical isolation of the United States but they are also essentially promoting the principle that the country should best be defended preemptively and at a distance. Any argument for forward-defense should be based on “Just War” doctrine and must include an imminent threat. It would not include the currently fashionable humanitarian interventions, democracy promotion by force of arms or wars of choice.

To cite the example of Iraq, if Saddam Hussein had indeed had gliders capable of flying across the Atlantic Ocean with chemical or biological weapons and had the intent to use them then attacking him would have been fully justified with or without UN permission. But lacking capability and intent to actually threaten the United States, avoiding overseas military engagement is invariably the most ethical and realistic option. Unleashing violence on a foreign government and its captive civilian population inevitably produces unforeseen consequences that result in haphazard mission creep long after the initial targets of the attack have been destroyed.

Even when a military initiative is considered inevitable it should conform to the so-called Colin Powell doctrine: it should be an unambiguously vital interest, it should be the last available option, it should have a clear and achievable objective with risks and costs clearly explained, consequences of the action must be understood and it should have a timetable and exit strategy. The American people must understand and support the mission and ideally foreign support should also be in place. It has been alleged that Powell also subsequently added the Pottery Barn rule – “once you break something, you own it.” This has been interpreted to mean that regime change has consequences. The successful invader becomes the new government and has to figure out what to do with the millions of people that now have to be fed, housed and taken care of.

The lessons learned from Iraq are several and they reflect failure to satisfy some key elements of the Powell doctrine. Active monitoring and discussions over Iraq’s weapons were ongoing when the decision to go to war was made by Washington so the war was not a last option. There was in fact no vital interest at stake, though that might not have been clear to everyone at the time. The objective to bring about regime change was both clear and easily achievable but there was not much consideration of what would happen on the day after or of consequences both for the region and the Iraqi people. There was no timetable and no exit strategy and the mission morphed into nation building, not a fit task for anyone’s military and also an endeavor which was already in considerable trouble in Afghanistan.

All of the complications involving Iraq were exacerbated by a failure in intelligence from start to finish. The U.S. intelligence community exists in theory to supply policy makers with objective information regarding what is going on in the world that might threaten either the United States or its interests. Information is its sole product because the intelligence agencies traditionally are not involved in policy for very good reasons – information untainted by political considerations, even if it is ignored, must be provided to permit the best possible decision making.

To be sure the line between intelligence and policy has been crossed more than once in the past seventy years and information has often been politicized as in the Soviet estimate, which made Moscow appear to be both more threatening and capable than it actually was. But the lead up to the Iraq war took intelligence tampering to a whole new level. Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain’s MI-6, and a key player in the Anglo-American effort to make a case against Saddam, said subsequently that the intelligence has been “sexed-up” to make it more convincing regarding Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. The so-called Downing Street memo confirmed that the “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” rather than vice versa and Dearlove specifically claimed that questionable evidence was being described as solid in making assessments.

In Washington meanwhile, George Tenet and his CIA staff were frequent visitors at the White House and fully on board to the fallacious propositions that Saddam had connections with al-Qaeda and that weapons of mass destruction were in the Iraqi arsenal together with systems to deliver them on target. Sources like Curveball in Germany were simultaneously being discounted by the operations officers closest to the cases even as senior managers at the Agency were heedlessly using the information he provided as proof of Saddam’s ill intent. In late 2002 CIA working level analysts were highly skeptical of the case for war being made but those concerns somehow vanished by the time the analysis reached the building’s seventh floor, which was closely collaborating with the White House. There was also considerable broader intelligence community dissent, particularly over the aluminum tubes, which never made its way into final briefing papers. This rush to war culminated in Tenet’s UN appearance to give credibility to Colin Powell’s speech indicting the Saddam regime. Powell subsequently described the intelligence he had been given as “deliberately misleading.”

Elsewhere in the system fabricated information about Iraq seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger was cherry picked and stove-piped through the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans and on to the White House, supplemented by false intelligence provided by Iraqi exile and known fabricator Ahmed Chalabi, who eventually turned out to be an Iranian agent. All of this arrived on the desks of policymakers in the White House and almost certainly had an impact on the decision to go to war. While it is by no means clear that war could have been prevented if the intelligence product had been better, a second opinion certainly might have caused some of the supporters of intervention to hesitate.

As it is critically important to get the intelligence right so the decision making will be shaped around reality rather than overblown expectations, the firewall between intelligence and policy has to be maintained at all costs. That firewall was broken in the lead up to Iraq and Iraq demonstrated that bad intelligence produces bad results just as it did some years later in regard to Libya. And the problem persists in that assessments made at the working level and on the ground regarding Afghanistan have been for years pessimistic even as the intelligence community continues to support White House efforts at nation building.

Military interventions are a poor policy choice for both moral and practical reasons, but it would appear that they constitute a regrettable option that the United States will most likely continue to exercise given the expressed foreign policies of both major parties. War as a preferred instrument for resolving international disputes is a symptom of a government which outwardly appears to have all the tools to respond competently but which in reality is dysfunctional. The breakdown of the intelligence product during Iraq was, unfortunately, not a one off. Ultimately, the CIA and DNI work for the president and they will do what the chief executive wants. That is the reality and it is the situation that prevails currently with largely unrestrained executive authority. Looking to Iraq to fix things is a futile exercise. We should instead be looking at the kind of nation that we want to be and trying to establish a new normal without maintaining a continuous state of war either abroad or here at home.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Iraq War 
Hide 168 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Nice photo, but I have better one on my blog. http://www.g2mil.com/enemies1.htm

    Jan 28, 2015 – Interesting Book Jacket

    I found this book cover of interest for those seeking a solution to chaos in Iraq. U.S. Marines may have “won” their two battles of Fallujah, but the question is: What was won? It was certainly a loss for the 122 American GIs killed.

    The photo is the cover of a book “Iraq 1941: The battles of Basra, Habbaniya, Fallujah, and Baghdad.”

    Still fighting for nothing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pgiraldi/the-legacy-of-united-states-interventionism/#comment-1602866
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    The only failure in American intelligence leading up to the illegal and immoral Iraq War is that our so-called intelligence agencies are as corrupt as the rest of the mess in DC; they only exist to serve the bankers and the MIC who profit off death and destruction.

    JFK wanted to bust up the CIA and scatter it to the winds and you see what he got.

    Your flawed logic that if Saddam indeed had gliders capable of flying across the Atlantic, we’d be right in attacking Iraq first is asinine. Many nations have weapons capable of making it across the Atlantic and could attack the USA, whether by sea or air, but we don’t attack them, unless they’re in the ME and Israel has declared them to be ‘existential’ enemies, like Iran, which is the next one up for some ‘Shock and Awe’ if the crazies succeed in destroying Syria.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Sam Shama
    • Replies: @in the middle
    What we do need is to make a Nixon on Iran, I mean what he did with China. What Obama did with Cuba, etc. We don't need more enemies. More friends is always better deal. What is needed is to STOP meddling in others business, and for once in our troubled history of interventions and war, leave the world to fight it off if they do have issues. We are like a bully ready to beat any one who happens to look our way! Lets only prepare to defend the Nation in case some one tries its luck with that. My fellow Americans, we do need entrepreneurs who start new companies, to employ people. How come it is possible that it is easier to start a business in a communist country like China, than our very won USA?. Please some one tell me.

    We do need a new american 'awake' instead of a dream, since you need to be asleep to have that 'dream'. Lets wake up and day dream big, lets rebuild our nation united, regardless of your ancestry. At the end of the day, we are all in the same ship; USA.
    , @Sam Shama

    if Saddam Hussein had indeed had gliders capable of flying across the Atlantic Ocean with chemical or biological weapons and had the intent to use them then attacking him would have been fully justified
     
    Did you choose to ignore the part highlighted?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. “Any argument for forward-defense should be based on ‘Just War’ doctrine and must include an imminent threat.”

    How, Mr. Giraldi, do you consider that to comport with the Preamble’s wisdom “to provide for the common defense”? Let me ask specifically: “[A]n imminent threat to whom, or to what, exactly – how does anything or any place “forward” come under the rubric of “common” in the Preamble’s lucid wisdom?

    “It would not include the currently fashionable humanitarian interventions, democracy promotion by force of arms or wars of choice.”

    Now that comports perfectly with “to provide for the common defense,” and it certainly precludes any U.S. military – including Special Forces – involvement in the bloody insensible farrago underway today in Syria and, as well, including military involvement even of U.S. advisers in the Syrian mess’s overspill into Iraq.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Art says:

    There are only two significant nations in the world were their people are aggressively belligerent to their neighbors – Israel and China.

    All the rest have governments who are to various degrees belligerent to other governments (the US government being one of the most belligerent).

    We are never going to have peace until the sovereign people of these countries insist on NO war. This the twenty first century – it is time for the people to insist on peace.

    Why is there no genuine peace movement in America? There are elements of the desire for peace on both the left and the right – but the Jews and their media will let that happen.

    At one time, humanity could count on women to be peace minded – we could count on them to start the peace ball rolling. With feminism that edge is lost.

    There will be no peace until we men find the gonads to insist on it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mp
    There are only two significant nations in the world where their people are aggressively belligerent to their neighbors – Israel and China.

    What neighboring country has China fought, recently? They traded some blows with the Soviets back in the day. And fought a small border battle with Vietnam after the latter invaded Cambodia. Unless you are talking about Chinese women aggressively shopping for bargains in Japan. I hear they really like Japanese electronic toilet seats, and can be pretty aggressive when standing in queue.
    , @Quartermaster
    Russia is quite aggressive to her neighbors and has even invaded Ukraine. Putin's reason for doing so is a chimera and exists only in his propaganda.

    China certainly is aggressive to her neighbors as well acting to take stuff that doesn't belong to her in both the West Philippine Sea and the South Japanese Sea. Taipei and Hanoi can certainly tell you a story about Chinese imperialism as well.

    , @denk
    Classic kept in the dark and fed bullshit
    Murkkan !

    Here's China sterling performance on border settlement,
    [1]

    Afghanistan – 0%
    Tajikistan – 4%
    Nepal – 6%
    Burma – 18%
    Kazakhstan – 22%
    Mongolia – 29%
    Kyrgyzstan – 32%
    North Korea – 40%
    Laos – 50%
    Vietnam – 50%
    Russia – 50%
    Pakistan – 54%

    China settled all its border issues peacefully , typically offering great concession to rival claimants. [2]
    For example, China ceded the entire disputed territory to Afghan,
    94% to Nepal....
    No mean feat that !


    Why, cuz Beijing wants to concentrate on national development, it doesnt want to be bogged down with endless and fruitless squabbles, skirmishes.

    If the Nobel committee has any sense, China should've bagged a Peace prize or two for this alone.



    [1]
    India's China blog

    [2]
    except with India !
    , @Art
    Art: There are only two significant nations in the world were their people are aggressively belligerent to their neighbors – Israel and China.

    There are three replies to that statement – two of them defended the Chinese people – ZERO defended the Israeli people. How telling.

    In my opinion, those two tribal peoples have a superiority complex, and that is what makes them most dangerous. They are easily led by their leaders into belligerent action.

    p.s. There was also an appeal to work for no war – sadly there is no response. This is the Twenty First Century – why can’t we insist on peace from our governments?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Read More
    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
    CIA's Mike Scheuer on Israel & Iraq war as terrorism motivation:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&list=PL3C32560738EF3C30&feature=plpp
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @AmericaFirstNow
    Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Iraq & beyond:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2014/07/13/the-unfolding-of-yinons-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east-the-crisis-in-iraq-and-the-centrality-of-the-national-interest-of-israel/

    CIA’s Mike Scheuer on Israel & Iraq war as terrorism motivation:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Great find, Greg!
    What a funny little animation!

    Cheers
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. I thought that the Powell Doctrine was to have overwhelming forces available. The Pottery Barn line is just his most memorable quote. Above all he should be remembered for his fraudulent and shameful performance at the UN and the promotion of wars of aggression.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    What is the evidence you rely on for saying that Powell's misleading of the UN was fraudulent on his part? Was he not himself deceived?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    All US wars have been wars of choice triggered by the smell of weakness and the opportunity for easy pickings. Cutting through the thick fog of high-minded rhetoric and other mumbo-jumbo it’s apparent the US is a bandit state cruising the world for victims to waylay. That’s it in a nutshell, it’s a gangster state that has smaller accomplices such as Britain, roaming around looking for the next score. This is the history of the US; once it consolidated itself territorially it saw the weakness of Spain and moved in, grabbing properties such as the Philippines which thus inserted it into Asia and made it an Asian power also. From that point on it’s been on the move ever since, whenever the chance presented itself. Here and there it’s suffered a bloody rebuff such as in Korea and Vietnam when it miscalculated it’s strength and underestimated the other. The US is a country that’s been almost continually at war or actively interfering in other countries just about every single year since 1898.
    The average American of course desires peace, stability and an increasing standard of living. They’ve been propagandized into thinking that the US is a peaceful state that has to protect itself now and then. The truth is the very opposite, that war is the natural state of being for the US and it is an aggressive country always on the march. Always was, is now, and will continue to be so until it hits the wall of resistance of other countries big enough to defend themselves. Force is what it understands and respects, nothing else. Once people realize this then it all becomes very clear.

    Read More
    • Agree: The Scalpel, Kiza, Rurik
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Amen to that! (Although a good argument could be made that the term, "gangster state" is a redundancy.)

    “…and when it was finally discovered that more profit was to be gained by enslaving the weak and systematically exploiting their productive capacities, instead of spoiling and destroying, this discovery opened a new and fruitful era of progress, for it involved the formation of political States.”

    Gustave de Molinari, The Society of Tomorrow [1899]
    Part II: Chapter XV Summary and Conclusion - Gustave de Molinari, The Society of Tomorrow [1899]
    Edition used: The Society of Tomorrow: A Forecast of its Political and Economic Organization, ed. Hodgson Pratt and Frederic Passy, trans. P.H. Lee Warner (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904).
    oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=228&chapter=36940&layout=html&Itemid=27#a_1585595

     

    , @Epaminondas
    It started with the Mexican War in 1848. Once the bankers gained complete control in the Civil War, the drive toward empire went into overdrive. We're there.
    , @L.K
    Great post, anonymous!

    ...that war is the natural state of being for the US and it is an aggressive country always on the march. Always was, is now, and will continue to be so until it hits the wall of resistance of other countries big enough to defend themselves. Force is what it understands and respects, nothing else.


    Exactly and It seems that it may finally have hit that wall... time will tell.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. mp says:
    @Art
    There are only two significant nations in the world were their people are aggressively belligerent to their neighbors – Israel and China.

    All the rest have governments who are to various degrees belligerent to other governments (the US government being one of the most belligerent).

    We are never going to have peace until the sovereign people of these countries insist on NO war. This the twenty first century - it is time for the people to insist on peace.

    Why is there no genuine peace movement in America? There are elements of the desire for peace on both the left and the right – but the Jews and their media will let that happen.

    At one time, humanity could count on women to be peace minded – we could count on them to start the peace ball rolling. With feminism that edge is lost.

    There will be no peace until we men find the gonads to insist on it.

    There are only two significant nations in the world where their people are aggressively belligerent to their neighbors – Israel and China.

    What neighboring country has China fought, recently? They traded some blows with the Soviets back in the day. And fought a small border battle with Vietnam after the latter invaded Cambodia. Unless you are talking about Chinese women aggressively shopping for bargains in Japan. I hear they really like Japanese electronic toilet seats, and can be pretty aggressive when standing in queue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Tibet comes to mind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. The Scalpel says: • Website

    “We should instead be looking at the kind of nation that we want to be and trying to establish a new normal without maintaining a continuous state of war either abroad or here at home.”

    Unfortunately, there is no “we”. There are those holding the levers of power who don’t give a damn about morality, and for whom “practical” is an entirely different thing than it is for the rest of us (probably the “we” you are referring to).

    So that leaves the rest of us with a few bad options. We can do nothing. This seems to be the most popular choice. We can write angry rants, etc. about the injustice of it all. This choice is as futile as doing nothing and has the added drawback of wasting valuable energy. We can engage in mass civil disobedience. This is what I personally choose, but it is a long shot to happen on a mass scale – the scale necessary for governmental change. Certainly we can try. For this to work, those of us who see the reality of the situation must educate and motivate others.

    Finally, there is civil war. Eventually, if there is no mass civil disobedience, it will come to this. It must. It will happen when it is a matter of survival for the rest of us. It is a pity that things will have to get that far down the road before any meaningful change happens, because by then, it will be a very, very bloody revolution. Unfortunately, it won’t happen earlier because the forces in favor of revolution need to be powerful enough to overcome the pre-eminent economic and military strength commanded by those at the levers of power in the US government. I predict this won’t happen in the US until after the first nuclear exchange (likely initiated by the US government.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    http://thescalpel.net/underpantsl.html

    brilliant
    thank you and congratulations
    , @jacques sheete

    Unfortunately, there is no “we”. There are those holding the levers of power who don’t give a damn about morality, and for whom “practical” is an entirely different thing than it is for the rest of us (probably the “we” you are referring to).
     
    That's a huge concept and probably one of the most effective things we can do is to introduce our loved ones to the notion.

    I've manged to keep my sons and nephews out of the military by that means and I have little doubt that they'll pass the concept along.

    Side note: Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" should be required reading for all 'Merkins.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Rehmat says:

    Iraqi lesson is: A propaganda full of lies about a conceived threat to Israel is always supported by the brainwashed Americans.”

    It’s now repeated against Syria, Iran, Hizbullah, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, etc.

    On July 21, 2015, a frustrated US president Barack Obama couldn’t control his temper and spelled out the truth about the America’s invasion, occupation and destruction of Middle East’s oil-rich and most liberal country, Iraq for Israel.

    Speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Pittsburgh via phone, Obama likened the US-Iran deal critics to the powerful neocons (mostly Jewish) in Bushes administration, who pushed US into Iraq War based on anti-Saddam lies.

    Obama said that the people who were “so quick to go to war” and who claimed that the war will take only a few months. The same people are now “chest beating” and popping off soundbites that don’t help the debate. He also said that instead of running into a military conflict with Iran, the US should only send troops to harm’s way as a last resort.

    Obama said that US-Iran deal opponents are running a $20 million campaign to kill the deal in the US Congress. He was referring to the campaign lead by Jewish group, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, affiliated with Israel Lobby AIPAC.

    Obama assured his American Jew voters (70% during Obama’s re-election): “In US-Iran deal, we are promoting the US and Israel’s security.” How funny, Iran has neither WMDs nor long-distance delivery mechanism to attack US mainland thousands miles away. However, Iran does have the capability to attack America’s 51st State – Israel, directly or through Lebanon-based Hizbullah, which already has defeated Jewish army in 2000 and 2006.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/08/01/obama-iran-deal-critics-gave-us-iraq-war/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. geokat62 says:

    There is in fact a simple answer to when to use force: it is to defend the United States itself against a clearly defined threat to the country or to a genuine vital interest.

    What if protecting the security of “the villa in the jungle” is defined as a genuine vital interest?

    According to the neocon Aspen Study Group report:

    Now, the United States has embarked upon an ambitious mission to remake the Middle East.

    The United States has long maintained several core (though competing) interests in the Middle East, including the stability of world oil markets and uninterrupted flow of petroleum from the region, the manifest importance of Israeli security, and support for moderate Arab regimes.

    http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/asg/ASPEN_GRANDSTRATEGY1.PDF

    As Edward Snowden revealed:

    “[T]he survival of the state of Israel is a paramount goal of US ME policy.”

    An excerpt from a classified report, History of US – Israel Sigint Relationship, post 1992.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. This rendition of the Fifth Symphony starts GGG-F.

    -This sentence:

    Unleashing violence on a foreign government and its captive civilian population inevitably produces unforeseen consequences that result in haphazard mission creep long after the initial targets of the attack have been destroyed.
    started out ok — GGG
    but the fourth note missed the mark; it should have been “is a crime!”

    Unleashing violence on a foreign government and its captive civilian population IS A CRIME of the gravest magnitude.

    Repeat, with emphasis, FFF-D, and hold the D twice as long:

    Unleashing violence on a foreign government and its captive civilian population IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

    Two more quibbles; the first minor, the second, major:

    -To be a genuine grabber, the essay/speech would have clearly defined, What is a vital interest?

    -The introductory list of elements of the Powell doctrine included this statement:

    The American people must understand and support the mission

    In the expanded discussion of the Powell doctrine, this element was not mentioned.

    In a Constitutional republic, the informed acquiescence of the people is the most important element to contain and control the state’s monopoly of violence. Yet in no war that the USA has engaged in the last century has the government laid out its reasons for going to war; clearly defined the vital interest being defended, and asked for the consent of the governed to engage in war. Rather, since the creation of the Creel commission, the US government has institutionalized the process of lying to the citizenry and propagandizing them to comply with the pre-ordained wishes of the State.

    The Creel commission institutionalized propagandizing the American people in Wilson’s administration, to coerce the American people to join a war in Europe. Franklin Roosevelt’s administration turned that propaganda institution into a well-oiled, networked machine, accomplished more easily through FDR’s aggrandizement of executive authority. You wrote:

    That is the reality and it is the situation that prevails currently with largely unrestrained executive authority.

    In their book, Executive Disorder: The Subversion of the United States Supreme Court, 1914-1940 Ann McReynolds Bush and Cornelia Wendell Bush “trace the use and abuse of executive power [in the Wilson thru Roosevelt administrations] . . . and reveal how the door was opened to create an imbalance of the original powers that govern our nation.” The book is highly recommended, as is another goal of the authors; namely, the restoration of the good name of U S Supreme Court Justice James Clark McReynolds, who was vilified for his efforts to resist the abuse of executive authority by Franklin D Roosevelt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. @Art
    There are only two significant nations in the world were their people are aggressively belligerent to their neighbors – Israel and China.

    All the rest have governments who are to various degrees belligerent to other governments (the US government being one of the most belligerent).

    We are never going to have peace until the sovereign people of these countries insist on NO war. This the twenty first century - it is time for the people to insist on peace.

    Why is there no genuine peace movement in America? There are elements of the desire for peace on both the left and the right – but the Jews and their media will let that happen.

    At one time, humanity could count on women to be peace minded – we could count on them to start the peace ball rolling. With feminism that edge is lost.

    There will be no peace until we men find the gonads to insist on it.

    Russia is quite aggressive to her neighbors and has even invaded Ukraine. Putin’s reason for doing so is a chimera and exists only in his propaganda.

    China certainly is aggressive to her neighbors as well acting to take stuff that doesn’t belong to her in both the West Philippine Sea and the South Japanese Sea. Taipei and Hanoi can certainly tell you a story about Chinese imperialism as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Russia is quite aggressive to her neighbors and has even invaded Ukraine.}

    No it isn't and no it didn't.
    Ethnic Russians of Novorossiya (aka East Ukraine) not wishing to live under the jackboots of neo-Nazi Kievan junta and be massacred by the likes of Nazi Azov battalion, threw out the invaders.

    {....can certainly tell you a story about Chinese imperialism as well.}

    Asia can certainly tell you stories about Japanese Imperialism.
    Imperial Japan conquered and subjugated most of East Asia, including Philippines, Korea, China,...

    Millions were killed and murdered by Imperial Japanese.
    Hundreds of thousands of defenseless women were enslaved to forced prostitution by Japanese.

    For what Japan did to China in WW2, China has every right to defend itself against any future neo-Imperial Japan.

    , @mp
    China certainly is aggressive to her neighbors as well acting to take stuff that doesn’t belong to her in both the West Philippine Sea and the South Japanese Sea. Taipei and Hanoi can certainly tell you a story about Chinese imperialism as well.

    What "stuff" is being taken by China? Are strong diplomatic words now considered "aggression?" Is that what you are talking about? Hard to know. Ok, what else? Taipei (KMT) lost a civil war with the Reds. How is an internal civil war an example of "imperialism?" It is true that China threw some artillery at Hanoi after the latter invaded their ally, Cambodia, took a few miles of land, and then gave it back. Hardly a good example of imperialism.

    Your Russian take on world events has been handled by others, so I won't go in to that.

    , @denk
    The legacy of murkkan interventions in a nutshell...

    Unitedsnake,
    Your name is Destroyer ...of nations, families, friendships, environment, period.

    No amount of distraction about SCS, Tibet, ...blah blah is gonna change this fact.
    Get this into your thick skull redneck.

    You and your ilks are the reason why Murkka has been on war footing 222 yrs outta
    its 234 miserable life span !
    A unique feat in human history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. It turned out that the intelligence didn’t need to be “sexed up.” Saddam had WMD and a nuke program which he got out of the country at the last minute, with the exception of 22 tonnes of yellowcake. Still, I don’t think we should have gone into Iraq.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WJ
    Saddam had a post 1991 WMD program? There was never any evidence of that program found after the invasion , and no, it did not go to Syria, as one former Iraqi general stated. The Duelfer report found no evidence of that.

    However, as you even imply, even if Saddam had possessed an active WMD program, no rational person thought he would use it on the USA or even give it to terrorists to use on the USA. As far as WMD use on Israel, they have shown themselves to be capable of dealing with such threats.

    , @Druid
    You're an idiot broken gramophone with brain damage!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @The Scalpel
    "We should instead be looking at the kind of nation that we want to be and trying to establish a new normal without maintaining a continuous state of war either abroad or here at home."

    Unfortunately, there is no "we". There are those holding the levers of power who don't give a damn about morality, and for whom "practical" is an entirely different thing than it is for the rest of us (probably the "we" you are referring to).

    So that leaves the rest of us with a few bad options. We can do nothing. This seems to be the most popular choice. We can write angry rants, etc. about the injustice of it all. This choice is as futile as doing nothing and has the added drawback of wasting valuable energy. We can engage in mass civil disobedience. This is what I personally choose, but it is a long shot to happen on a mass scale - the scale necessary for governmental change. Certainly we can try. For this to work, those of us who see the reality of the situation must educate and motivate others.

    Finally, there is civil war. Eventually, if there is no mass civil disobedience, it will come to this. It must. It will happen when it is a matter of survival for the rest of us. It is a pity that things will have to get that far down the road before any meaningful change happens, because by then, it will be a very, very bloody revolution. Unfortunately, it won't happen earlier because the forces in favor of revolution need to be powerful enough to overcome the pre-eminent economic and military strength commanded by those at the levers of power in the US government. I predict this won't happen in the US until after the first nuclear exchange (likely initiated by the US government.)

    http://thescalpel.net/underpantsl.html

    brilliant
    thank you and congratulations

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    Thanks! I appreciate all your insightful comments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. I would say that the legacy of U.S. interventionism is the disinheritance of the American people from meaningful democratic accountability. Both liberty and security have been squandered, and a new executor for the estate needs to be appointed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Also, it needs to be emphasized over and over, that elitist “American Interests,” the catchall used to justify every pre-emptive war of choice, is not at all coincident with the similar sounding, but very different concept of ordinary Americans’ interests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Phil, sorry to inform you, the intelligence expert (and you surely are among the most level-headed and honest) that the function of these agencies, like those of lawyers, is to gin up justifications for what their clients already want to do. As, unfortunately, was the function of Just War religious apologists of the past, when there was still a modicum of importance to religious and moral calculations, which is no longer the case. This is still not clearly understood by some of those employed, who try to have a dual loyalty to both master and truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Avery says:
    @Quartermaster
    Russia is quite aggressive to her neighbors and has even invaded Ukraine. Putin's reason for doing so is a chimera and exists only in his propaganda.

    China certainly is aggressive to her neighbors as well acting to take stuff that doesn't belong to her in both the West Philippine Sea and the South Japanese Sea. Taipei and Hanoi can certainly tell you a story about Chinese imperialism as well.

    {Russia is quite aggressive to her neighbors and has even invaded Ukraine.}

    No it isn’t and no it didn’t.
    Ethnic Russians of Novorossiya (aka East Ukraine) not wishing to live under the jackboots of neo-Nazi Kievan junta and be massacred by the likes of Nazi Azov battalion, threw out the invaders.

    {….can certainly tell you a story about Chinese imperialism as well.}

    Asia can certainly tell you stories about Japanese Imperialism.
    Imperial Japan conquered and subjugated most of East Asia, including Philippines, Korea, China,…

    Millions were killed and murdered by Imperial Japanese.
    Hundreds of thousands of defenseless women were enslaved to forced prostitution by Japanese.

    For what Japan did to China in WW2, China has every right to defend itself against any future neo-Imperial Japan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Randal says:

    Nevertheless, anti-intervention does not necessarily mean anti-war when war becomes the only option to protect vital interests, but armed conflict cannot be entered into lightly. There is in fact a simple answer to when to use force: it is to defend the United States itself against a clearly defined threat to the country or to a genuine vital interest.

    Defensive necessity is indeed the only genuine justification for war, not the farrago of sophistry that is Just War theory.

    However, as is always the case in human affairs, no such definition can ever be clear cut, depending as it does on a reasonably honest interpretation of terms such as “necessity”, “threat” and “vital interest”. Of course, people almost always are grossly hypocritical in the application of such terminology. For instance, Americans believe the US has the right to act in response to “threats”, whereas unfavoured foreigners are generally expected to live with threats, and to rely upon deterrence to defend themselves, or be accused of unreasonable aggression. Giraldi himself gives an example of this kind of thinking:

    “if Saddam Hussein had indeed had gliders capable of flying across the Atlantic Ocean with chemical or biological weapons and had the intent to use them then attacking him would have been fully justified with or without UN permission”

    Intent being necessarily and invariably a matter of speculation in the real world we inhabit of limited information, this amounts to declaring a right to attack preventively (the genuine “pre-emptive strike” being rather unlikely ever to actually occur in the real world). The US, of course, would describe any preventive strike by an unfavoured country as unjustified and illegal aggression, and any preventive attack by a favoured country as “pre-emptive”.

    In the real world, as opposed to the fevered propagandist world of lies that neocon interventionist types inhabit, Saddam having “gliders capable of flying across the Atlantic Ocean with chemical or biological weapons” would have justified merely deterrence, not preventive aggression.

    But Americans, being hypocrites, don’t think their government, being special, should be subject to such reasonable restrictions, only foreigners’ g0vernments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    But Americans, being hypocrites, don’t think their government, being special

    It is not hypocrisy if you really believe it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @anonymous
    All US wars have been wars of choice triggered by the smell of weakness and the opportunity for easy pickings. Cutting through the thick fog of high-minded rhetoric and other mumbo-jumbo it's apparent the US is a bandit state cruising the world for victims to waylay. That's it in a nutshell, it's a gangster state that has smaller accomplices such as Britain, roaming around looking for the next score. This is the history of the US; once it consolidated itself territorially it saw the weakness of Spain and moved in, grabbing properties such as the Philippines which thus inserted it into Asia and made it an Asian power also. From that point on it's been on the move ever since, whenever the chance presented itself. Here and there it's suffered a bloody rebuff such as in Korea and Vietnam when it miscalculated it's strength and underestimated the other. The US is a country that's been almost continually at war or actively interfering in other countries just about every single year since 1898.
    The average American of course desires peace, stability and an increasing standard of living. They've been propagandized into thinking that the US is a peaceful state that has to protect itself now and then. The truth is the very opposite, that war is the natural state of being for the US and it is an aggressive country always on the march. Always was, is now, and will continue to be so until it hits the wall of resistance of other countries big enough to defend themselves. Force is what it understands and respects, nothing else. Once people realize this then it all becomes very clear.

    Amen to that! (Although a good argument could be made that the term, “gangster state” is a redundancy.)

    “…and when it was finally discovered that more profit was to be gained by enslaving the weak and systematically exploiting their productive capacities, instead of spoiling and destroying, this discovery opened a new and fruitful era of progress, for it involved the formation of political States.”

    Gustave de Molinari, The Society of Tomorrow [1899]
    Part II: Chapter XV Summary and Conclusion – Gustave de Molinari, The Society of Tomorrow [1899]
    Edition used: The Society of Tomorrow: A Forecast of its Political and Economic Organization, ed. Hodgson Pratt and Frederic Passy, trans. P.H. Lee Warner (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904).
    oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=228&chapter=36940&layout=html&Itemid=27#a_1585595

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    "although a good argument could be made that the term, “gangster state” is a redundancy.)..."


    Exactly!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @The Scalpel
    "We should instead be looking at the kind of nation that we want to be and trying to establish a new normal without maintaining a continuous state of war either abroad or here at home."

    Unfortunately, there is no "we". There are those holding the levers of power who don't give a damn about morality, and for whom "practical" is an entirely different thing than it is for the rest of us (probably the "we" you are referring to).

    So that leaves the rest of us with a few bad options. We can do nothing. This seems to be the most popular choice. We can write angry rants, etc. about the injustice of it all. This choice is as futile as doing nothing and has the added drawback of wasting valuable energy. We can engage in mass civil disobedience. This is what I personally choose, but it is a long shot to happen on a mass scale - the scale necessary for governmental change. Certainly we can try. For this to work, those of us who see the reality of the situation must educate and motivate others.

    Finally, there is civil war. Eventually, if there is no mass civil disobedience, it will come to this. It must. It will happen when it is a matter of survival for the rest of us. It is a pity that things will have to get that far down the road before any meaningful change happens, because by then, it will be a very, very bloody revolution. Unfortunately, it won't happen earlier because the forces in favor of revolution need to be powerful enough to overcome the pre-eminent economic and military strength commanded by those at the levers of power in the US government. I predict this won't happen in the US until after the first nuclear exchange (likely initiated by the US government.)

    Unfortunately, there is no “we”. There are those holding the levers of power who don’t give a damn about morality, and for whom “practical” is an entirely different thing than it is for the rest of us (probably the “we” you are referring to).

    That’s a huge concept and probably one of the most effective things we can do is to introduce our loved ones to the notion.

    I’ve manged to keep my sons and nephews out of the military by that means and I have little doubt that they’ll pass the concept along.

    Side note: Smedley Butler’s “War is a Racket” should be required reading for all ‘Merkins.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Rurik says:

    But Americans, being hypocrites, don’t think their government, being special, should be subject to such reasonable restrictions, only foreigners’ g0vernments.

    it’s not that we’re hypocrites, it’s that we’re exceptional!

    that’s the reason the rules don’t apply to us, because we are soooo good, and sooo right and brave and free, that anyone we drop a bomb on had it coming, simply by virtue of the fact that is was America that dropped the bomb on them. As soon as the Hellfire missile hits its target, is the exact point at which the world can be assured that the target, the wedding for instance, needed to be hit.

    It’s an amazingly foolproof way of knowing that you’re always right, because by “virtue” of the very fact that it is you doing it, that’s what makes it right.

    it is no different than the “justification” necessary for the police to shoot and kill someone, (or break their spine and then toss them in the back of a van for a ‘rough ride’), or the government to assassinate someone. By the mere fact that it was someone in authority who did it = makes the act a just and righteous act.

    And who has more authority =(might) than the US government?

    The people slaughtered in Fallujah deserved their fate at the exact moment the depleted uranium fell on their houses and splattered their children. It was at that moment that their lives didn’t deserve to continue. And that is how it works. No shit.

    that’s all the “justification” they need. That they did it. Period.

    and so yea

    gliders capable of flying across the Atlantic Ocean with chemical or biological weapons and had the intent to use them

    we know and knew their intent at the very moment of shock and awe

    as soon as our smart bombs were striking Baghdad, is the exact moment that Saddam’s intent was a certainty. Because America was bombing him/them. No less that how we all knew the intent of the Serbians who deserved to be bombed and slaughtered, because we were bombing and slaughtering them. And the Afghans and all the others.

    I have posted a video of an American cop relentlessly tazing and then simply murdering a man lying in the snow because he wouldn’t “get on the ground now!”.

    the significant thing about that video is that the cop was acquitted of all charges, and then went on to explain how she was the victim

    the reason I post that video is because this is America’s mentality writ large on the world’s stage.

    if America says ‘get on the ground’ (give up your WMD), and they fail to do so, then America has every right to slaughter and maim and destroy the lives of millions upon millions of your citizens, because you didn’t ‘get on the ground now’.. you didn’t surrender your WMD, – even if you’re on the ground or surrendered all your WMD long ago. None of that matters. It’s just who has more firepower and the veil of ‘authority’. That what determines who is right.

    Most American by now vaguely know that our government has been arming and funding militants in Syria. They know that our government has been wreaking havoc in the Middle East, but they’re also very much under the iron dome of Zionist propaganda, and are relentlessly lied to about everything, especially about Saddam and 911 and WMD and how Israel is our bestest buddy ever, and how Assad and Putin are acting aggressively and committing atrocities and blah, blah, blah. It’s all lies. Just like the ‘Americans as ‘exceptional’ people are lies, unless you consider that Americans are exceptionally lied to.

    The objective to bring about regime change was both clear and easily achievable but there was not much consideration of what would happen on the day after or of consequences both for the region and the Iraqi people. There was no timetable and no exit strategy and the mission morphed into nation building,

    the objective was to do exactly what they’ve done. To destroy Iraq and create sectarian strife for perpetuity. To create a failed state that would hemorrhage destabilization to the entire region. There was never supposed to be an exit strategy or any ‘nation building’. This was all about nation destroying from the very beginning, and that’s all it’s about today, as they have their sights on Syria. Only an idiot would believe that the US cares about the Syrian people and wants to protect them. Hogwash. They want to send them reeling into a stone age hell on earth for the rest of eternity so Israel can ravage their lands and lord it over them. Duh!

    and Iraq demonstrated that bad intelligence produces bad results just as it did some years later in regard to Libya. And the problem persists in that assessments made at the working level and on the ground regarding Afghanistan have been for years pessimistic even as the intelligence community continues to support White House efforts at nation building.

    the “bad” results in Libya are exactly what they wanted. Pretending that America’s agenda in Libya was humanitarian, is like pretending that when Bibi bombs Gaza he’s acting like “a man of peace”. Which is what George Bush called Ariel Sharon. Our entire narrative and paradigm and everything we hear are all Orwellian lies and duplicity. 365- 24/7

    The intelligence community exists to project American (read Israeli) power though out the world. They exist to destabilize nations inconvenient to Zio-US’s agenda. To spread lies and traffic heroin and foment psyops in the service of the PTB. They’re in it for their own self-interest and will lie and assassinate and murder as long as they’re paid handsomely to do so.

    wouldn’t you pretty much agree, Mr. G?

    Read More
    • Agree: Pat Hannagan
    • Replies: @Randal

    I have posted a video of an American cop relentlessly tazing and then simply murdering a man lying in the snow because he wouldn’t “get on the ground now!”.



    the significant thing about that video is that the cop was acquitted of all charges, and then went on to explain how she was the victim

    the reason I post that video is because this is America’s mentality writ large on the world’s stage.

    if America says ‘get on the ground’ (give up your WMD), and they fail to do so, then America has every right to slaughter and maim and destroy the lives of millions upon millions of your citizens, because you didn’t ‘get on the ground now’.. you didn’t surrender your WMD, – even if you’re on the ground or surrendered all your WMD long ago. None of that matters. It’s just who has more firepower and the veil of ‘authority’. That what determines who is right.

     

    An excellent analogy, I think, and one that hits on a significant flaw in US culture. See my reply to Talha above.
    , @Stonehands
    Of course your assertions are mostly correct, yet the American people are too dumb to know all this- or worse yet- they are willfully ignorant, wrapped up in the electronic fantasy culture. They become extremely agitated when asked about politics or their civic responsibilities.
    , @mcohen
    your fantasy of blaming israel is amusing.to think that america the exceptional would sacrifice all that blood and treasure for a country the size of rich mans back yard is a pipe dream

    the west are fighting for oil.america attacked iraq for oil and no amount of bullshit spin can hide this fact.

    the war in syria is a pipeline war.anyone who think s otherwise is an idiot

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Rehmat says:

    In late August 2016, the notorious Israeli hag John Robert Bolton, said that he would be glad to serve as Donald Trump’s secretary of state.

    On August 21, 2016, Bolton, a regime change addict, in an opinion piece in the Jewish Wall Street Journal said that he agreed with Donald Trump over banning immigration from Muslim countries who intend to kill American citizens.

    On September 3, 2013, the Jewish Washington Post admitted that pro-Israel Jewish groups were the main campaigners for an American military attack on Syria. Interestingly, they don’t bless Israeli attacks on Syria or Iran.

    “The reason Israel (and its lobby) are going all out to push the United States to attack Syria is as a precedent for a much larger attack on Iran. As AIPAC admits in its own statement of support for the Syria attack … To put it simply, AIPAC fears that if it if lets President Obama go wobbly on Syria, it is impossible to imagine that he would undertake a war with Iran that could ignite the entire Middle East and lead to the commitment of U.S. troops in a third major Middle Eastern war in a little over a decade. And that is why AIPAC and its satellites are turning the screws on Congress, especially on progressive and liberal Democrats who tend to be antiwar except when AIPAC comes knocking,” M.J. Rosenberg wrote in 2013.

    In early August, two former White House Jewish officials Dennis Ross and his colleague Andrew Tabler at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an extension of Israel lobby AIPAC, opinioned at The Jew York Times, The Case for Bombing Assad. Dennis Ross was secretary Hillary Clinton’s adviser on Iran.

    On August 11, Nicholas Kristof, another Israeli hag at the JYT in an opinion post pitched for an American military attack on Syria.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/08/24/us-jewry-syria-must-perish/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. The intelligence community exists to project American (read Israeli) power though out the world.

    My only quibble with your otherwise excellent comment would be to qualify the term, “American” since the power brokers and militarists have no more interest or anything in common with the masses of Americans than the Japanese militarists had with the bulk of the Japanese people prior to WW2

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    thanks Jacques,

    I never mean or intend to paint the average American (or even ex-CIA ; ) with the guilt and crimes of our elites.

    It's kind of how I see the Catholic church for instance. Whereas the Vatican is a den of pedophiles and self-serving criminals, the Catholic people are some of the best of the best. I would never say anything to malign the Catholic or American people. Any more than I would the Russian or German or Iraqi or Syrian or Sudanese people.

    It's always the leadership that are the psychopaths and murderous criminals, and that's why I enjoy imagining ours one day ending up like Mussolini

    It's why I now understand why the French people cheered so wildly when the guillotine blade fell.

    one day perhaps we will find a way to end the Fed, and free the American people (and the rest of the world) from the ravages of the Fiend that holds us all under its thrall with the power of that counterfeiting machine.

    it's boiled down a world that would be free.. vs. the Fed

    either we end it, or we get used to that 'boot, stamping on a human face, forever'
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Almost all of America’s actions abroad are wars of choice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Rurik says:
    @jacques sheete

    The intelligence community exists to project American (read Israeli) power though out the world.
     
    My only quibble with your otherwise excellent comment would be to qualify the term, "American" since the power brokers and militarists have no more interest or anything in common with the masses of Americans than the Japanese militarists had with the bulk of the Japanese people prior to WW2

    thanks Jacques,

    I never mean or intend to paint the average American (or even ex-CIA ; ) with the guilt and crimes of our elites.

    It’s kind of how I see the Catholic church for instance. Whereas the Vatican is a den of pedophiles and self-serving criminals, the Catholic people are some of the best of the best. I would never say anything to malign the Catholic or American people. Any more than I would the Russian or German or Iraqi or Syrian or Sudanese people.

    It’s always the leadership that are the psychopaths and murderous criminals, and that’s why I enjoy imagining ours one day ending up like Mussolini

    It’s why I now understand why the French people cheered so wildly when the guillotine blade fell.

    one day perhaps we will find a way to end the Fed, and free the American people (and the rest of the world) from the ravages of the Fiend that holds us all under its thrall with the power of that counterfeiting machine.

    it’s boiled down a world that would be free.. vs. the Fed

    either we end it, or we get used to that ‘boot, stamping on a human face, forever’

    Read More
    • Replies: @FLgeezer
    Rurik for POTUS! Superb post Rurik and thanks for your articulate insight.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    Mussolini was killed by Communists, most likely in league with US OSS.
    OSS was heavily influenced by zionists.

    I have no love for Il Duce: he cost my family their home in Italy.
    But at least he fought for the interests of a unified Italy, while Badoglio, Arlen Specter-like, sold out.

    I agree that what was done to Mussolini should be done to a gaggle of US (and Israeli & British) leaders.
    But it should not have been done to Mussolini.
    , @Pat Hannagan
    Top stuff, Rurik. I agree 100% with your analysis.

    I hope to read more from you in the comment section at Unz and will go through your comment history now.

    As soon as the Hellfire missile hits its target, is the exact point at which the world can be assured that the target, the wedding for instance, needed to be hit.

    It’s an amazingly foolproof way of knowing that you’re always right, because by “virtue” of the very fact that it is you doing it, that’s what makes it right.

    Home run!

    I wish more Americans were like you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. FLgeezer says:
    @Rurik
    thanks Jacques,

    I never mean or intend to paint the average American (or even ex-CIA ; ) with the guilt and crimes of our elites.

    It's kind of how I see the Catholic church for instance. Whereas the Vatican is a den of pedophiles and self-serving criminals, the Catholic people are some of the best of the best. I would never say anything to malign the Catholic or American people. Any more than I would the Russian or German or Iraqi or Syrian or Sudanese people.

    It's always the leadership that are the psychopaths and murderous criminals, and that's why I enjoy imagining ours one day ending up like Mussolini

    It's why I now understand why the French people cheered so wildly when the guillotine blade fell.

    one day perhaps we will find a way to end the Fed, and free the American people (and the rest of the world) from the ravages of the Fiend that holds us all under its thrall with the power of that counterfeiting machine.

    it's boiled down a world that would be free.. vs. the Fed

    either we end it, or we get used to that 'boot, stamping on a human face, forever'

    Rurik for POTUS! Superb post Rurik and thanks for your articulate insight.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Disagree: SolontoCroesus
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @NoseytheDuke
    I thought that the Powell Doctrine was to have overwhelming forces available. The Pottery Barn line is just his most memorable quote. Above all he should be remembered for his fraudulent and shameful performance at the UN and the promotion of wars of aggression.

    What is the evidence you rely on for saying that Powell’s misleading of the UN was fraudulent on his part? Was he not himself deceived?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Was he not himself deceived?
     
    A couple of excerpts from Ray Mc Govern's excellent article, Colin Powell: Conned or Con-Man?:

    And so, Powell ended up telling the UN Security Council, and the world, that the alleged germ-producing vehicles were “one of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq.”

    Was Powell lying? On Curveball, at least, I am inclined to think that Powell was taken in by the shysters at CIA’s top level, though you could argue that an experienced old hand like Powell should have known better. He might well have concluded, like the CIA Task Force deputy director, that Bush had long ago made up his mind about invading Iraq and that only a fool would stand in the way...


    Clearly, Powell knew that Tenet and Cheney were working hand-in-glove on conjuring up “intelligence” to justify the attack on Iraq.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2013/02/04/colin-powell-conned-or-con-man/
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Greg Bacon
    The only failure in American intelligence leading up to the illegal and immoral Iraq War is that our so-called intelligence agencies are as corrupt as the rest of the mess in DC; they only exist to serve the bankers and the MIC who profit off death and destruction.

    JFK wanted to bust up the CIA and scatter it to the winds and you see what he got.

    Your flawed logic that if Saddam indeed had gliders capable of flying across the Atlantic, we'd be right in attacking Iraq first is asinine. Many nations have weapons capable of making it across the Atlantic and could attack the USA, whether by sea or air, but we don't attack them, unless they're in the ME and Israel has declared them to be 'existential' enemies, like Iran, which is the next one up for some 'Shock and Awe' if the crazies succeed in destroying Syria.

    What we do need is to make a Nixon on Iran, I mean what he did with China. What Obama did with Cuba, etc. We don’t need more enemies. More friends is always better deal. What is needed is to STOP meddling in others business, and for once in our troubled history of interventions and war, leave the world to fight it off if they do have issues. We are like a bully ready to beat any one who happens to look our way! Lets only prepare to defend the Nation in case some one tries its luck with that. My fellow Americans, we do need entrepreneurs who start new companies, to employ people. How come it is possible that it is easier to start a business in a communist country like China, than our very won USA?. Please some one tell me.

    We do need a new american ‘awake’ instead of a dream, since you need to be asleep to have that ‘dream’. Lets wake up and day dream big, lets rebuild our nation united, regardless of your ancestry. At the end of the day, we are all in the same ship; USA.

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Rurik
    thanks Jacques,

    I never mean or intend to paint the average American (or even ex-CIA ; ) with the guilt and crimes of our elites.

    It's kind of how I see the Catholic church for instance. Whereas the Vatican is a den of pedophiles and self-serving criminals, the Catholic people are some of the best of the best. I would never say anything to malign the Catholic or American people. Any more than I would the Russian or German or Iraqi or Syrian or Sudanese people.

    It's always the leadership that are the psychopaths and murderous criminals, and that's why I enjoy imagining ours one day ending up like Mussolini

    It's why I now understand why the French people cheered so wildly when the guillotine blade fell.

    one day perhaps we will find a way to end the Fed, and free the American people (and the rest of the world) from the ravages of the Fiend that holds us all under its thrall with the power of that counterfeiting machine.

    it's boiled down a world that would be free.. vs. the Fed

    either we end it, or we get used to that 'boot, stamping on a human face, forever'

    Mussolini was killed by Communists, most likely in league with US OSS.
    OSS was heavily influenced by zionists.

    I have no love for Il Duce: he cost my family their home in Italy.
    But at least he fought for the interests of a unified Italy, while Badoglio, Arlen Specter-like, sold out.

    I agree that what was done to Mussolini should be done to a gaggle of US (and Israeli & British) leaders.
    But it should not have been done to Mussolini.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis
    , @Rurik

    But it should not have been done to Mussolini.
     
    well OK, but in point of fact I never said it should have been done to Mussolini.

    only that seeing the pictures of his corpse, I figure that fate seem perfectly appropriate for certain of our elites

    not that I'm speaking of John McCain in particular. It would perhaps be imprudent to suggest such a thing for one of our sitting Senators, after all
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. WJ says:
    @Quartermaster
    It turned out that the intelligence didn't need to be "sexed up." Saddam had WMD and a nuke program which he got out of the country at the last minute, with the exception of 22 tonnes of yellowcake. Still, I don't think we should have gone into Iraq.

    Saddam had a post 1991 WMD program? There was never any evidence of that program found after the invasion , and no, it did not go to Syria, as one former Iraqi general stated. The Duelfer report found no evidence of that.

    However, as you even imply, even if Saddam had possessed an active WMD program, no rational person thought he would use it on the USA or even give it to terrorists to use on the USA. As far as WMD use on Israel, they have shown themselves to be capable of dealing with such threats.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Sam Shama says:
    @Greg Bacon
    The only failure in American intelligence leading up to the illegal and immoral Iraq War is that our so-called intelligence agencies are as corrupt as the rest of the mess in DC; they only exist to serve the bankers and the MIC who profit off death and destruction.

    JFK wanted to bust up the CIA and scatter it to the winds and you see what he got.

    Your flawed logic that if Saddam indeed had gliders capable of flying across the Atlantic, we'd be right in attacking Iraq first is asinine. Many nations have weapons capable of making it across the Atlantic and could attack the USA, whether by sea or air, but we don't attack them, unless they're in the ME and Israel has declared them to be 'existential' enemies, like Iran, which is the next one up for some 'Shock and Awe' if the crazies succeed in destroying Syria.

    if Saddam Hussein had indeed had gliders capable of flying across the Atlantic Ocean with chemical or biological weapons and had the intent to use them then attacking him would have been fully justified

    Did you choose to ignore the part highlighted?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul C.
    Didn't we give Saddam chemical & biological weapons for war against Iran? And then we invade on the basis he has them? We're completely immoral. How do you measure intent to use? Why did 1.5 million need to be killed? How can anyone justify this?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Druid says:
    @Quartermaster
    It turned out that the intelligence didn't need to be "sexed up." Saddam had WMD and a nuke program which he got out of the country at the last minute, with the exception of 22 tonnes of yellowcake. Still, I don't think we should have gone into Iraq.

    You’re an idiot broken gramophone with brain damage!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. iffen says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Mussolini was killed by Communists, most likely in league with US OSS.
    OSS was heavily influenced by zionists.

    I have no love for Il Duce: he cost my family their home in Italy.
    But at least he fought for the interests of a unified Italy, while Badoglio, Arlen Specter-like, sold out.

    I agree that what was done to Mussolini should be done to a gaggle of US (and Israeli & British) leaders.
    But it should not have been done to Mussolini.

    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. iffen says:
    @Randal
    "Nevertheless, anti-intervention does not necessarily mean anti-war when war becomes the only option to protect vital interests, but armed conflict cannot be entered into lightly. There is in fact a simple answer to when to use force: it is to defend the United States itself against a clearly defined threat to the country or to a genuine vital interest. "

    Defensive necessity is indeed the only genuine justification for war, not the farrago of sophistry that is Just War theory.

    However, as is always the case in human affairs, no such definition can ever be clear cut, depending as it does on a reasonably honest interpretation of terms such as "necessity", "threat" and "vital interest". Of course, people almost always are grossly hypocritical in the application of such terminology. For instance, Americans believe the US has the right to act in response to "threats", whereas unfavoured foreigners are generally expected to live with threats, and to rely upon deterrence to defend themselves, or be accused of unreasonable aggression. Giraldi himself gives an example of this kind of thinking:


    "if Saddam Hussein had indeed had gliders capable of flying across the Atlantic Ocean with chemical or biological weapons and had the intent to use them then attacking him would have been fully justified with or without UN permission"
     
    Intent being necessarily and invariably a matter of speculation in the real world we inhabit of limited information, this amounts to declaring a right to attack preventively (the genuine "pre-emptive strike" being rather unlikely ever to actually occur in the real world). The US, of course, would describe any preventive strike by an unfavoured country as unjustified and illegal aggression, and any preventive attack by a favoured country as "pre-emptive".

    In the real world, as opposed to the fevered propagandist world of lies that neocon interventionist types inhabit, Saddam having "gliders capable of flying across the Atlantic Ocean with chemical or biological weapons" would have justified merely deterrence, not preventive aggression.

    But Americans, being hypocrites, don't think their government, being special, should be subject to such reasonable restrictions, only foreigners' g0vernments.

    But Americans, being hypocrites, don’t think their government, being special

    It is not hypocrisy if you really believe it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    "It is not hypocrisy if you really believe it."

    The hypocrisy lies in applying different (lower) standards for international behaviour to your own country from those you apply to others.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Paul C. says:
    @Sam Shama

    if Saddam Hussein had indeed had gliders capable of flying across the Atlantic Ocean with chemical or biological weapons and had the intent to use them then attacking him would have been fully justified
     
    Did you choose to ignore the part highlighted?

    Didn’t we give Saddam chemical & biological weapons for war against Iran? And then we invade on the basis he has them? We’re completely immoral. How do you measure intent to use? Why did 1.5 million need to be killed? How can anyone justify this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    The comment was meant to underscore the general point made by Phil Giraldi, not at all an endorsement of the particular war waged in Iraq.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Rurik says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Mussolini was killed by Communists, most likely in league with US OSS.
    OSS was heavily influenced by zionists.

    I have no love for Il Duce: he cost my family their home in Italy.
    But at least he fought for the interests of a unified Italy, while Badoglio, Arlen Specter-like, sold out.

    I agree that what was done to Mussolini should be done to a gaggle of US (and Israeli & British) leaders.
    But it should not have been done to Mussolini.

    But it should not have been done to Mussolini.

    well OK, but in point of fact I never said it should have been done to Mussolini.

    only that seeing the pictures of his corpse, I figure that fate seem perfectly appropriate for certain of our elites

    not that I’m speaking of John McCain in particular. It would perhaps be imprudent to suggest such a thing for one of our sitting Senators, after all

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    well OK, but in point of fact I never said it should have been done to Mussolini.
     
    true enough.

    think about the US track record, tho; about not just the frequency, and the unaccountability, with which US wages war, but the lack of chivalry surrounding US war making:

    Lee and Grant carried out professional military rituals of surrender, and expressed their respect for each the other's warrior ethos, thereby setting in motion a peace-making process.

    But after WWI, US joined with other Europeans and went out of their way to humiliate Germans.

    Mussolini was humiliated and debased in the vilest fashion -- not a good sign for re-establishing a unified, civil society

    Roosevelt would accept nothing but complete and total capitulation of the German leadership and people. Hitler & Goebbels killed themselves; other key leaders were also executed. More importantly -- read a few of the pages accessible online of Cora Goldstein's book "Capturing the German Eye" -- the German people were brutalized, starved, humiliated, brainwashed, subjected to psychological warfare for as many as five years AFTER the war -- after so many women had been raped, and so many men had been left to starve in Allied pow fields.

    Saddam was humiliated, subjected to a show-trial and ingloriously hanged.

    Qaddafi was sodomized and murdered.

    the Borg glories in having shot bin laden & dumped him into sea

    otoh --

    When the Persian king defeated the Lydians and captured Croesus, king of Lydia, the Persian spared his life and sought his counsel; they parlayed on how best to manage and restore order in defeated Lydia.

    USA has failed to rise to that level of respect for the vanquished, in order to restore order and prepare for a peaceful future.

    USA has not moved past the barbarity of hanging Mussolini like an animal.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. mp says:
    @Quartermaster
    Russia is quite aggressive to her neighbors and has even invaded Ukraine. Putin's reason for doing so is a chimera and exists only in his propaganda.

    China certainly is aggressive to her neighbors as well acting to take stuff that doesn't belong to her in both the West Philippine Sea and the South Japanese Sea. Taipei and Hanoi can certainly tell you a story about Chinese imperialism as well.

    China certainly is aggressive to her neighbors as well acting to take stuff that doesn’t belong to her in both the West Philippine Sea and the South Japanese Sea. Taipei and Hanoi can certainly tell you a story about Chinese imperialism as well.

    What “stuff” is being taken by China? Are strong diplomatic words now considered “aggression?” Is that what you are talking about? Hard to know. Ok, what else? Taipei (KMT) lost a civil war with the Reds. How is an internal civil war an example of “imperialism?” It is true that China threw some artillery at Hanoi after the latter invaded their ally, Cambodia, took a few miles of land, and then gave it back. Hardly a good example of imperialism.

    Your Russian take on world events has been handled by others, so I won’t go in to that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Rurik
    thanks Jacques,

    I never mean or intend to paint the average American (or even ex-CIA ; ) with the guilt and crimes of our elites.

    It's kind of how I see the Catholic church for instance. Whereas the Vatican is a den of pedophiles and self-serving criminals, the Catholic people are some of the best of the best. I would never say anything to malign the Catholic or American people. Any more than I would the Russian or German or Iraqi or Syrian or Sudanese people.

    It's always the leadership that are the psychopaths and murderous criminals, and that's why I enjoy imagining ours one day ending up like Mussolini

    It's why I now understand why the French people cheered so wildly when the guillotine blade fell.

    one day perhaps we will find a way to end the Fed, and free the American people (and the rest of the world) from the ravages of the Fiend that holds us all under its thrall with the power of that counterfeiting machine.

    it's boiled down a world that would be free.. vs. the Fed

    either we end it, or we get used to that 'boot, stamping on a human face, forever'

    Top stuff, Rurik. I agree 100% with your analysis.

    I hope to read more from you in the comment section at Unz and will go through your comment history now.

    As soon as the Hellfire missile hits its target, is the exact point at which the world can be assured that the target, the wedding for instance, needed to be hit.

    It’s an amazingly foolproof way of knowing that you’re always right, because by “virtue” of the very fact that it is you doing it, that’s what makes it right.

    Home run!

    I wish more Americans were like you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    thank you Pat

    don't expect too much from my comment history tho, alas. Lot's of intemperate frothing and ranting and licentious mischief

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Rurik says:
    @Pat Hannagan
    Top stuff, Rurik. I agree 100% with your analysis.

    I hope to read more from you in the comment section at Unz and will go through your comment history now.

    As soon as the Hellfire missile hits its target, is the exact point at which the world can be assured that the target, the wedding for instance, needed to be hit.

    It’s an amazingly foolproof way of knowing that you’re always right, because by “virtue” of the very fact that it is you doing it, that’s what makes it right.

    Home run!

    I wish more Americans were like you.

    thank you Pat

    don’t expect too much from my comment history tho, alas. Lot’s of intemperate frothing and ranting and licentious mischief

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Apropos of nothing, Rurik, I finally learned about the origin of your screen name.

    May I recommend the recently published book "Driving Down the Spine of Russia"?

    Excellent choice of a screen name, and good luck "ruling over the disputatious Rus" ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Sam Shama says:
    @Paul C.
    Didn't we give Saddam chemical & biological weapons for war against Iran? And then we invade on the basis he has them? We're completely immoral. How do you measure intent to use? Why did 1.5 million need to be killed? How can anyone justify this?

    The comment was meant to underscore the general point made by Phil Giraldi, not at all an endorsement of the particular war waged in Iraq.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Rurik

    But it should not have been done to Mussolini.
     
    well OK, but in point of fact I never said it should have been done to Mussolini.

    only that seeing the pictures of his corpse, I figure that fate seem perfectly appropriate for certain of our elites

    not that I'm speaking of John McCain in particular. It would perhaps be imprudent to suggest such a thing for one of our sitting Senators, after all

    well OK, but in point of fact I never said it should have been done to Mussolini.

    true enough.

    think about the US track record, tho; about not just the frequency, and the unaccountability, with which US wages war, but the lack of chivalry surrounding US war making:

    Lee and Grant carried out professional military rituals of surrender, and expressed their respect for each the other’s warrior ethos, thereby setting in motion a peace-making process.

    But after WWI, US joined with other Europeans and went out of their way to humiliate Germans.

    Mussolini was humiliated and debased in the vilest fashion — not a good sign for re-establishing a unified, civil society

    Roosevelt would accept nothing but complete and total capitulation of the German leadership and people. Hitler & Goebbels killed themselves; other key leaders were also executed. More importantly — read a few of the pages accessible online of Cora Goldstein’s book “Capturing the German Eye” — the German people were brutalized, starved, humiliated, brainwashed, subjected to psychological warfare for as many as five years AFTER the war — after so many women had been raped, and so many men had been left to starve in Allied pow fields.

    Saddam was humiliated, subjected to a show-trial and ingloriously hanged.

    Qaddafi was sodomized and murdered.

    the Borg glories in having shot bin laden & dumped him into sea

    otoh –

    When the Persian king defeated the Lydians and captured Croesus, king of Lydia, the Persian spared his life and sought his counsel; they parlayed on how best to manage and restore order in defeated Lydia.

    USA has failed to rise to that level of respect for the vanquished, in order to restore order and prepare for a peaceful future.

    USA has not moved past the barbarity of hanging Mussolini like an animal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey S2C,

    You definitely hit on something that is crucial to understanding 4th generation warfare:
    "The discussion concluded that while war against another state may be necessary one should seek to preserve that state even as one defeats it. Grant the opposing armies the 'honors of war,' tell them what a fine job they did, make their defeat 'civilized' so they can survive the war institutionally intact and then work for your side. This would be similar to 18th century notions of civilized war and contribute greatly to propping up a fragile state. Humiliating the defeated enemy troops, especially in front of their own population, is always a serious mistake but one that Americans are prone to make. This is because the 'football mentality' we have developed since World War II works against us."
    http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=1702

    Peace.
    , @Rurik

    Qaddafi was sodomized and murdered.
     
    and we've all seen the cackling hag gloating over it

    I'm simply saying that wouldn't it be a poetic kind of justice if she herself was the one to get the exact same treatment that she was so giddy about that man receiving. Which she seems to be taking personal credit for.

    USA has not moved past the barbarity of hanging Mussolini like an animal.
     
    but you're right. That would lower us to their level, and I agree, we are and must be above all of that.

    but nevertheless, as annamarina suggests above, I see no problem with...:

    Let’s send the Kagans, Daniel Pletka, Carl Gershman, and the whole editorial board of The New York Times to the avant-guard in Syria!
    Mike Morell would finally have a chance to participate in combat.
    The Clintons family, led by Chelsea, could show, at last, the strength of their belief in humanitarian interventions.
    ... The most belligerent among the congresspeople could show their determination by fighting along the “moderates.” Mr. Lindsey Graham and Mrs. Louise Slaughter should lead the charge.
     
    indeed, if I had my druthers, then virtually every single person responsible for sending an American into war would, by law, be obliged to send their own children to the front lines first.

    If even one single American girl was expected to be put in harms way by a policy or vote or order by the gorgon war hag, then Chelsea must be in front of her. If a war is worth fighting, so much so that people will be killed and Americans will be forced to do the killing and dying, then every single person who profits off such a war or votes for such a war or demands that others have to go and die in such a war, then their children will lead the charge. Period.

    Don't have children or grandchildren to use as cannon fodder? Then you don't get to vote on war or act as commander in chief.

    So long as it's other peoples children that get butchered or maimed or return with shattered souls, and commit suicide, then our elites will send them all day long and twice on Sunday. But if its their own children, if Chelsea must suit up and go into harms way, just watch and see how reasonable our diplomats can actually be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @anonymous
    All US wars have been wars of choice triggered by the smell of weakness and the opportunity for easy pickings. Cutting through the thick fog of high-minded rhetoric and other mumbo-jumbo it's apparent the US is a bandit state cruising the world for victims to waylay. That's it in a nutshell, it's a gangster state that has smaller accomplices such as Britain, roaming around looking for the next score. This is the history of the US; once it consolidated itself territorially it saw the weakness of Spain and moved in, grabbing properties such as the Philippines which thus inserted it into Asia and made it an Asian power also. From that point on it's been on the move ever since, whenever the chance presented itself. Here and there it's suffered a bloody rebuff such as in Korea and Vietnam when it miscalculated it's strength and underestimated the other. The US is a country that's been almost continually at war or actively interfering in other countries just about every single year since 1898.
    The average American of course desires peace, stability and an increasing standard of living. They've been propagandized into thinking that the US is a peaceful state that has to protect itself now and then. The truth is the very opposite, that war is the natural state of being for the US and it is an aggressive country always on the march. Always was, is now, and will continue to be so until it hits the wall of resistance of other countries big enough to defend themselves. Force is what it understands and respects, nothing else. Once people realize this then it all becomes very clear.

    It started with the Mexican War in 1848. Once the bankers gained complete control in the Civil War, the drive toward empire went into overdrive. We’re there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Nice comment. I would however say that America's appetite for empire started even earlier than the Mexican War. And in fact began with the US invading Canada, only a few short years after Washington formed the 1st Continental Army.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. geokat62 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    What is the evidence you rely on for saying that Powell's misleading of the UN was fraudulent on his part? Was he not himself deceived?

    Was he not himself deceived?

    A couple of excerpts from Ray Mc Govern’s excellent article, Colin Powell: Conned or Con-Man?:

    And so, Powell ended up telling the UN Security Council, and the world, that the alleged germ-producing vehicles were “one of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq.”

    Was Powell lying? On Curveball, at least, I am inclined to think that Powell was taken in by the shysters at CIA’s top level, though you could argue that an experienced old hand like Powell should have known better. He might well have concluded, like the CIA Task Force deputy director, that Bush had long ago made up his mind about invading Iraq and that only a fool would stand in the way…

    Clearly, Powell knew that Tenet and Cheney were working hand-in-glove on conjuring up “intelligence” to justify the attack on Iraq.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2013/02/04/colin-powell-conned-or-con-man/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {....though you could argue that an experienced old hand like Powell should have known better.}

    Powell led the cover-up of the My Lai massacre:

    http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/colin3.html
    {After that cursory investigation, Powell drafted a response on Dec. 13, 1968. He admitted to no pattern of wrongdoing. Powell claimed that U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were taught to treat Vietnamese courteously and respectfully. The Americal troops also had gone through an hour-long course on how to treat prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, Powell noted. }

    Powell was no ordinary civil servant: he had reached the rank of a 4-star general. Being a professional military man, he had to know the Iraqi WMD story was bogus. But it is group-think: he knew his boss wanted it to be true, so he followed unwritten orders, and participated in he fraud.
    Why rock the boat?
    Why lose your fat speaking fees?
    So who cares if a bunch of 'Ayraabs' are smoked?

    This is what these reptiles are like: joking and laughing about 100s of 1000s of maimed, killed and murdered Iraqi civilians.

    [George W. Bush - jokes about weapons of mass destruction]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA

    , @utu
    That's why Powell had George "Slam Dunk" Tenet sitting behind him at UN. He did not want to be the only fall guy. He knew all evidence was BS.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Avery says:
    @geokat62

    Was he not himself deceived?
     
    A couple of excerpts from Ray Mc Govern's excellent article, Colin Powell: Conned or Con-Man?:

    And so, Powell ended up telling the UN Security Council, and the world, that the alleged germ-producing vehicles were “one of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq.”

    Was Powell lying? On Curveball, at least, I am inclined to think that Powell was taken in by the shysters at CIA’s top level, though you could argue that an experienced old hand like Powell should have known better. He might well have concluded, like the CIA Task Force deputy director, that Bush had long ago made up his mind about invading Iraq and that only a fool would stand in the way...


    Clearly, Powell knew that Tenet and Cheney were working hand-in-glove on conjuring up “intelligence” to justify the attack on Iraq.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2013/02/04/colin-powell-conned-or-con-man/
     

    {….though you could argue that an experienced old hand like Powell should have known better.}

    Powell led the cover-up of the My Lai massacre:

    http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/colin3.html

    {After that cursory investigation, Powell drafted a response on Dec. 13, 1968. He admitted to no pattern of wrongdoing. Powell claimed that U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were taught to treat Vietnamese courteously and respectfully. The Americal troops also had gone through an hour-long course on how to treat prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, Powell noted. }

    Powell was no ordinary civil servant: he had reached the rank of a 4-star general. Being a professional military man, he had to know the Iraqi WMD story was bogus. But it is group-think: he knew his boss wanted it to be true, so he followed unwritten orders, and participated in he fraud.
    Why rock the boat?
    Why lose your fat speaking fees?
    So who cares if a bunch of ‘Ayraabs’ are smoked?

    This is what these reptiles are like: joking and laughing about 100s of 1000s of maimed, killed and murdered Iraqi civilians.

    [George W. Bush - jokes about weapons of mass destruction]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Talha says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    well OK, but in point of fact I never said it should have been done to Mussolini.
     
    true enough.

    think about the US track record, tho; about not just the frequency, and the unaccountability, with which US wages war, but the lack of chivalry surrounding US war making:

    Lee and Grant carried out professional military rituals of surrender, and expressed their respect for each the other's warrior ethos, thereby setting in motion a peace-making process.

    But after WWI, US joined with other Europeans and went out of their way to humiliate Germans.

    Mussolini was humiliated and debased in the vilest fashion -- not a good sign for re-establishing a unified, civil society

    Roosevelt would accept nothing but complete and total capitulation of the German leadership and people. Hitler & Goebbels killed themselves; other key leaders were also executed. More importantly -- read a few of the pages accessible online of Cora Goldstein's book "Capturing the German Eye" -- the German people were brutalized, starved, humiliated, brainwashed, subjected to psychological warfare for as many as five years AFTER the war -- after so many women had been raped, and so many men had been left to starve in Allied pow fields.

    Saddam was humiliated, subjected to a show-trial and ingloriously hanged.

    Qaddafi was sodomized and murdered.

    the Borg glories in having shot bin laden & dumped him into sea

    otoh --

    When the Persian king defeated the Lydians and captured Croesus, king of Lydia, the Persian spared his life and sought his counsel; they parlayed on how best to manage and restore order in defeated Lydia.

    USA has failed to rise to that level of respect for the vanquished, in order to restore order and prepare for a peaceful future.

    USA has not moved past the barbarity of hanging Mussolini like an animal.

    Hey S2C,

    You definitely hit on something that is crucial to understanding 4th generation warfare:
    “The discussion concluded that while war against another state may be necessary one should seek to preserve that state even as one defeats it. Grant the opposing armies the ‘honors of war,’ tell them what a fine job they did, make their defeat ‘civilized’ so they can survive the war institutionally intact and then work for your side. This would be similar to 18th century notions of civilized war and contribute greatly to propping up a fragile state. Humiliating the defeated enemy troops, especially in front of their own population, is always a serious mistake but one that Americans are prone to make. This is because the ‘football mentality’ we have developed since World War II works against us.”

    http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=1702

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Man, I'm agreeing with Talha and Tiny Dick on the same day!

    But to be fair, Talha seems a lot more thoughtful, constructive, and just plain fair than Tiny D is.
    , @Randal

    Humiliating the defeated enemy troops, especially in front of their own population, is always a serious mistake but one that Americans are prone to make.
     
    Contra Lind et al, there is a time for the brutal exhibition of ruthless force (see for instance the brutal British treatment of the Indian rebel troops - who lacked real popular legitimacy - in 1857, which led to the re-establishment of order and British control in India for generations) and there is a time for decency and co-opting the defeated military and elites.

    The US's problem, I think, is that the need to demonise in order to justify its wars internally, largely overrides the possibility of choice in how to treat the defeated.

    I don't find Lind's overall 4GW thesis particularly convincing, but a lot of his observations are strikingly apt. His discussion of the problems caused by the US military's fixation with force protection is one such:

    Unfortunately, the American doctrine of "force protection" works against integration and generally hurts us badly. Here's a quote from the minutes of the seminar:

    "There are two ways to deal with the issue of force protection. One way is the way we are currently doing it, which is to separate ourselves from the population and to intimidate them with our firepower. A more viable alternative might be to take the opposite approach and integrate with the community. That way you find out more of what is going on and the population protects you. The British approach of getting the helmets off as soon as possible may actually be saving lives."

    • What "wins" at the tactical and physical levels may lose at the operational, strategic, mental and moral levels, where 4GW is decided. Martin van Creveld argues that one reason the British have not lost in Northern Ireland is that the British Army has taken more casualties than it has inflicted. This is something the Second Generation American military has great trouble grasping, because it defines success in terms of comparative attrition rates.
     
    Connect this with the excellent analogy made by Rurik above, between the very real problems in US policing (as opposed to the fantasy problems invented by Black lives Matter and their "antiracist" sympathisers in order to further their identity lobby race-baiting) and US foreign policy:

    I have posted a video of an American cop relentlessly tazing and then simply murdering a man lying in the snow because he wouldn’t “get on the ground now!”.



    the significant thing about that video is that the cop was acquitted of all charges, and then went on to explain how she was the victim

    the reason I post that video is because this is America’s mentality writ large on the world’s stage.

    if America says ‘get on the ground’ (give up your WMD), and they fail to do so, then America has every right to slaughter and maim and destroy the lives of millions upon millions of your citizens, because you didn’t ‘get on the ground now’.. you didn’t surrender your WMD, – even if you’re on the ground or surrendered all your WMD long ago. None of that matters. It’s just who has more firepower and the veil of ‘authority’. That what determines who is right.
     
    There is definitely an underlying problem here that is rooted in the authoritarian aspects of US culture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. utu says:
    @geokat62

    Was he not himself deceived?
     
    A couple of excerpts from Ray Mc Govern's excellent article, Colin Powell: Conned or Con-Man?:

    And so, Powell ended up telling the UN Security Council, and the world, that the alleged germ-producing vehicles were “one of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq.”

    Was Powell lying? On Curveball, at least, I am inclined to think that Powell was taken in by the shysters at CIA’s top level, though you could argue that an experienced old hand like Powell should have known better. He might well have concluded, like the CIA Task Force deputy director, that Bush had long ago made up his mind about invading Iraq and that only a fool would stand in the way...


    Clearly, Powell knew that Tenet and Cheney were working hand-in-glove on conjuring up “intelligence” to justify the attack on Iraq.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2013/02/04/colin-powell-conned-or-con-man/
     

    That’s why Powell had George “Slam Dunk” Tenet sitting behind him at UN. He did not want to be the only fall guy. He knew all evidence was BS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. denk says:
    @Art
    There are only two significant nations in the world were their people are aggressively belligerent to their neighbors – Israel and China.

    All the rest have governments who are to various degrees belligerent to other governments (the US government being one of the most belligerent).

    We are never going to have peace until the sovereign people of these countries insist on NO war. This the twenty first century - it is time for the people to insist on peace.

    Why is there no genuine peace movement in America? There are elements of the desire for peace on both the left and the right – but the Jews and their media will let that happen.

    At one time, humanity could count on women to be peace minded – we could count on them to start the peace ball rolling. With feminism that edge is lost.

    There will be no peace until we men find the gonads to insist on it.

    Classic kept in the dark and fed bullshit
    Murkkan !

    Here’s China sterling performance on border settlement,
    [1]

    Afghanistan – 0%
    Tajikistan – 4%
    Nepal – 6%
    Burma – 18%
    Kazakhstan – 22%
    Mongolia – 29%
    Kyrgyzstan – 32%
    North Korea – 40%
    Laos – 50%
    Vietnam – 50%
    Russia – 50%
    Pakistan – 54%

    China settled all its border issues peacefully , typically offering great concession to rival claimants. [2]
    For example, China ceded the entire disputed territory to Afghan,
    94% to Nepal….
    No mean feat that !

    Why, cuz Beijing wants to concentrate on national development, it doesnt want to be bogged down with endless and fruitless squabbles, skirmishes.

    If the Nobel committee has any sense, China should’ve bagged a Peace prize or two for this alone.

    [1]
    India’s China blog

    [2]
    except with India !

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Nonsense. Or don't you consider the South China Sea expansion and island / runway-building to be a fruitless conflict?

    Like most human beings, count on the Chinese to become more aggressive and less reasonable as they gain strength.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. annamaria says:

    This is the best – and artistic – description of a very simple solution to the problem of “humanitarian intervention: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/12/applying-tolstoy-to-todays-rush-to-war/ By Gilbert Doctorow
    “I close this review of the highly relevant exposition of reasoning about drivers of foreign policy in Anna Karenina by quoting Tolstoy’s recommended cure for the war fever of the arbiters of public opinion:

    “I would only make one condition,” pursued the old prince. “Alphonse Karr said a capital thing before the war with Prussia. ‘You consider war to be inevitable? Very good. Let everyone who advocates war be enrolled in a special regiment of advance guards, for the front of every storm, of every attack, to lead them all’!”
    “’A nice lot the editors would make!’ said Katavasov, with a loud roar, as he pictured the editors he knew in this picked legion.”

    Let’s send the Kagans, Daniel Pletka, Carl Gershman, and the whole editorial board of The New York Times to the avant-guard in Syria!
    Mike Morell would finally have a chance to participate in combat.
    The Clintons family, led by Chelsea, could show, at last, the strength of their belief in humanitarian interventions.
    And the Congresspeople en masse should be obliged to donate 90% of their income to the cause of the supposed “protecting America over there” in a company of the US-supported “moderate” jihadis (Al Qaeda, actually) against the sovereign state of Syria. The most belligerent among the congresspeople could show their determination by fighting along the “moderates.” Mr. Lindsey Graham and Mrs. Louise Slaughter should lead the charge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    It harks back (or rather forward if to consider when Tolstoy wrote his piece) to Sec Def James Schlesinger, who, while being a hawk himself, suggested to take each new Congress to proving grounds and then detonate (in distance) a low yield nuclear device for American politicians to feel the heat on their faces and hear the sound of nuclear explosion. I think Good ole' Schlesinger had a good point. But, all this is just wishful thinking, America will not survive as a nation if people of such intellectual power (such as you listed, plus many more) and profundity will be in any way harmed in combat, let alone killed. How can United States then survive without Robert Kagan's wisdom, both in history and warfare, if the appropriate number of calories are not introduced into him in his D.C. area exclusive restaurants. Don't underestimate the hardships current US power "elites" experience when deciding what cut of meat have for dinner or if to invest their good (totally deserved) fortunes into "technology" or finances.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Rurik says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    well OK, but in point of fact I never said it should have been done to Mussolini.
     
    true enough.

    think about the US track record, tho; about not just the frequency, and the unaccountability, with which US wages war, but the lack of chivalry surrounding US war making:

    Lee and Grant carried out professional military rituals of surrender, and expressed their respect for each the other's warrior ethos, thereby setting in motion a peace-making process.

    But after WWI, US joined with other Europeans and went out of their way to humiliate Germans.

    Mussolini was humiliated and debased in the vilest fashion -- not a good sign for re-establishing a unified, civil society

    Roosevelt would accept nothing but complete and total capitulation of the German leadership and people. Hitler & Goebbels killed themselves; other key leaders were also executed. More importantly -- read a few of the pages accessible online of Cora Goldstein's book "Capturing the German Eye" -- the German people were brutalized, starved, humiliated, brainwashed, subjected to psychological warfare for as many as five years AFTER the war -- after so many women had been raped, and so many men had been left to starve in Allied pow fields.

    Saddam was humiliated, subjected to a show-trial and ingloriously hanged.

    Qaddafi was sodomized and murdered.

    the Borg glories in having shot bin laden & dumped him into sea

    otoh --

    When the Persian king defeated the Lydians and captured Croesus, king of Lydia, the Persian spared his life and sought his counsel; they parlayed on how best to manage and restore order in defeated Lydia.

    USA has failed to rise to that level of respect for the vanquished, in order to restore order and prepare for a peaceful future.

    USA has not moved past the barbarity of hanging Mussolini like an animal.

    Qaddafi was sodomized and murdered.

    and we’ve all seen the cackling hag gloating over it

    I’m simply saying that wouldn’t it be a poetic kind of justice if she herself was the one to get the exact same treatment that she was so giddy about that man receiving. Which she seems to be taking personal credit for.

    USA has not moved past the barbarity of hanging Mussolini like an animal.

    but you’re right. That would lower us to their level, and I agree, we are and must be above all of that.

    but nevertheless, as annamarina suggests above, I see no problem with…:

    Let’s send the Kagans, Daniel Pletka, Carl Gershman, and the whole editorial board of The New York Times to the avant-guard in Syria!
    Mike Morell would finally have a chance to participate in combat.
    The Clintons family, led by Chelsea, could show, at last, the strength of their belief in humanitarian interventions.
    … The most belligerent among the congresspeople could show their determination by fighting along the “moderates.” Mr. Lindsey Graham and Mrs. Louise Slaughter should lead the charge.

    indeed, if I had my druthers, then virtually every single person responsible for sending an American into war would, by law, be obliged to send their own children to the front lines first.

    If even one single American girl was expected to be put in harms way by a policy or vote or order by the gorgon war hag, then Chelsea must be in front of her. If a war is worth fighting, so much so that people will be killed and Americans will be forced to do the killing and dying, then every single person who profits off such a war or votes for such a war or demands that others have to go and die in such a war, then their children will lead the charge. Period.

    Don’t have children or grandchildren to use as cannon fodder? Then you don’t get to vote on war or act as commander in chief.

    So long as it’s other peoples children that get butchered or maimed or return with shattered souls, and commit suicide, then our elites will send them all day long and twice on Sunday. But if its their own children, if Chelsea must suit up and go into harms way, just watch and see how reasonable our diplomats can actually be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
    Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
    And when you ask 'em, "How much should we give?"
    Ooh, they only answer "More! More! More!", y'all
    It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son
    It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, one

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Art says:
    @Art
    There are only two significant nations in the world were their people are aggressively belligerent to their neighbors – Israel and China.

    All the rest have governments who are to various degrees belligerent to other governments (the US government being one of the most belligerent).

    We are never going to have peace until the sovereign people of these countries insist on NO war. This the twenty first century - it is time for the people to insist on peace.

    Why is there no genuine peace movement in America? There are elements of the desire for peace on both the left and the right – but the Jews and their media will let that happen.

    At one time, humanity could count on women to be peace minded – we could count on them to start the peace ball rolling. With feminism that edge is lost.

    There will be no peace until we men find the gonads to insist on it.

    Art: There are only two significant nations in the world were their people are aggressively belligerent to their neighbors – Israel and China.

    There are three replies to that statement – two of them defended the Chinese people – ZERO defended the Israeli people. How telling.

    In my opinion, those two tribal peoples have a superiority complex, and that is what makes them most dangerous. They are easily led by their leaders into belligerent action.

    p.s. There was also an appeal to work for no war – sadly there is no response. This is the Twenty First Century – why can’t we insist on peace from our governments?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Talha says:
    @Rurik

    Qaddafi was sodomized and murdered.
     
    and we've all seen the cackling hag gloating over it

    I'm simply saying that wouldn't it be a poetic kind of justice if she herself was the one to get the exact same treatment that she was so giddy about that man receiving. Which she seems to be taking personal credit for.

    USA has not moved past the barbarity of hanging Mussolini like an animal.
     
    but you're right. That would lower us to their level, and I agree, we are and must be above all of that.

    but nevertheless, as annamarina suggests above, I see no problem with...:

    Let’s send the Kagans, Daniel Pletka, Carl Gershman, and the whole editorial board of The New York Times to the avant-guard in Syria!
    Mike Morell would finally have a chance to participate in combat.
    The Clintons family, led by Chelsea, could show, at last, the strength of their belief in humanitarian interventions.
    ... The most belligerent among the congresspeople could show their determination by fighting along the “moderates.” Mr. Lindsey Graham and Mrs. Louise Slaughter should lead the charge.
     
    indeed, if I had my druthers, then virtually every single person responsible for sending an American into war would, by law, be obliged to send their own children to the front lines first.

    If even one single American girl was expected to be put in harms way by a policy or vote or order by the gorgon war hag, then Chelsea must be in front of her. If a war is worth fighting, so much so that people will be killed and Americans will be forced to do the killing and dying, then every single person who profits off such a war or votes for such a war or demands that others have to go and die in such a war, then their children will lead the charge. Period.

    Don't have children or grandchildren to use as cannon fodder? Then you don't get to vote on war or act as commander in chief.

    So long as it's other peoples children that get butchered or maimed or return with shattered souls, and commit suicide, then our elites will send them all day long and twice on Sunday. But if its their own children, if Chelsea must suit up and go into harms way, just watch and see how reasonable our diplomats can actually be.

    Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
    Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
    And when you ask ‘em, “How much should we give?”
    Ooh, they only answer “More! More! More!”, y’all
    It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no military son, son
    It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no fortunate one, one

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I Ain't Marching Anymore

    Phil Ochs

    Oh I marched to the battle of New Orleans
    At the end of the early British war
    The young land started growing
    The young blood started flowing
    But I ain't marchin' anymore

    For I've killed my share of Indians
    In a thousand different fights
    I was there at the Little Big Horn
    I heard many men lying I saw many more dying
    But I ain't marchin' anymore

    chorus)
    It's always the old to lead us to the war
    It's always the young to fall
    Now look at all we've won with the saber and the gun
    Tell me is it worth it all

    For I stole California from the Mexican land
    Fought in the bloody Civil War
    Yes I even killed my brothers
    And so many others But I ain't marchin' anymore

    For I marched to the battles of the German trench
    In a war that was bound to end all wars
    Oh I must have killed a million men
    And now they want me back again
    But I ain't marchin' anymore

    (chorus)

    For I flew the final mission in the Japanese sky
    Set off the mighty mushroom roar
    When I saw the cities burning I knew that I was learning
    That I ain't marchin' anymore

    Now the labor leader's screamin'
    when they close the missile plants,
    United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore,
    Call it "Peace" or call it "Treason,"
    Call it "Love" or call it "Reason,"
    But I ain't marchin' any more,
    No I ain't marchin' any more
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. iffen says:
    @Talha
    Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
    Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
    And when you ask 'em, "How much should we give?"
    Ooh, they only answer "More! More! More!", y'all
    It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son
    It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, one

    Peace.

    I Ain’t Marching Anymore

    Phil Ochs

    Oh I marched to the battle of New Orleans
    At the end of the early British war
    The young land started growing
    The young blood started flowing
    But I ain’t marchin’ anymore

    [MORE]

    For I’ve killed my share of Indians
    In a thousand different fights
    I was there at the Little Big Horn
    I heard many men lying I saw many more dying
    But I ain’t marchin’ anymore

    chorus)
    It’s always the old to lead us to the war
    It’s always the young to fall
    Now look at all we’ve won with the saber and the gun
    Tell me is it worth it all

    For I stole California from the Mexican land
    Fought in the bloody Civil War
    Yes I even killed my brothers
    And so many others But I ain’t marchin’ anymore

    For I marched to the battles of the German trench
    In a war that was bound to end all wars
    Oh I must have killed a million men
    And now they want me back again
    But I ain’t marchin’ anymore

    (chorus)

    For I flew the final mission in the Japanese sky
    Set off the mighty mushroom roar
    When I saw the cities burning I knew that I was learning
    That I ain’t marchin’ anymore

    Now the labor leader’s screamin’
    when they close the missile plants,
    United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore,
    Call it “Peace” or call it “Treason,”
    Call it “Love” or call it “Reason,”
    But I ain’t marchin’ any more,
    No I ain’t marchin’ any more

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Classic - and of course there's 'Universal Soldier' - that one sends a chill down my spine when I hear it.

    Peace.
    , @Art
    Nothing is going to happen until strong MEN demand NO war - end of story.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Talha says:
    @iffen
    I Ain't Marching Anymore

    Phil Ochs

    Oh I marched to the battle of New Orleans
    At the end of the early British war
    The young land started growing
    The young blood started flowing
    But I ain't marchin' anymore

    For I've killed my share of Indians
    In a thousand different fights
    I was there at the Little Big Horn
    I heard many men lying I saw many more dying
    But I ain't marchin' anymore

    chorus)
    It's always the old to lead us to the war
    It's always the young to fall
    Now look at all we've won with the saber and the gun
    Tell me is it worth it all

    For I stole California from the Mexican land
    Fought in the bloody Civil War
    Yes I even killed my brothers
    And so many others But I ain't marchin' anymore

    For I marched to the battles of the German trench
    In a war that was bound to end all wars
    Oh I must have killed a million men
    And now they want me back again
    But I ain't marchin' anymore

    (chorus)

    For I flew the final mission in the Japanese sky
    Set off the mighty mushroom roar
    When I saw the cities burning I knew that I was learning
    That I ain't marchin' anymore

    Now the labor leader's screamin'
    when they close the missile plants,
    United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore,
    Call it "Peace" or call it "Treason,"
    Call it "Love" or call it "Reason,"
    But I ain't marchin' any more,
    No I ain't marchin' any more

    Classic – and of course there’s ‘Universal Soldier’ – that one sends a chill down my spine when I hear it.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. annamaria says:

    “They hate us for our freedoms,” Bush the Lesser

    “Citigroup Had Major Role in Shaping and Staffing Obama’s First Term”

    http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/10/wikileaks-bombshell-emails-show-citigroup-had-major-role-in-shaping-and-staffing-obamas-first-term/

    “Let that sink in for a moment. The Obama team was asking Robert Rubin, who had played a major role in pushing for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had in turn allowed Citigroup to become an unraveling banking behemoth that was at that very moment playing an outsized role in cratering the U.S. financial system, to give it advice on how Obama should conduct himself on financial and economic matters.”
    More on the same:
    “The Presidential election of 2008 was held on November 4, with Barack Obama winning on a promise of delivering “hope” and “change” to a nation in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At that time, Citigroup was a financial basket-case. It had already received $25 billion from the government’s bailout program known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in October; it was secretly receiving hundreds of billions of dollars more each month in below-market rate, revolving loans from the Federal Reserve — information which the Fed refused to make public despite multiple Freedom of Information Act requests from the media; and Citigroup was just 19 days from more hemorrhaging, requiring an additional government infusion of $20 billion and asset guarantees of more than $300 billion. Citigroup’s stock was at $13.99, a decline of 63 percent in just 12 months and it was on its way to eventually trade as a penny stock, at 99 cents.
    Citigroup had been serially charged by its regulators for abusing its customers and targeting the poor and financially uneducated. But key executives at the bank had played major roles in raising funds for the Barack Obama campaign so it was richly rewarded for that…. despite the obvious fact that Citigroup was both corrupt and derelict in handling its own financial affairs, Barack Obama gave executives of that bank an outsized role in shaping and staffing his first term.”
    We do live in the Empire of Federal Reserve owned by mega-banksters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @annamaria
    This is the best - and artistic - description of a very simple solution to the problem of "humanitarian intervention: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/12/applying-tolstoy-to-todays-rush-to-war/ By Gilbert Doctorow
    "I close this review of the highly relevant exposition of reasoning about drivers of foreign policy in Anna Karenina by quoting Tolstoy’s recommended cure for the war fever of the arbiters of public opinion:

    “I would only make one condition,” pursued the old prince. “Alphonse Karr said a capital thing before the war with Prussia. ‘You consider war to be inevitable? Very good. Let everyone who advocates war be enrolled in a special regiment of advance guards, for the front of every storm, of every attack, to lead them all’!”
    “’A nice lot the editors would make!’ said Katavasov, with a loud roar, as he pictured the editors he knew in this picked legion.”

    Let's send the Kagans, Daniel Pletka, Carl Gershman, and the whole editorial board of The New York Times to the avant-guard in Syria!
    Mike Morell would finally have a chance to participate in combat.
    The Clintons family, led by Chelsea, could show, at last, the strength of their belief in humanitarian interventions.
    And the Congresspeople en masse should be obliged to donate 90% of their income to the cause of the supposed "protecting America over there" in a company of the US-supported "moderate" jihadis (Al Qaeda, actually) against the sovereign state of Syria. The most belligerent among the congresspeople could show their determination by fighting along the "moderates." Mr. Lindsey Graham and Mrs. Louise Slaughter should lead the charge.

    It harks back (or rather forward if to consider when Tolstoy wrote his piece) to Sec Def James Schlesinger, who, while being a hawk himself, suggested to take each new Congress to proving grounds and then detonate (in distance) a low yield nuclear device for American politicians to feel the heat on their faces and hear the sound of nuclear explosion. I think Good ole’ Schlesinger had a good point. But, all this is just wishful thinking, America will not survive as a nation if people of such intellectual power (such as you listed, plus many more) and profundity will be in any way harmed in combat, let alone killed. How can United States then survive without Robert Kagan’s wisdom, both in history and warfare, if the appropriate number of calories are not introduced into him in his D.C. area exclusive restaurants. Don’t underestimate the hardships current US power “elites” experience when deciding what cut of meat have for dinner or if to invest their good (totally deserved) fortunes into “technology” or finances.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Art says:
    @iffen
    I Ain't Marching Anymore

    Phil Ochs

    Oh I marched to the battle of New Orleans
    At the end of the early British war
    The young land started growing
    The young blood started flowing
    But I ain't marchin' anymore

    For I've killed my share of Indians
    In a thousand different fights
    I was there at the Little Big Horn
    I heard many men lying I saw many more dying
    But I ain't marchin' anymore

    chorus)
    It's always the old to lead us to the war
    It's always the young to fall
    Now look at all we've won with the saber and the gun
    Tell me is it worth it all

    For I stole California from the Mexican land
    Fought in the bloody Civil War
    Yes I even killed my brothers
    And so many others But I ain't marchin' anymore

    For I marched to the battles of the German trench
    In a war that was bound to end all wars
    Oh I must have killed a million men
    And now they want me back again
    But I ain't marchin' anymore

    (chorus)

    For I flew the final mission in the Japanese sky
    Set off the mighty mushroom roar
    When I saw the cities burning I knew that I was learning
    That I ain't marchin' anymore

    Now the labor leader's screamin'
    when they close the missile plants,
    United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore,
    Call it "Peace" or call it "Treason,"
    Call it "Love" or call it "Reason,"
    But I ain't marchin' any more,
    No I ain't marchin' any more

    Nothing is going to happen until strong MEN demand NO war – end of story.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Rurik
    thank you Pat

    don't expect too much from my comment history tho, alas. Lot's of intemperate frothing and ranting and licentious mischief

    Apropos of nothing, Rurik, I finally learned about the origin of your screen name.

    May I recommend the recently published book “Driving Down the Spine of Russia”?

    Excellent choice of a screen name, and good luck “ruling over the disputatious Rus” ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Talha
    Hey S2C,

    You definitely hit on something that is crucial to understanding 4th generation warfare:
    "The discussion concluded that while war against another state may be necessary one should seek to preserve that state even as one defeats it. Grant the opposing armies the 'honors of war,' tell them what a fine job they did, make their defeat 'civilized' so they can survive the war institutionally intact and then work for your side. This would be similar to 18th century notions of civilized war and contribute greatly to propping up a fragile state. Humiliating the defeated enemy troops, especially in front of their own population, is always a serious mistake but one that Americans are prone to make. This is because the 'football mentality' we have developed since World War II works against us."
    http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=1702

    Peace.

    Man, I’m agreeing with Talha and Tiny Dick on the same day!

    But to be fair, Talha seems a lot more thoughtful, constructive, and just plain fair than Tiny D is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey RC,

    I can't take credit for that piece of wisdom - all credit goes to Mr. William Lind. A brilliant thinker on current military strategy and tactics that everyone should be listening to.

    More of his timely advice is available here:
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/william-s-lind/

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @denk
    Classic kept in the dark and fed bullshit
    Murkkan !

    Here's China sterling performance on border settlement,
    [1]

    Afghanistan – 0%
    Tajikistan – 4%
    Nepal – 6%
    Burma – 18%
    Kazakhstan – 22%
    Mongolia – 29%
    Kyrgyzstan – 32%
    North Korea – 40%
    Laos – 50%
    Vietnam – 50%
    Russia – 50%
    Pakistan – 54%

    China settled all its border issues peacefully , typically offering great concession to rival claimants. [2]
    For example, China ceded the entire disputed territory to Afghan,
    94% to Nepal....
    No mean feat that !


    Why, cuz Beijing wants to concentrate on national development, it doesnt want to be bogged down with endless and fruitless squabbles, skirmishes.

    If the Nobel committee has any sense, China should've bagged a Peace prize or two for this alone.



    [1]
    India's China blog

    [2]
    except with India !

    Nonsense. Or don’t you consider the South China Sea expansion and island / runway-building to be a fruitless conflict?

    Like most human beings, count on the Chinese to become more aggressive and less reasonable as they gain strength.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Like most human beings, count on the Chinese to become more aggressive and less reasonable as they gain strength.

    RC, you should cut loose all those stupid comments that you make and stick with the good stuff like this.
    , @Avery
    {Nonsense. Or don’t you consider the South China Sea expansion and island / runway-building to be a fruitless conflict?}

    Nonsense back at ya.
    In case you didn't notice, it is called South China Sea.
    Just over the horizon, there sits a very, very large, very very hostile (to China) US aircraft carrier, called USS Japan.

    Only natural for China to build defensive structures in South China Sea to prevent a future invasion by Imperial US Japan and a repeat of Rape of Nanking.


    {Like most human beings, count on the Chinese to become more aggressive and less reasonable as they gain strength.}

    Like most human beings, China and Chinese do not change their base character. Unlike Anglo-Saxons, for example, Chinese have no history of being aggressive. No record of Chinese invading lands 1,000s of miles away from mainland China in their 5,000+ year history. They have used force outside their territory only in their neighborhood, and in the most part to defend themselves.

    , @denk
    You aint a newbie here but obviously you havent been paying attention..or what ?

    China's policy in SCS, ECS is entirely consistent with its border demarcation with its immediate neighbors, settlement thru negotiation and acomodation.

    There was no war in the eastern front before that 'asia pivot' poondoggle.
    Talks had been going on and off, some minor skirmishes on all sides, otherwise its
    business as usual.

    All hell broke loose AFTER the Unitedsnake barged in to break up the party.
    Washington arm twisted Jp, Ph etc to take unilateral action to bolster their claim, China had to react with its own counter measures, or else it'd be forfeiting its claim to the rivals.

    Then China's reaction is twisted into 'aggressions against defenceless Jp [sic], Ph'.
    So we are told that murkka the 'world cop' is being dragged 'screaming and kicking' into another 'crisis' of its own making !

    'crisis, reaction, solution'
    A package deal offer from USA.
    same shit with its proxy war on Russia's doostep.

    The unitedsnake has been playing this trick since 1875 forcrissake and people are still taken in by it ?

    Fool me once ....
    , @Randal

    Like most human beings, count on the Chinese to become more aggressive and less reasonable as they gain strength.
     
    This is certainly what happened with the US.

    While it's reasonable to be concerned about what China will do when it has come into the full strength it seems destined to have (and it has had before), that shouldn't change our opposition today to US efforts to "contain" China in order to prop up its own global power, which it has abused so badly in the past and is abusing so badly today, risking global nuclear war for the sake of its geopolitical rivalries and those of its client states.

    Sufficient unto the day, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Talha says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Man, I'm agreeing with Talha and Tiny Dick on the same day!

    But to be fair, Talha seems a lot more thoughtful, constructive, and just plain fair than Tiny D is.

    Hey RC,

    I can’t take credit for that piece of wisdom – all credit goes to Mr. William Lind. A brilliant thinker on current military strategy and tactics that everyone should be listening to.

    More of his timely advice is available here:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/william-s-lind/

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Thanks Talha - here is a good article for NO war from WS Lind.

    Memo to the Chairman
    If the Joint Chiefs are sick of losing, try a defensive grand strategy.

    To: General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
    From: W.S. Lind
    Re: A New Grand Strategy

    As you probably realize, when you accepted the position of Chairman of the JCS, a great honor no doubt, you received with it a poisoned chalice. The poison is the offensive grand strategy the United States has followed since the end of the Cold War. We seek world hegemony, which we are to use to force every other nation and people on the earth to model themselves on us.

    The chalice knows this poison well. If you look closely, you will see it is covered in fingerprints, Spanish, French, German, and Russian among them. All drank the same potion and died. As Russell Kirk wrote, there is no surer way to make a man your enemy than to tell him you are going to remake him in your image for his own good.

    ...

    ...

    Our new grand strategy should proceed from the most important, most powerful development now reshaping world affairs, the decline of the state. The state is losing both the monopoly on war it established with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and its claim to its population’s primary loyalty. All over the world, people are transferring their loyalty away from the state to religions, races and ethnic groups, ideologies, “causes” such as environmentalism and animal rights, gangs, and so on. These were most people’s primary loyalties before the rise of the state, and a growing number of young men are eager to fight for them once again.

    The article:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/memo-to-the-chairman/
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. iffen says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Nonsense. Or don't you consider the South China Sea expansion and island / runway-building to be a fruitless conflict?

    Like most human beings, count on the Chinese to become more aggressive and less reasonable as they gain strength.

    Like most human beings, count on the Chinese to become more aggressive and less reasonable as they gain strength.

    RC, you should cut loose all those stupid comments that you make and stick with the good stuff like this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Avery says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Nonsense. Or don't you consider the South China Sea expansion and island / runway-building to be a fruitless conflict?

    Like most human beings, count on the Chinese to become more aggressive and less reasonable as they gain strength.

    {Nonsense. Or don’t you consider the South China Sea expansion and island / runway-building to be a fruitless conflict?}

    Nonsense back at ya.
    In case you didn’t notice, it is called South China Sea.
    Just over the horizon, there sits a very, very large, very very hostile (to China) US aircraft carrier, called USS Japan.

    Only natural for China to build defensive structures in South China Sea to prevent a future invasion by Imperial US Japan and a repeat of Rape of Nanking.

    {Like most human beings, count on the Chinese to become more aggressive and less reasonable as they gain strength.}

    Like most human beings, China and Chinese do not change their base character. Unlike Anglo-Saxons, for example, Chinese have no history of being aggressive. No record of Chinese invading lands 1,000s of miles away from mainland China in their 5,000+ year history. They have used force outside their territory only in their neighborhood, and in the most part to defend themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Just because they couldn't in the past doesn't mean that they won't in the future.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Art says:
    @Talha
    Hey RC,

    I can't take credit for that piece of wisdom - all credit goes to Mr. William Lind. A brilliant thinker on current military strategy and tactics that everyone should be listening to.

    More of his timely advice is available here:
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/william-s-lind/

    Peace.

    Thanks Talha – here is a good article for NO war from WS Lind.

    [MORE]

    Memo to the Chairman
    If the Joint Chiefs are sick of losing, try a defensive grand strategy.

    To: General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
    From: W.S. Lind
    Re: A New Grand Strategy

    As you probably realize, when you accepted the position of Chairman of the JCS, a great honor no doubt, you received with it a poisoned chalice. The poison is the offensive grand strategy the United States has followed since the end of the Cold War. We seek world hegemony, which we are to use to force every other nation and people on the earth to model themselves on us.

    The chalice knows this poison well. If you look closely, you will see it is covered in fingerprints, Spanish, French, German, and Russian among them. All drank the same potion and died. As Russell Kirk wrote, there is no surer way to make a man your enemy than to tell him you are going to remake him in your image for his own good.

    Our new grand strategy should proceed from the most important, most powerful development now reshaping world affairs, the decline of the state. The state is losing both the monopoly on war it established with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and its claim to its population’s primary loyalty. All over the world, people are transferring their loyalty away from the state to religions, races and ethnic groups, ideologies, “causes” such as environmentalism and animal rights, gangs, and so on. These were most people’s primary loyalties before the rise of the state, and a growing number of young men are eager to fight for them once again.

    The article:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/memo-to-the-chairman/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Art,

    Bam! I tell you, the man is on point! Modern war is to be avoided at all costs. This is no longer the age of honorable samurai facing each other on the plains or daring night raids into vastly superior enemy encampments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maritsa). We are even past the age when one could perform an honorary salute for a valiant enemy even upon vanquishing him:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJUzIKeJJdY

    No, this is the age of mini-Stalingrads wherever war drags its bloody feet and corpses of children intertwined with the steel structures they are buried under.

    I remember reading of a bomb falling in the middle of a group of children waiting for a school bus in Iraq. In the aftermath, there was a chaos - of wailing parents fighting each other to lay claim the unidentifiable parts of their collective children that had scattered everywhere.

    This...must...stop. There is no more honor in this.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. KenH says:

    As it is critically important to get the intelligence right so the decision making will be shaped around reality rather than overblown expectations, the firewall between intelligence and policy has to be maintained at all costs.

    It’s well known that our intelligence leading up to Iraq war II was cherry picked and fixed around the policy that Saddam was providing aid and comfort to Al Qaeda and posed an imminent threat to the USA (read: Israel). The British press ran numerous stories of the war inside the CIA where analysts were bitterly complaining, leading to some resignations, over being arm twisted to give the Israel worshipping Bush admin the intelligence they were seeking. Analysts pride themselves on being apolitical.

    There’s no integrity with our institutions shaping foreign policy and they are mostly staffed by careerists or pro-war, Russophobic and pro-Israel idealogues.

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. iffen says:
    @Avery
    {Nonsense. Or don’t you consider the South China Sea expansion and island / runway-building to be a fruitless conflict?}

    Nonsense back at ya.
    In case you didn't notice, it is called South China Sea.
    Just over the horizon, there sits a very, very large, very very hostile (to China) US aircraft carrier, called USS Japan.

    Only natural for China to build defensive structures in South China Sea to prevent a future invasion by Imperial US Japan and a repeat of Rape of Nanking.


    {Like most human beings, count on the Chinese to become more aggressive and less reasonable as they gain strength.}

    Like most human beings, China and Chinese do not change their base character. Unlike Anglo-Saxons, for example, Chinese have no history of being aggressive. No record of Chinese invading lands 1,000s of miles away from mainland China in their 5,000+ year history. They have used force outside their territory only in their neighborhood, and in the most part to defend themselves.

    Just because they couldn’t in the past doesn’t mean that they won’t in the future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    No doubt.
    But members of gangs commit crimes highly disproportionate to their numbers. People who have led lives of no-crime, don’t suddenly become career criminals.

    A 5,000+ year history of being non-aggressive is a pretty good track record.

    And yeah, just because we haven’t been hit by an asteroid, doesn’t mean we won’t in the future.
    So?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Avery says:
    @iffen
    Just because they couldn't in the past doesn't mean that they won't in the future.

    No doubt.
    But members of gangs commit crimes highly disproportionate to their numbers. People who have led lives of no-crime, don’t suddenly become career criminals.

    A 5,000+ year history of being non-aggressive is a pretty good track record.

    And yeah, just because we haven’t been hit by an asteroid, doesn’t mean we won’t in the future.
    So?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Well, actually I think that we have been hit by asteroids in the past.

    China has been normally agressive against its surrounding entities. The fact that it has heretofore not had the capability of projecting its aggression world-wide does not tell us that it will not in the future.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. iffen says:
    @Avery
    No doubt.
    But members of gangs commit crimes highly disproportionate to their numbers. People who have led lives of no-crime, don’t suddenly become career criminals.

    A 5,000+ year history of being non-aggressive is a pretty good track record.

    And yeah, just because we haven’t been hit by an asteroid, doesn’t mean we won’t in the future.
    So?

    Well, actually I think that we have been hit by asteroids in the past.

    China has been normally agressive against its surrounding entities. The fact that it has heretofore not had the capability of projecting its aggression world-wide does not tell us that it will not in the future.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Epaminondas
    It started with the Mexican War in 1848. Once the bankers gained complete control in the Civil War, the drive toward empire went into overdrive. We're there.

    Nice comment. I would however say that America’s appetite for empire started even earlier than the Mexican War. And in fact began with the US invading Canada, only a few short years after Washington formed the 1st Continental Army.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "in fact began with the US invading Canada" - The plan for at least a continental empire was there from day one. I am sure it is in writings of Jefferson, Madison, etc. They believed that Cuba, Puerto Rico would be part of the US. Lewis and Clark...

    Mexican War on the other hand gave some ideas for expansion and conducting the war to Southerners and fantasy of conquering South America all the way to Tierra del Fuego. I heard an opinion that w/o the Mexican War there would be no Civil War.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @mp
    There are only two significant nations in the world where their people are aggressively belligerent to their neighbors – Israel and China.

    What neighboring country has China fought, recently? They traded some blows with the Soviets back in the day. And fought a small border battle with Vietnam after the latter invaded Cambodia. Unless you are talking about Chinese women aggressively shopping for bargains in Japan. I hear they really like Japanese electronic toilet seats, and can be pretty aggressive when standing in queue.

    Tibet comes to mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mp
    Tibet situation is not as clear cut as many think. More of a stomping ground for competing groups over the centuries. It is, however, probably as close as one can get to claiming Chinese imperialism, although Chinese political and cultural influence in the area goes back centuries. But it's not exactly a great example of Chinese expansionary policy. Certainly as it is supposed to threaten the West.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Talha says:
    @Art
    Thanks Talha - here is a good article for NO war from WS Lind.

    Memo to the Chairman
    If the Joint Chiefs are sick of losing, try a defensive grand strategy.

    To: General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
    From: W.S. Lind
    Re: A New Grand Strategy

    As you probably realize, when you accepted the position of Chairman of the JCS, a great honor no doubt, you received with it a poisoned chalice. The poison is the offensive grand strategy the United States has followed since the end of the Cold War. We seek world hegemony, which we are to use to force every other nation and people on the earth to model themselves on us.

    The chalice knows this poison well. If you look closely, you will see it is covered in fingerprints, Spanish, French, German, and Russian among them. All drank the same potion and died. As Russell Kirk wrote, there is no surer way to make a man your enemy than to tell him you are going to remake him in your image for his own good.

    ...

    ...

    Our new grand strategy should proceed from the most important, most powerful development now reshaping world affairs, the decline of the state. The state is losing both the monopoly on war it established with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and its claim to its population’s primary loyalty. All over the world, people are transferring their loyalty away from the state to religions, races and ethnic groups, ideologies, “causes” such as environmentalism and animal rights, gangs, and so on. These were most people’s primary loyalties before the rise of the state, and a growing number of young men are eager to fight for them once again.

    The article:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/memo-to-the-chairman/
     

    Hey Art,

    Bam! I tell you, the man is on point! Modern war is to be avoided at all costs. This is no longer the age of honorable samurai facing each other on the plains or daring night raids into vastly superior enemy encampments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maritsa). We are even past the age when one could perform an honorary salute for a valiant enemy even upon vanquishing him:

    No, this is the age of mini-Stalingrads wherever war drags its bloody feet and corpses of children intertwined with the steel structures they are buried under.

    I remember reading of a bomb falling in the middle of a group of children waiting for a school bus in Iraq. In the aftermath, there was a chaos – of wailing parents fighting each other to lay claim the unidentifiable parts of their collective children that had scattered everywhere.

    This…must…stop. There is no more honor in this.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Isaiah 2:4

    And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. utu says:
    @Carroll Price
    Nice comment. I would however say that America's appetite for empire started even earlier than the Mexican War. And in fact began with the US invading Canada, only a few short years after Washington formed the 1st Continental Army.

    “in fact began with the US invading Canada” – The plan for at least a continental empire was there from day one. I am sure it is in writings of Jefferson, Madison, etc. They believed that Cuba, Puerto Rico would be part of the US. Lewis and Clark…

    Mexican War on the other hand gave some ideas for expansion and conducting the war to Southerners and fantasy of conquering South America all the way to Tierra del Fuego. I heard an opinion that w/o the Mexican War there would be no Civil War.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. denk says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Nonsense. Or don't you consider the South China Sea expansion and island / runway-building to be a fruitless conflict?

    Like most human beings, count on the Chinese to become more aggressive and less reasonable as they gain strength.

    You aint a newbie here but obviously you havent been paying attention..or what ?

    China’s policy in SCS, ECS is entirely consistent with its border demarcation with its immediate neighbors, settlement thru negotiation and acomodation.

    There was no war in the eastern front before that ‘asia pivot’ poondoggle.
    Talks had been going on and off, some minor skirmishes on all sides, otherwise its
    business as usual.

    All hell broke loose AFTER the Unitedsnake barged in to break up the party.
    Washington arm twisted Jp, Ph etc to take unilateral action to bolster their claim, China had to react with its own counter measures, or else it’d be forfeiting its claim to the rivals.

    Then China’s reaction is twisted into ‘aggressions against defenceless Jp [sic], Ph’.
    So we are told that murkka the ‘world cop’ is being dragged ‘screaming and kicking’ into another ‘crisis’ of its own making !

    crisis, reaction, solution
    A package deal offer from USA.
    same shit with its proxy war on Russia’s doostep.

    The unitedsnake has been playing this trick since 1875 forcrissake and people are still taken in by it ?

    Fool me once ….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. denk says:
    @Quartermaster
    Russia is quite aggressive to her neighbors and has even invaded Ukraine. Putin's reason for doing so is a chimera and exists only in his propaganda.

    China certainly is aggressive to her neighbors as well acting to take stuff that doesn't belong to her in both the West Philippine Sea and the South Japanese Sea. Taipei and Hanoi can certainly tell you a story about Chinese imperialism as well.

    The legacy of murkkan interventions in a nutshell…

    Unitedsnake,
    Your name is Destroyer …of nations, families, friendships, environment, period.

    No amount of distraction about SCS, Tibet, …blah blah is gonna change this fact.
    Get this into your thick skull redneck.

    You and your ilks are the reason why Murkka has been on war footing 222 yrs outta
    its 234 miserable life span !
    A unique feat in human history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. mp says:
    @Carroll Price
    Tibet comes to mind.

    Tibet situation is not as clear cut as many think. More of a stomping ground for competing groups over the centuries. It is, however, probably as close as one can get to claiming Chinese imperialism, although Chinese political and cultural influence in the area goes back centuries. But it’s not exactly a great example of Chinese expansionary policy. Certainly as it is supposed to threaten the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    I've also heard that Tibetan standard of living and quality of life are substantially better under the Chinese. Do you have any knowledge about that claim?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Randal says:
    @iffen
    But Americans, being hypocrites, don’t think their government, being special

    It is not hypocrisy if you really believe it.

    It is not hypocrisy if you really believe it.

    The hypocrisy lies in applying different (lower) standards for international behaviour to your own country from those you apply to others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    That's called applying a double standard, not hypocrisy.

    It is a bit semantic, I concede your point.
    , @jacques sheete

    The hypocrisy lies in applying different (lower) standards for international behaviour to your own country from those you apply to others.
     
    Exquisite. Well done.
    , @Talha
    Especially when you have actively drafted treaties and protocols that you have signed and refuse to abide by - that is topping the whole shebang with blatant treachery as well.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Randal says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Nonsense. Or don't you consider the South China Sea expansion and island / runway-building to be a fruitless conflict?

    Like most human beings, count on the Chinese to become more aggressive and less reasonable as they gain strength.

    Like most human beings, count on the Chinese to become more aggressive and less reasonable as they gain strength.

    This is certainly what happened with the US.

    While it’s reasonable to be concerned about what China will do when it has come into the full strength it seems destined to have (and it has had before), that shouldn’t change our opposition today to US efforts to “contain” China in order to prop up its own global power, which it has abused so badly in the past and is abusing so badly today, risking global nuclear war for the sake of its geopolitical rivalries and those of its client states.

    Sufficient unto the day, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Randal says:
    @Talha
    Hey S2C,

    You definitely hit on something that is crucial to understanding 4th generation warfare:
    "The discussion concluded that while war against another state may be necessary one should seek to preserve that state even as one defeats it. Grant the opposing armies the 'honors of war,' tell them what a fine job they did, make their defeat 'civilized' so they can survive the war institutionally intact and then work for your side. This would be similar to 18th century notions of civilized war and contribute greatly to propping up a fragile state. Humiliating the defeated enemy troops, especially in front of their own population, is always a serious mistake but one that Americans are prone to make. This is because the 'football mentality' we have developed since World War II works against us."
    http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=1702

    Peace.

    Humiliating the defeated enemy troops, especially in front of their own population, is always a serious mistake but one that Americans are prone to make.

    Contra Lind et al, there is a time for the brutal exhibition of ruthless force (see for instance the brutal British treatment of the Indian rebel troops – who lacked real popular legitimacy – in 1857, which led to the re-establishment of order and British control in India for generations) and there is a time for decency and co-opting the defeated military and elites.

    The US’s problem, I think, is that the need to demonise in order to justify its wars internally, largely overrides the possibility of choice in how to treat the defeated.

    I don’t find Lind’s overall 4GW thesis particularly convincing, but a lot of his observations are strikingly apt. His discussion of the problems caused by the US military’s fixation with force protection is one such:

    Unfortunately, the American doctrine of “force protection” works against integration and generally hurts us badly. Here’s a quote from the minutes of the seminar:

    “There are two ways to deal with the issue of force protection. One way is the way we are currently doing it, which is to separate ourselves from the population and to intimidate them with our firepower. A more viable alternative might be to take the opposite approach and integrate with the community. That way you find out more of what is going on and the population protects you. The British approach of getting the helmets off as soon as possible may actually be saving lives.”

    • What “wins” at the tactical and physical levels may lose at the operational, strategic, mental and moral levels, where 4GW is decided. Martin van Creveld argues that one reason the British have not lost in Northern Ireland is that the British Army has taken more casualties than it has inflicted. This is something the Second Generation American military has great trouble grasping, because it defines success in terms of comparative attrition rates.

    Connect this with the excellent analogy made by Rurik above, between the very real problems in US policing (as opposed to the fantasy problems invented by Black lives Matter and their “antiracist” sympathisers in order to further their identity lobby race-baiting) and US foreign policy:

    I have posted a video of an American cop relentlessly tazing and then simply murdering a man lying in the snow because he wouldn’t “get on the ground now!”.

    the significant thing about that video is that the cop was acquitted of all charges, and then went on to explain how she was the victim

    the reason I post that video is because this is America’s mentality writ large on the world’s stage.

    if America says ‘get on the ground’ (give up your WMD), and they fail to do so, then America has every right to slaughter and maim and destroy the lives of millions upon millions of your citizens, because you didn’t ‘get on the ground now’.. you didn’t surrender your WMD, – even if you’re on the ground or surrendered all your WMD long ago. None of that matters. It’s just who has more firepower and the veil of ‘authority’. That what determines who is right.

    There is definitely an underlying problem here that is rooted in the authoritarian aspects of US culture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Connect this with the excellent analogy made by Rurik above, between the very real problems in US policing . . . and US foreign policy:
     
    Anthropology prof. Jeff Halper argues that Techniques used in occupation of Palestine have been globalized, to occupy the rest of the world:

    The Global Pacification Industry
    - Jeff Halper, Coordinator, Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions ICAHD
    (h/t MRW on SicSemperTyrannis)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVa0QbH8YcA

    , @Talha
    Hey Randal,

    You make a good point - and I agree, in the past there were times to let the enemy off the hook and times when to cut them down to a man (Saladin [ra] did this to all the men that were sent by Reynald de Chatillon to harass and raid pilgrim ships and caravans to Mecca - no prisoners were taken). Keep in mind that Mr. Lind is talking about the current situation when the nation-state model is preeminent. Is it the perfect model? No, but it is what we have to deal with. Armies of the past were often separate from the peasantry or citizenry. They sometimes represented a distinct class or the ruler's personal army which was often at war with its own underclass. With the advent of the nation state, more often than not, the army represents the people's army or the army of the national identity. Humiliating them is humiliating the sons of the nation - it causes deep-seated resentment.

    Agreed on that point about force protection. My guess is that it is connected to the fact - that you pointed out - our wars are largely about things that few would be willing to die for thus the casualties need to be kept low and out of sight.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Randal says:
    @Rurik

    But Americans, being hypocrites, don’t think their government, being special, should be subject to such reasonable restrictions, only foreigners’ g0vernments.
     
    it's not that we're hypocrites, it's that we're exceptional!

    that's the reason the rules don't apply to us, because we are soooo good, and sooo right and brave and free, that anyone we drop a bomb on had it coming, simply by virtue of the fact that is was America that dropped the bomb on them. As soon as the Hellfire missile hits its target, is the exact point at which the world can be assured that the target, the wedding for instance, needed to be hit.

    It's an amazingly foolproof way of knowing that you're always right, because by "virtue" of the very fact that it is you doing it, that's what makes it right.

    it is no different than the "justification" necessary for the police to shoot and kill someone, (or break their spine and then toss them in the back of a van for a 'rough ride'), or the government to assassinate someone. By the mere fact that it was someone in authority who did it = makes the act a just and righteous act.

    And who has more authority =(might) than the US government?

    The people slaughtered in Fallujah deserved their fate at the exact moment the depleted uranium fell on their houses and splattered their children. It was at that moment that their lives didn't deserve to continue. And that is how it works. No shit.

    that's all the "justification" they need. That they did it. Period.

    and so yea

    gliders capable of flying across the Atlantic Ocean with chemical or biological weapons and had the intent to use them
     
    we know and knew their intent at the very moment of shock and awe

    as soon as our smart bombs were striking Baghdad, is the exact moment that Saddam's intent was a certainty. Because America was bombing him/them. No less that how we all knew the intent of the Serbians who deserved to be bombed and slaughtered, because we were bombing and slaughtering them. And the Afghans and all the others.

    I have posted a video of an American cop relentlessly tazing and then simply murdering a man lying in the snow because he wouldn't "get on the ground now!".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2h7rHgBzTc

    the significant thing about that video is that the cop was acquitted of all charges, and then went on to explain how she was the victim

    the reason I post that video is because this is America's mentality writ large on the world's stage.

    if America says 'get on the ground' (give up your WMD), and they fail to do so, then America has every right to slaughter and maim and destroy the lives of millions upon millions of your citizens, because you didn't 'get on the ground now'.. you didn't surrender your WMD, - even if you're on the ground or surrendered all your WMD long ago. None of that matters. It's just who has more firepower and the veil of 'authority'. That what determines who is right.

    Most American by now vaguely know that our government has been arming and funding militants in Syria. They know that our government has been wreaking havoc in the Middle East, but they're also very much under the iron dome of Zionist propaganda, and are relentlessly lied to about everything, especially about Saddam and 911 and WMD and how Israel is our bestest buddy ever, and how Assad and Putin are acting aggressively and committing atrocities and blah, blah, blah. It's all lies. Just like the 'Americans as 'exceptional' people are lies, unless you consider that Americans are exceptionally lied to.

    The objective to bring about regime change was both clear and easily achievable but there was not much consideration of what would happen on the day after or of consequences both for the region and the Iraqi people. There was no timetable and no exit strategy and the mission morphed into nation building,
     
    the objective was to do exactly what they've done. To destroy Iraq and create sectarian strife for perpetuity. To create a failed state that would hemorrhage destabilization to the entire region. There was never supposed to be an exit strategy or any 'nation building'. This was all about nation destroying from the very beginning, and that's all it's about today, as they have their sights on Syria. Only an idiot would believe that the US cares about the Syrian people and wants to protect them. Hogwash. They want to send them reeling into a stone age hell on earth for the rest of eternity so Israel can ravage their lands and lord it over them. Duh!

    and Iraq demonstrated that bad intelligence produces bad results just as it did some years later in regard to Libya. And the problem persists in that assessments made at the working level and on the ground regarding Afghanistan have been for years pessimistic even as the intelligence community continues to support White House efforts at nation building.
     
    the "bad" results in Libya are exactly what they wanted. Pretending that America's agenda in Libya was humanitarian, is like pretending that when Bibi bombs Gaza he's acting like "a man of peace". Which is what George Bush called Ariel Sharon. Our entire narrative and paradigm and everything we hear are all Orwellian lies and duplicity. 365- 24/7

    The intelligence community exists to project American (read Israeli) power though out the world. They exist to destabilize nations inconvenient to Zio-US's agenda. To spread lies and traffic heroin and foment psyops in the service of the PTB. They're in it for their own self-interest and will lie and assassinate and murder as long as they're paid handsomely to do so.

    wouldn't you pretty much agree, Mr. G?

    I have posted a video of an American cop relentlessly tazing and then simply murdering a man lying in the snow because he wouldn’t “get on the ground now!”.

    the significant thing about that video is that the cop was acquitted of all charges, and then went on to explain how she was the victim

    the reason I post that video is because this is America’s mentality writ large on the world’s stage.

    if America says ‘get on the ground’ (give up your WMD), and they fail to do so, then America has every right to slaughter and maim and destroy the lives of millions upon millions of your citizens, because you didn’t ‘get on the ground now’.. you didn’t surrender your WMD, – even if you’re on the ground or surrendered all your WMD long ago. None of that matters. It’s just who has more firepower and the veil of ‘authority’. That what determines who is right.

    An excellent analogy, I think, and one that hits on a significant flaw in US culture. See my reply to Talha above.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. iffen says:
    @Talha
    Hey Art,

    Bam! I tell you, the man is on point! Modern war is to be avoided at all costs. This is no longer the age of honorable samurai facing each other on the plains or daring night raids into vastly superior enemy encampments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maritsa). We are even past the age when one could perform an honorary salute for a valiant enemy even upon vanquishing him:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJUzIKeJJdY

    No, this is the age of mini-Stalingrads wherever war drags its bloody feet and corpses of children intertwined with the steel structures they are buried under.

    I remember reading of a bomb falling in the middle of a group of children waiting for a school bus in Iraq. In the aftermath, there was a chaos - of wailing parents fighting each other to lay claim the unidentifiable parts of their collective children that had scattered everywhere.

    This...must...stop. There is no more honor in this.

    Peace.

    Isaiah 2:4

    And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. iffen says:
    @Randal
    "It is not hypocrisy if you really believe it."

    The hypocrisy lies in applying different (lower) standards for international behaviour to your own country from those you apply to others.

    That’s called applying a double standard, not hypocrisy.

    It is a bit semantic, I concede your point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Randal

    Humiliating the defeated enemy troops, especially in front of their own population, is always a serious mistake but one that Americans are prone to make.
     
    Contra Lind et al, there is a time for the brutal exhibition of ruthless force (see for instance the brutal British treatment of the Indian rebel troops - who lacked real popular legitimacy - in 1857, which led to the re-establishment of order and British control in India for generations) and there is a time for decency and co-opting the defeated military and elites.

    The US's problem, I think, is that the need to demonise in order to justify its wars internally, largely overrides the possibility of choice in how to treat the defeated.

    I don't find Lind's overall 4GW thesis particularly convincing, but a lot of his observations are strikingly apt. His discussion of the problems caused by the US military's fixation with force protection is one such:

    Unfortunately, the American doctrine of "force protection" works against integration and generally hurts us badly. Here's a quote from the minutes of the seminar:

    "There are two ways to deal with the issue of force protection. One way is the way we are currently doing it, which is to separate ourselves from the population and to intimidate them with our firepower. A more viable alternative might be to take the opposite approach and integrate with the community. That way you find out more of what is going on and the population protects you. The British approach of getting the helmets off as soon as possible may actually be saving lives."

    • What "wins" at the tactical and physical levels may lose at the operational, strategic, mental and moral levels, where 4GW is decided. Martin van Creveld argues that one reason the British have not lost in Northern Ireland is that the British Army has taken more casualties than it has inflicted. This is something the Second Generation American military has great trouble grasping, because it defines success in terms of comparative attrition rates.
     
    Connect this with the excellent analogy made by Rurik above, between the very real problems in US policing (as opposed to the fantasy problems invented by Black lives Matter and their "antiracist" sympathisers in order to further their identity lobby race-baiting) and US foreign policy:

    I have posted a video of an American cop relentlessly tazing and then simply murdering a man lying in the snow because he wouldn’t “get on the ground now!”.



    the significant thing about that video is that the cop was acquitted of all charges, and then went on to explain how she was the victim

    the reason I post that video is because this is America’s mentality writ large on the world’s stage.

    if America says ‘get on the ground’ (give up your WMD), and they fail to do so, then America has every right to slaughter and maim and destroy the lives of millions upon millions of your citizens, because you didn’t ‘get on the ground now’.. you didn’t surrender your WMD, – even if you’re on the ground or surrendered all your WMD long ago. None of that matters. It’s just who has more firepower and the veil of ‘authority’. That what determines who is right.
     
    There is definitely an underlying problem here that is rooted in the authoritarian aspects of US culture.

    Connect this with the excellent analogy made by Rurik above, between the very real problems in US policing . . . and US foreign policy:

    Anthropology prof. Jeff Halper argues that Techniques used in occupation of Palestine have been globalized, to occupy the rest of the world:

    The Global Pacification Industry
    - Jeff Halper, Coordinator, Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions ICAHD
    (h/t MRW on SicSemperTyrannis)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Randal
    "It is not hypocrisy if you really believe it."

    The hypocrisy lies in applying different (lower) standards for international behaviour to your own country from those you apply to others.

    The hypocrisy lies in applying different (lower) standards for international behaviour to your own country from those you apply to others.

    Exquisite. Well done.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. As he certainly knows better, I had hope(s) Mr. Giraldi would cease calling mid-20th to 21st Century interventionist onslaughts as “U.S. Interventionism.” Making reference to the U.S.A. is retro and intensely. Right now this scourge is the real Axis of Evil; consisting of Israel, Neocons, and AIPAC.

    To reiterate a previous point made her, as Khruschev’s USSR needed de-Stalinization, America desperately needs de-Zionization.

    The USrael process succeeded at creating a soft totalitarianism in the world’s “Greatest Superpower. Their essential ideology is a transformed Marxist-Leninism where tribal GREED & PRIVILEGE is paramount. As the Soviet Union took control of the Media with Pravda and Izvestia, USrael now has the main stream media “Big 6″ in it’s control.

    As WW III approaches, I do not (!) believe the luxury of a free internet is designed to last very much longer.

    There’s no (0) well-heeled (USrael-based) multi billionaire who would risk his/her life by creating something like a united “Unzterpunch/AntiwarUnCommonVoice” TV channel. But as time is running short on the noble (www) Resistance, I have a (samizdat) pipe dream consisting of Truth Telling Web Sites of The World Unite!

    Just think… 2-4 essential (daily) articles written by brave people like Paul Craig Roberts, Phil Giraldi, and I’ll add a personal choice, Ray McGovern. Although he has broken off diplomatic relations with me, I endorse the powerful thought and photography works of Linh Dinh.

    Just think… USrael working stiffs like me can go home, and with little spare time, seek MOST CRITICAL INFORMATION (M.C.I.) by going to a consolidated Resistance web site.

    Just think… instead of individual daring web site operators having to raise annual funds for continued operations, there could be a one (1) world wide web funnel into which The Aboveground Sheeple (like me) can shed a percentage of their valuable wool into.

    (NOTE: The CEO of my suggested “Truth Telling Web Sites of The World Unite” must have certain credentials. 1. They must have documented evidence of being forcibly removed from USrael academia and/or having been removed from USrael Congress. 2. Anyone having spent USrael jail time for either their political views or actions, i.e., Cynthia McKinney and Kathy Kelly, will have no need to undergo a Resistance background check)

    I realize all the above is “pie-in-the-terror-sky”… such a communication endeavor is Too Big and Destined To Fail. But thank you, Ron, for another opportunity to talk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    As the former "USSR needed de-Stalinization, America desperately needs de-Zionization."

    This is no accident that the prominent ziocon ideologues were brought up as trotskists. Similar to the political winners of the Bolshevik revolution, the US ziocons are very skeptical of democratic institutions. The ziocon crowd is very fond of "we know better." Trotsky, living in New York on a stipend from a banker (Jacob H. Schiff) knew better what exactly the Russian population needed. The power-thirsty revolutionary band (that included an extraordinary disproportionate number of ethnic Jews) has succeeded in attacking and dissolving the very first democratic attempt at democracy in Russia - The Constitutional Assembly. The results of "we-know-better" approach to governance in Russia were the civil war, famine, concentration camps, imprisonment and torture without trial, and other horrible facts of the Soviet life.
    It seems that the Soviet idea of Global Revolution was resurrected in the US as PNAC.
    http://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/constituent-assembly/http://rense.com/general33/trot.htm

    , @Art

    To reiterate a previous point made her, as Khruschev’s USSR needed de-Stalinization, America desperately needs de-Zionization.
     
    Everyone has to know my great distaste for Zionism. Of the groups of people who have power in this world, they are the worst. The Big Jew Zionists abuse everyone. They abuse their Little Jews, especially their children. They traumatize them at an early age by inculcating a fear and hate for everyone who is not a Jew. By design, they permanently separate their children from the rest of humanity. They infuse their tribesman with a superiority mindset that promotes them to be dishonest.

    The West is no longer Christian – the Western governments are in the control of Big Jew Zionists and their money. The US dollar is now controlled by Jews. With the election of Hillary, in ten years it will be illegal to say something against the Jews. People will not be able to fight Zionism. It will control everything Western.

    The only alternative to them, is for people to join in a world peace movement. A genuine peace movement cannot be shut down by the Jews. They will try – they will muscle into its leadership – but its power will reside with genuine desires of the masses.

    Peace!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. KA says:

    American interventiosm leaves trails of destruction . It has always without exception. But that interventionism taps into same childish braggish clownish bravado presented as American exceptionalism with a known destiny that God has endowed with greatness which also pexplains the pro war racist anti foreigners behaviors of the plebes drunk excited ignorant confused hateful pedestrians on the main streets . Main Street and Bush Cheney gang joined forces after 911 That marriage keeps on taking vows of renewal again again and has been getting the blessings of the high priest of money. Both the top and the mass are joined in the hip with the theme opportunity rationalization , corruptions ,and intervention.

    So when NYT blames Trump supporters ,they miss the other half of the story- American exceptionalism of intervention readiness has lost the white mass who are Trumpine but still has Bush Cheney Obama Clinton mafia who are now looking for support among the immigrants to fulfill that American dreams in 21 st century.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/opinion/donald-trumps-toxic-masculinity.html?_r=0

    “But the real world — complicated foreign policy questions, confusing social change, economic dislocation — is precisely what toxic masculinity is trying to avoid. It’s bigger than any one person, which makes it a threat to men who cling to the belief that they alone control their fate. Though such masculinity might temporarily shelter men from the pressures of their daily lives, inevitably it robs them of their lives: Disturbing trends show that men, especially the white men who make up a majority of Mr. Trump’s base, are suffering greatly for their posturing.”
    NYT .

    Macho masculity replaced the discussion and debates on foreign policy long time ago when we ” kicked the Vietnam Sundrome” and sent orders to Taliban to surrender without need for any proof or third party involvement . All we have debris from the masculinity and thats are evident both at home and in Aleppo or Fallujah .
    The legacy willbe with us for a longtime.

    Unfortunately it will be the hollow masculinity that will continue to reverberate among those white among those dispossessed among those confused rural masses for generations. They don’t have and will not have power to rejuvenate because rejuvenation requires understanding sul searching and capacity to accept the blame

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. RobinG says:
    @mp
    Tibet situation is not as clear cut as many think. More of a stomping ground for competing groups over the centuries. It is, however, probably as close as one can get to claiming Chinese imperialism, although Chinese political and cultural influence in the area goes back centuries. But it's not exactly a great example of Chinese expansionary policy. Certainly as it is supposed to threaten the West.

    I’ve also heard that Tibetan standard of living and quality of life are substantially better under the Chinese. Do you have any knowledge about that claim?

    Read More
    • Replies: @mp
    It's a mixed bag, and like other material things, the abstract notion of standard of living is more or less relative to expectations. In some respects it is better to live a harder life. One of the problems of Western anomie, to a large extent attributable to the rise of the machine (technics in general), is a resulting social and familial disintegration. It is already happening in China, and as far as Tibet? Why hike up the mountain in the snow in order to contemplate the Buddha when it's so much easier to take a cable-car? The answer is, of course, climbing prepares one for the meeting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Talha says:
    @Randal

    Humiliating the defeated enemy troops, especially in front of their own population, is always a serious mistake but one that Americans are prone to make.
     
    Contra Lind et al, there is a time for the brutal exhibition of ruthless force (see for instance the brutal British treatment of the Indian rebel troops - who lacked real popular legitimacy - in 1857, which led to the re-establishment of order and British control in India for generations) and there is a time for decency and co-opting the defeated military and elites.

    The US's problem, I think, is that the need to demonise in order to justify its wars internally, largely overrides the possibility of choice in how to treat the defeated.

    I don't find Lind's overall 4GW thesis particularly convincing, but a lot of his observations are strikingly apt. His discussion of the problems caused by the US military's fixation with force protection is one such:

    Unfortunately, the American doctrine of "force protection" works against integration and generally hurts us badly. Here's a quote from the minutes of the seminar:

    "There are two ways to deal with the issue of force protection. One way is the way we are currently doing it, which is to separate ourselves from the population and to intimidate them with our firepower. A more viable alternative might be to take the opposite approach and integrate with the community. That way you find out more of what is going on and the population protects you. The British approach of getting the helmets off as soon as possible may actually be saving lives."

    • What "wins" at the tactical and physical levels may lose at the operational, strategic, mental and moral levels, where 4GW is decided. Martin van Creveld argues that one reason the British have not lost in Northern Ireland is that the British Army has taken more casualties than it has inflicted. This is something the Second Generation American military has great trouble grasping, because it defines success in terms of comparative attrition rates.
     
    Connect this with the excellent analogy made by Rurik above, between the very real problems in US policing (as opposed to the fantasy problems invented by Black lives Matter and their "antiracist" sympathisers in order to further their identity lobby race-baiting) and US foreign policy:

    I have posted a video of an American cop relentlessly tazing and then simply murdering a man lying in the snow because he wouldn’t “get on the ground now!”.



    the significant thing about that video is that the cop was acquitted of all charges, and then went on to explain how she was the victim

    the reason I post that video is because this is America’s mentality writ large on the world’s stage.

    if America says ‘get on the ground’ (give up your WMD), and they fail to do so, then America has every right to slaughter and maim and destroy the lives of millions upon millions of your citizens, because you didn’t ‘get on the ground now’.. you didn’t surrender your WMD, – even if you’re on the ground or surrendered all your WMD long ago. None of that matters. It’s just who has more firepower and the veil of ‘authority’. That what determines who is right.
     
    There is definitely an underlying problem here that is rooted in the authoritarian aspects of US culture.

    Hey Randal,

    You make a good point – and I agree, in the past there were times to let the enemy off the hook and times when to cut them down to a man (Saladin [ra] did this to all the men that were sent by Reynald de Chatillon to harass and raid pilgrim ships and caravans to Mecca – no prisoners were taken). Keep in mind that Mr. Lind is talking about the current situation when the nation-state model is preeminent. Is it the perfect model? No, but it is what we have to deal with. Armies of the past were often separate from the peasantry or citizenry. They sometimes represented a distinct class or the ruler’s personal army which was often at war with its own underclass. With the advent of the nation state, more often than not, the army represents the people’s army or the army of the national identity. Humiliating them is humiliating the sons of the nation – it causes deep-seated resentment.

    Agreed on that point about force protection. My guess is that it is connected to the fact – that you pointed out – our wars are largely about things that few would be willing to die for thus the casualties need to be kept low and out of sight.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Talha says:
    @Randal
    "It is not hypocrisy if you really believe it."

    The hypocrisy lies in applying different (lower) standards for international behaviour to your own country from those you apply to others.

    Especially when you have actively drafted treaties and protocols that you have signed and refuse to abide by – that is topping the whole shebang with blatant treachery as well.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Mr. Giraldi,

    I note you avoid making response to commentators, but I believe the common American would better resist had they help from KNOWING people like yourself, and subsequently come to realize the U.S.A. is become extinct. As Orwell used to say, the horror is “right there in front of your nose.”

    Refer to the article (below) on how unscrupulous & transparently deceptive USrael elections are?

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/10/13/did-mccain/

    How can this be? Moral of this email: Citizens (reduced to Consumers) quickly need a http://www.SAMIZDAT faculty to turn to.

    Thank you very much, Sir, and I wish you and family well!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    Chuck - Actually I do sometimes respond to comments but during the past week I was traveling overseas and couldn't. I read every comment and do pay attention to what readers think to be important.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Ron and Philip:

    As I drive both am & pm school bus, I listen to Fox News talk radio and this morning, hosts are playing Bob Dylan songs in honor of his Nobel award.

    Below is a rather good but typically unknown song, performed by Steve Earle (2007), and it’s called, “Amerika v. 6.0 (The Best We can Do). ” I have no clue on your music tastes, but Earle’s lyrics are riveting.

    In the song, Earle asserts, “writing letters to the editor & cheating on our taxes is the best we can do.” But for voices like yours for example, there is little else we “Amerikans” can do.

    (NOTE: Too bad the real Bob Dylan, Steve Earle, has married, is presently in NYC retreat, and singing the state & music industry approved Blues music)

    Sorry for being a pain-in-the ass, and thank you, Sirs-in-servus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. @Chuck Orloski
    Mr. Giraldi,

    I note you avoid making response to commentators, but I believe the common American would better resist had they help from KNOWING people like yourself, and subsequently come to realize the U.S.A. is become extinct. As Orwell used to say, the horror is "right there in front of your nose."

    Refer to the article (below) on how unscrupulous & transparently deceptive USrael elections are?

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/10/13/did-mccain/

    How can this be? Moral of this email: Citizens (reduced to Consumers) quickly need a www.SAMIZDAT faculty to turn to.

    Thank you very much, Sir, and I wish you and family well!

    Chuck – Actually I do sometimes respond to comments but during the past week I was traveling overseas and couldn’t. I read every comment and do pay attention to what readers think to be important.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. annamaria says:
    @Chuck Orloski
    As he certainly knows better, I had hope(s) Mr. Giraldi would cease calling mid-20th to 21st Century interventionist onslaughts as "U.S. Interventionism." Making reference to the U.S.A. is retro and intensely. Right now this scourge is the real Axis of Evil; consisting of Israel, Neocons, and AIPAC.

    To reiterate a previous point made her, as Khruschev's USSR needed de-Stalinization, America desperately needs de-Zionization.

    The USrael process succeeded at creating a soft totalitarianism in the world's "Greatest Superpower. Their essential ideology is a transformed Marxist-Leninism where tribal GREED & PRIVILEGE is paramount. As the Soviet Union took control of the Media with Pravda and Izvestia, USrael now has the main stream media "Big 6" in it's control.

    As WW III approaches, I do not (!) believe the luxury of a free internet is designed to last very much longer.

    There's no (0) well-heeled (USrael-based) multi billionaire who would risk his/her life by creating something like a united "Unzterpunch/AntiwarUnCommonVoice" TV channel. But as time is running short on the noble (www) Resistance, I have a (samizdat) pipe dream consisting of Truth Telling Web Sites of The World Unite!

    Just think... 2-4 essential (daily) articles written by brave people like Paul Craig Roberts, Phil Giraldi, and I'll add a personal choice, Ray McGovern. Although he has broken off diplomatic relations with me, I endorse the powerful thought and photography works of Linh Dinh.

    Just think... USrael working stiffs like me can go home, and with little spare time, seek MOST CRITICAL INFORMATION (M.C.I.) by going to a consolidated Resistance web site.

    Just think... instead of individual daring web site operators having to raise annual funds for continued operations, there could be a one (1) world wide web funnel into which The Aboveground Sheeple (like me) can shed a percentage of their valuable wool into.

    (NOTE: The CEO of my suggested "Truth Telling Web Sites of The World Unite" must have certain credentials. 1. They must have documented evidence of being forcibly removed from USrael academia and/or having been removed from USrael Congress. 2. Anyone having spent USrael jail time for either their political views or actions, i.e., Cynthia McKinney and Kathy Kelly, will have no need to undergo a Resistance background check)

    I realize all the above is "pie-in-the-terror-sky"... such a communication endeavor is Too Big and Destined To Fail. But thank you, Ron, for another opportunity to talk.

    As the former “USSR needed de-Stalinization, America desperately needs de-Zionization.”

    This is no accident that the prominent ziocon ideologues were brought up as trotskists. Similar to the political winners of the Bolshevik revolution, the US ziocons are very skeptical of democratic institutions. The ziocon crowd is very fond of “we know better.” Trotsky, living in New York on a stipend from a banker (Jacob H. Schiff) knew better what exactly the Russian population needed. The power-thirsty revolutionary band (that included an extraordinary disproportionate number of ethnic Jews) has succeeded in attacking and dissolving the very first democratic attempt at democracy in Russia – The Constitutional Assembly. The results of “we-know-better” approach to governance in Russia were the civil war, famine, concentration camps, imprisonment and torture without trial, and other horrible facts of the Soviet life.
    It seems that the Soviet idea of Global Revolution was resurrected in the US as PNAC.

    http://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/constituent-assembly/http://rense.com/general33/trot.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @jacques sheete
    Amen to that! (Although a good argument could be made that the term, "gangster state" is a redundancy.)

    “…and when it was finally discovered that more profit was to be gained by enslaving the weak and systematically exploiting their productive capacities, instead of spoiling and destroying, this discovery opened a new and fruitful era of progress, for it involved the formation of political States.”

    Gustave de Molinari, The Society of Tomorrow [1899]
    Part II: Chapter XV Summary and Conclusion - Gustave de Molinari, The Society of Tomorrow [1899]
    Edition used: The Society of Tomorrow: A Forecast of its Political and Economic Organization, ed. Hodgson Pratt and Frederic Passy, trans. P.H. Lee Warner (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904).
    oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=228&chapter=36940&layout=html&Itemid=27#a_1585595

     

    “although a good argument could be made that the term, “gangster state” is a redundancy.)…”

    Exactly!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Art says:
    @Chuck Orloski
    As he certainly knows better, I had hope(s) Mr. Giraldi would cease calling mid-20th to 21st Century interventionist onslaughts as "U.S. Interventionism." Making reference to the U.S.A. is retro and intensely. Right now this scourge is the real Axis of Evil; consisting of Israel, Neocons, and AIPAC.

    To reiterate a previous point made her, as Khruschev's USSR needed de-Stalinization, America desperately needs de-Zionization.

    The USrael process succeeded at creating a soft totalitarianism in the world's "Greatest Superpower. Their essential ideology is a transformed Marxist-Leninism where tribal GREED & PRIVILEGE is paramount. As the Soviet Union took control of the Media with Pravda and Izvestia, USrael now has the main stream media "Big 6" in it's control.

    As WW III approaches, I do not (!) believe the luxury of a free internet is designed to last very much longer.

    There's no (0) well-heeled (USrael-based) multi billionaire who would risk his/her life by creating something like a united "Unzterpunch/AntiwarUnCommonVoice" TV channel. But as time is running short on the noble (www) Resistance, I have a (samizdat) pipe dream consisting of Truth Telling Web Sites of The World Unite!

    Just think... 2-4 essential (daily) articles written by brave people like Paul Craig Roberts, Phil Giraldi, and I'll add a personal choice, Ray McGovern. Although he has broken off diplomatic relations with me, I endorse the powerful thought and photography works of Linh Dinh.

    Just think... USrael working stiffs like me can go home, and with little spare time, seek MOST CRITICAL INFORMATION (M.C.I.) by going to a consolidated Resistance web site.

    Just think... instead of individual daring web site operators having to raise annual funds for continued operations, there could be a one (1) world wide web funnel into which The Aboveground Sheeple (like me) can shed a percentage of their valuable wool into.

    (NOTE: The CEO of my suggested "Truth Telling Web Sites of The World Unite" must have certain credentials. 1. They must have documented evidence of being forcibly removed from USrael academia and/or having been removed from USrael Congress. 2. Anyone having spent USrael jail time for either their political views or actions, i.e., Cynthia McKinney and Kathy Kelly, will have no need to undergo a Resistance background check)

    I realize all the above is "pie-in-the-terror-sky"... such a communication endeavor is Too Big and Destined To Fail. But thank you, Ron, for another opportunity to talk.

    To reiterate a previous point made her, as Khruschev’s USSR needed de-Stalinization, America desperately needs de-Zionization.

    Everyone has to know my great distaste for Zionism. Of the groups of people who have power in this world, they are the worst. The Big Jew Zionists abuse everyone. They abuse their Little Jews, especially their children. They traumatize them at an early age by inculcating a fear and hate for everyone who is not a Jew. By design, they permanently separate their children from the rest of humanity. They infuse their tribesman with a superiority mindset that promotes them to be dishonest.

    The West is no longer Christian – the Western governments are in the control of Big Jew Zionists and their money. The US dollar is now controlled by Jews. With the election of Hillary, in ten years it will be illegal to say something against the Jews. People will not be able to fight Zionism. It will control everything Western.

    The only alternative to them, is for people to join in a world peace movement. A genuine peace movement cannot be shut down by the Jews. They will try – they will muscle into its leadership – but its power will reside with genuine desires of the masses.

    Peace!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Rurik

    But Americans, being hypocrites, don’t think their government, being special, should be subject to such reasonable restrictions, only foreigners’ g0vernments.
     
    it's not that we're hypocrites, it's that we're exceptional!

    that's the reason the rules don't apply to us, because we are soooo good, and sooo right and brave and free, that anyone we drop a bomb on had it coming, simply by virtue of the fact that is was America that dropped the bomb on them. As soon as the Hellfire missile hits its target, is the exact point at which the world can be assured that the target, the wedding for instance, needed to be hit.

    It's an amazingly foolproof way of knowing that you're always right, because by "virtue" of the very fact that it is you doing it, that's what makes it right.

    it is no different than the "justification" necessary for the police to shoot and kill someone, (or break their spine and then toss them in the back of a van for a 'rough ride'), or the government to assassinate someone. By the mere fact that it was someone in authority who did it = makes the act a just and righteous act.

    And who has more authority =(might) than the US government?

    The people slaughtered in Fallujah deserved their fate at the exact moment the depleted uranium fell on their houses and splattered their children. It was at that moment that their lives didn't deserve to continue. And that is how it works. No shit.

    that's all the "justification" they need. That they did it. Period.

    and so yea

    gliders capable of flying across the Atlantic Ocean with chemical or biological weapons and had the intent to use them
     
    we know and knew their intent at the very moment of shock and awe

    as soon as our smart bombs were striking Baghdad, is the exact moment that Saddam's intent was a certainty. Because America was bombing him/them. No less that how we all knew the intent of the Serbians who deserved to be bombed and slaughtered, because we were bombing and slaughtering them. And the Afghans and all the others.

    I have posted a video of an American cop relentlessly tazing and then simply murdering a man lying in the snow because he wouldn't "get on the ground now!".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2h7rHgBzTc

    the significant thing about that video is that the cop was acquitted of all charges, and then went on to explain how she was the victim

    the reason I post that video is because this is America's mentality writ large on the world's stage.

    if America says 'get on the ground' (give up your WMD), and they fail to do so, then America has every right to slaughter and maim and destroy the lives of millions upon millions of your citizens, because you didn't 'get on the ground now'.. you didn't surrender your WMD, - even if you're on the ground or surrendered all your WMD long ago. None of that matters. It's just who has more firepower and the veil of 'authority'. That what determines who is right.

    Most American by now vaguely know that our government has been arming and funding militants in Syria. They know that our government has been wreaking havoc in the Middle East, but they're also very much under the iron dome of Zionist propaganda, and are relentlessly lied to about everything, especially about Saddam and 911 and WMD and how Israel is our bestest buddy ever, and how Assad and Putin are acting aggressively and committing atrocities and blah, blah, blah. It's all lies. Just like the 'Americans as 'exceptional' people are lies, unless you consider that Americans are exceptionally lied to.

    The objective to bring about regime change was both clear and easily achievable but there was not much consideration of what would happen on the day after or of consequences both for the region and the Iraqi people. There was no timetable and no exit strategy and the mission morphed into nation building,
     
    the objective was to do exactly what they've done. To destroy Iraq and create sectarian strife for perpetuity. To create a failed state that would hemorrhage destabilization to the entire region. There was never supposed to be an exit strategy or any 'nation building'. This was all about nation destroying from the very beginning, and that's all it's about today, as they have their sights on Syria. Only an idiot would believe that the US cares about the Syrian people and wants to protect them. Hogwash. They want to send them reeling into a stone age hell on earth for the rest of eternity so Israel can ravage their lands and lord it over them. Duh!

    and Iraq demonstrated that bad intelligence produces bad results just as it did some years later in regard to Libya. And the problem persists in that assessments made at the working level and on the ground regarding Afghanistan have been for years pessimistic even as the intelligence community continues to support White House efforts at nation building.
     
    the "bad" results in Libya are exactly what they wanted. Pretending that America's agenda in Libya was humanitarian, is like pretending that when Bibi bombs Gaza he's acting like "a man of peace". Which is what George Bush called Ariel Sharon. Our entire narrative and paradigm and everything we hear are all Orwellian lies and duplicity. 365- 24/7

    The intelligence community exists to project American (read Israeli) power though out the world. They exist to destabilize nations inconvenient to Zio-US's agenda. To spread lies and traffic heroin and foment psyops in the service of the PTB. They're in it for their own self-interest and will lie and assassinate and murder as long as they're paid handsomely to do so.

    wouldn't you pretty much agree, Mr. G?

    Of course your assertions are mostly correct, yet the American people are too dumb to know all this- or worse yet- they are willfully ignorant, wrapped up in the electronic fantasy culture. They become extremely agitated when asked about politics or their civic responsibilities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    ... or their civic responsibilities.
     
    Civic responsibilities? Such quaint ideas. Why don't you share with him what your thoughts are on this concept, Rurik?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. To Philip,

    Thank you very for checking the pulse of The Unz Review readers, in particular to this most recent article.

    The one thing I most hope to convey is that the (serial) interventionist wars Zionists have gotten the former-U.S. into since the “barbaric” 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia would be punishable under the Nuremberg war crimes standard.

    Thank you very much, and I am happy to learn that you’re capable to travel overseas and not be on a Neo-NKVD “No Fly” list!

    To Stonehands:

    American people are not really “too dumb.” The majority are saturated with 24/7 Zionist propaganda, and because they are too busy with “trying to make-ends-meet,” many vicariously enjoy (celebrate) when the so-called “weakened” U.S. military smacks a (non-compliant) Islamic Middle East nation in order to make America safe and “Great Again.”

    To annamaria and Art:

    Thank you… and tonight I do not “feel so all alone” in broken Scranton!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    "American people are not really “too dumb.” The majority are saturated with 24/7 Zionist propaganda, and because they are too busy with “trying to make-ends-meet,” many vicariously enjoy (celebrate) when the so-called “weakened” U.S. military smacks a (non-compliant) Islamic Middle East nation in order to make America safe and “Great Again.” ....."



    Haha... thanks for making my point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. mp says:
    @RobinG
    I've also heard that Tibetan standard of living and quality of life are substantially better under the Chinese. Do you have any knowledge about that claim?

    It’s a mixed bag, and like other material things, the abstract notion of standard of living is more or less relative to expectations. In some respects it is better to live a harder life. One of the problems of Western anomie, to a large extent attributable to the rise of the machine (technics in general), is a resulting social and familial disintegration. It is already happening in China, and as far as Tibet? Why hike up the mountain in the snow in order to contemplate the Buddha when it’s so much easier to take a cable-car? The answer is, of course, climbing prepares one for the meeting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    The answer is, of course, climbing prepares one for the meeting.
     
    That was sweet!

    Peace.
    , @RobinG
    Well, okay, I didn't want to say this before, because I'm not a fan of identity politics (much less femiNazis or the trash that some western women have become), but I was thinking more of rights for women and education for children. Materialism aside, the Tibetan hierarchy may have been a trifle oppressive. (Or not. That's what I'm asking.)

    Climbing in the snow? Suit yourself, but the Buddha is everywhere. ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Talha says:
    @mp
    It's a mixed bag, and like other material things, the abstract notion of standard of living is more or less relative to expectations. In some respects it is better to live a harder life. One of the problems of Western anomie, to a large extent attributable to the rise of the machine (technics in general), is a resulting social and familial disintegration. It is already happening in China, and as far as Tibet? Why hike up the mountain in the snow in order to contemplate the Buddha when it's so much easier to take a cable-car? The answer is, of course, climbing prepares one for the meeting.

    The answer is, of course, climbing prepares one for the meeting.

    That was sweet!

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Talha,

    On the day after Bob Dylan was awarded a Nobel Literature prize, the real question is “what’s still blowing in the 9-11 Wind?” (Note: “Circling the wagons” tactic helps prepare fugitive villains for an angry mob’s inevitable grillings)

    Respectfully, it does not look like you’re prepared to intervene & “climb every mountain” for clues, but the following article would make even Barbara Streisand yodel for “unc-El sam” assistance.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-lobbyist-in-us-urges-collaberative-alliance-with-israel/

    Thank you and good luck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Chuck,

    Wow - thanks for the link! I cannot believe they are so out in the open about it!

    I agree with dampening the rabid anti-Jewish mood in the country - but an open alliance with Israel??? One can hope this will come with a push for better treatment of Palestinians along with normalization of relations but I'm not optimistic - it looks as if finances are the only concern here.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. geokat62 says:
    @Stonehands
    Of course your assertions are mostly correct, yet the American people are too dumb to know all this- or worse yet- they are willfully ignorant, wrapped up in the electronic fantasy culture. They become extremely agitated when asked about politics or their civic responsibilities.

    … or their civic responsibilities.

    Civic responsibilities? Such quaint ideas. Why don’t you share with him what your thoughts are on this concept, Rurik?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    Your snide comment is just the usual "thin" gruel from you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. geokat62 says:

    To reiterate a previous point made her, as Khruschev’s USSR needed de-Stalinization, America desperately needs de-Zionization.

    Two quotes come to mind:

    “That is the challenge for America: to dejewify Jews before Jews will jewify them.” – Israel Shamir

    “For America, Britain and the West to rescue themselves all they have to do is to revert to Western values of ethics and openness. They must drift away from Jerusalem and reinstate the spirit of Athens.” – Gilad Atzmon

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  105. @geokat62

    ... or their civic responsibilities.
     
    Civic responsibilities? Such quaint ideas. Why don't you share with him what your thoughts are on this concept, Rurik?

    Your snide comment is just the usual “thin” gruel from you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Your snide comment....
     
    While my comment was addressed to you, it was meant for Rurik. I was merely reminding him of a previous exchange we had on this topic... and how your point about civic responsibility reinforced my point about how citizens that are privileged to live in a democracy have the responsibility of being informed. No slight intended.
    , @iffen
    usual “thin” gruel

    I read many of the comments here and I wish to speak in defense of geo. He can spread it just as thickly as anyone else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Talha says:
    @Chuck Orloski
    Talha,

    On the day after Bob Dylan was awarded a Nobel Literature prize, the real question is "what's still blowing in the 9-11 Wind?" (Note: "Circling the wagons" tactic helps prepare fugitive villains for an angry mob's inevitable grillings)

    Respectfully, it does not look like you're prepared to intervene & "climb every mountain" for clues, but the following article would make even Barbara Streisand yodel for "unc-El sam" assistance.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/saudi-lobbyist-in-us-urges-collaberative-alliance-with-israel/

    Thank you and good luck.

    Hey Chuck,

    Wow – thanks for the link! I cannot believe they are so out in the open about it!

    I agree with dampening the rabid anti-Jewish mood in the country – but an open alliance with Israel??? One can hope this will come with a push for better treatment of Palestinians along with normalization of relations but I’m not optimistic – it looks as if finances are the only concern here.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. RobinG says:
    @mp
    It's a mixed bag, and like other material things, the abstract notion of standard of living is more or less relative to expectations. In some respects it is better to live a harder life. One of the problems of Western anomie, to a large extent attributable to the rise of the machine (technics in general), is a resulting social and familial disintegration. It is already happening in China, and as far as Tibet? Why hike up the mountain in the snow in order to contemplate the Buddha when it's so much easier to take a cable-car? The answer is, of course, climbing prepares one for the meeting.

    Well, okay, I didn’t want to say this before, because I’m not a fan of identity politics (much less femiNazis or the trash that some western women have become), but I was thinking more of rights for women and education for children. Materialism aside, the Tibetan hierarchy may have been a trifle oppressive. (Or not. That’s what I’m asking.)

    Climbing in the snow? Suit yourself, but the Buddha is everywhere. ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    the trash that some western women have become

    But I like my music hot and my women wild
    You see I like my women just a tad on the trashy side
    When they wear their clothes too tight and their hair is dyed
    Too much lipstick and too much rouge
    Gets me excited, leaves me feeling confused
    I like my women just a tad on the trashy side

    https://youtu.be/vfXs0m32A8E
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Chuck Orloski
    To Philip,

    Thank you very for checking the pulse of The Unz Review readers, in particular to this most recent article.

    The one thing I most hope to convey is that the (serial) interventionist wars Zionists have gotten the former-U.S. into since the "barbaric" 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia would be punishable under the Nuremberg war crimes standard.

    Thank you very much, and I am happy to learn that you're capable to travel overseas and not be on a Neo-NKVD "No Fly" list!

    To Stonehands:

    American people are not really "too dumb." The majority are saturated with 24/7 Zionist propaganda, and because they are too busy with "trying to make-ends-meet," many vicariously enjoy (celebrate) when the so-called "weakened" U.S. military smacks a (non-compliant) Islamic Middle East nation in order to make America safe and "Great Again."

    To annamaria and Art:

    Thank you... and tonight I do not "feel so all alone" in broken Scranton!

    “American people are not really “too dumb.” The majority are saturated with 24/7 Zionist propaganda, and because they are too busy with “trying to make-ends-meet,” many vicariously enjoy (celebrate) when the so-called “weakened” U.S. military smacks a (non-compliant) Islamic Middle East nation in order to make America safe and “Great Again.” …..”

    Haha… thanks for making my point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. geokat62 says:
    @Stonehands
    Your snide comment is just the usual "thin" gruel from you.

    Your snide comment….

    While my comment was addressed to you, it was meant for Rurik. I was merely reminding him of a previous exchange we had on this topic… and how your point about civic responsibility reinforced my point about how citizens that are privileged to live in a democracy have the responsibility of being informed. No slight intended.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    Ahh...too much coffee, I took it the wrong way.

    Peace...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. …”and the mission morphed into nation building, not a fit task for anyone’s military and also an endeavor which was already in considerable trouble in Afghanistan.”

    I had been under the impression that nation building was what Paul Bremer and the 12 billion in Federal Reserve Notes was all about.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. mcohen says:
    @Rurik

    But Americans, being hypocrites, don’t think their government, being special, should be subject to such reasonable restrictions, only foreigners’ g0vernments.
     
    it's not that we're hypocrites, it's that we're exceptional!

    that's the reason the rules don't apply to us, because we are soooo good, and sooo right and brave and free, that anyone we drop a bomb on had it coming, simply by virtue of the fact that is was America that dropped the bomb on them. As soon as the Hellfire missile hits its target, is the exact point at which the world can be assured that the target, the wedding for instance, needed to be hit.

    It's an amazingly foolproof way of knowing that you're always right, because by "virtue" of the very fact that it is you doing it, that's what makes it right.

    it is no different than the "justification" necessary for the police to shoot and kill someone, (or break their spine and then toss them in the back of a van for a 'rough ride'), or the government to assassinate someone. By the mere fact that it was someone in authority who did it = makes the act a just and righteous act.

    And who has more authority =(might) than the US government?

    The people slaughtered in Fallujah deserved their fate at the exact moment the depleted uranium fell on their houses and splattered their children. It was at that moment that their lives didn't deserve to continue. And that is how it works. No shit.

    that's all the "justification" they need. That they did it. Period.

    and so yea

    gliders capable of flying across the Atlantic Ocean with chemical or biological weapons and had the intent to use them
     
    we know and knew their intent at the very moment of shock and awe

    as soon as our smart bombs were striking Baghdad, is the exact moment that Saddam's intent was a certainty. Because America was bombing him/them. No less that how we all knew the intent of the Serbians who deserved to be bombed and slaughtered, because we were bombing and slaughtering them. And the Afghans and all the others.

    I have posted a video of an American cop relentlessly tazing and then simply murdering a man lying in the snow because he wouldn't "get on the ground now!".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2h7rHgBzTc

    the significant thing about that video is that the cop was acquitted of all charges, and then went on to explain how she was the victim

    the reason I post that video is because this is America's mentality writ large on the world's stage.

    if America says 'get on the ground' (give up your WMD), and they fail to do so, then America has every right to slaughter and maim and destroy the lives of millions upon millions of your citizens, because you didn't 'get on the ground now'.. you didn't surrender your WMD, - even if you're on the ground or surrendered all your WMD long ago. None of that matters. It's just who has more firepower and the veil of 'authority'. That what determines who is right.

    Most American by now vaguely know that our government has been arming and funding militants in Syria. They know that our government has been wreaking havoc in the Middle East, but they're also very much under the iron dome of Zionist propaganda, and are relentlessly lied to about everything, especially about Saddam and 911 and WMD and how Israel is our bestest buddy ever, and how Assad and Putin are acting aggressively and committing atrocities and blah, blah, blah. It's all lies. Just like the 'Americans as 'exceptional' people are lies, unless you consider that Americans are exceptionally lied to.

    The objective to bring about regime change was both clear and easily achievable but there was not much consideration of what would happen on the day after or of consequences both for the region and the Iraqi people. There was no timetable and no exit strategy and the mission morphed into nation building,
     
    the objective was to do exactly what they've done. To destroy Iraq and create sectarian strife for perpetuity. To create a failed state that would hemorrhage destabilization to the entire region. There was never supposed to be an exit strategy or any 'nation building'. This was all about nation destroying from the very beginning, and that's all it's about today, as they have their sights on Syria. Only an idiot would believe that the US cares about the Syrian people and wants to protect them. Hogwash. They want to send them reeling into a stone age hell on earth for the rest of eternity so Israel can ravage their lands and lord it over them. Duh!

    and Iraq demonstrated that bad intelligence produces bad results just as it did some years later in regard to Libya. And the problem persists in that assessments made at the working level and on the ground regarding Afghanistan have been for years pessimistic even as the intelligence community continues to support White House efforts at nation building.
     
    the "bad" results in Libya are exactly what they wanted. Pretending that America's agenda in Libya was humanitarian, is like pretending that when Bibi bombs Gaza he's acting like "a man of peace". Which is what George Bush called Ariel Sharon. Our entire narrative and paradigm and everything we hear are all Orwellian lies and duplicity. 365- 24/7

    The intelligence community exists to project American (read Israeli) power though out the world. They exist to destabilize nations inconvenient to Zio-US's agenda. To spread lies and traffic heroin and foment psyops in the service of the PTB. They're in it for their own self-interest and will lie and assassinate and murder as long as they're paid handsomely to do so.

    wouldn't you pretty much agree, Mr. G?

    your fantasy of blaming israel is amusing.to think that america the exceptional would sacrifice all that blood and treasure for a country the size of rich mans back yard is a pipe dream

    the west are fighting for oil.america attacked iraq for oil and no amount of bullshit spin can hide this fact.

    the war in syria is a pipeline war.anyone who think s otherwise is an idiot

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Well, Israeli, "america the exceptional" is a Zionist colony basically.

    So yeah, it would and did fight - and continues to do so - for zionist/israeli interests.

    In Iraq as in Syria( in Syria so far through jihadists & mercenaries ).

    Re Syria, we have the wiki cables now which show that the plan to force regime change in Syria goes back to 2006.

    "Speaking from Ecuador’s embassy in London, Julian Assange revealed that the United States planned to overthrow the Syrian government as far back as 2006, several years before the start of the current crisis...WikiLeaks cables reveal that these plans came from the Israeli government, and show that the U.S. government intended to work with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt to encourage the breakdown of the Assad regime as a way of also weakening Iran and Hezbollah."

     

    In 2013, israeli media interviewed Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, lifting any doubts about who really wants Assad to go:

    “The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran,” he said.
    This was the case, he said, even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated to al-Qaida.

    “We understand that they are pretty bad guys,” he said, adding that this designation did not apply to everyone in the Syrian opposition. “Still, the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go.”
     
    http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Oren-Jerusalem-has-wanted-Assad-ousted-since-the-outbreak-of-the-Syrian-civil-war-326328

    Of course that those Al-Ciada 'bad' guys are not really bad guys at all, from Israels POV.

    Anyone noticed how the various Wahhabi/Salafi gangs, Nusra & ISIS included, have never attacked Israel, only its enemies?

    During a RT CrossTalk interview, @ around 0:50, R.T's Peter Lavelle turns to retired CIA veteran, Ray McGovern, with a question re Washington's seemingly irrational position towards Syria;
    McGovern then mentions what he calls.... the "Elephant in the room", i.e., Israel.. and goes on to explain Israel's role in this proxy war on Syria


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd5fuAUM2BM
    , @Art
    the war in syria is a pipeline war.anyone who think s otherwise is an idiot

    Mr. mcohen,

    Here is the truth. Syria is being attacked because Israel wants it - PERIOD.

    Art

    'It's About World War Three" - President Bashar Al Assad's Interview

    12 October President of the Syrian Arab Republic Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to reporter of "Komsomolskaya Pravda" Daria Aslamova. We offer the full version of the interview

    President Assad: Not only ISIS, of course, or Daesh, not only al-Nusra; anyone, any terrorist who holds a machinegun and started killing and destroying in Syria was supported by Israel

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45674.htm
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @geokat62

    Your snide comment....
     
    While my comment was addressed to you, it was meant for Rurik. I was merely reminding him of a previous exchange we had on this topic... and how your point about civic responsibility reinforced my point about how citizens that are privileged to live in a democracy have the responsibility of being informed. No slight intended.

    Ahh…too much coffee, I took it the wrong way.

    Peace…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. L.K says:
    @mcohen
    your fantasy of blaming israel is amusing.to think that america the exceptional would sacrifice all that blood and treasure for a country the size of rich mans back yard is a pipe dream

    the west are fighting for oil.america attacked iraq for oil and no amount of bullshit spin can hide this fact.

    the war in syria is a pipeline war.anyone who think s otherwise is an idiot

    Well, Israeli, “america the exceptional” is a Zionist colony basically.

    So yeah, it would and did fight – and continues to do so – for zionist/israeli interests.

    In Iraq as in Syria( in Syria so far through jihadists & mercenaries ).

    Re Syria, we have the wiki cables now which show that the plan to force regime change in Syria goes back to 2006.

    “Speaking from Ecuador’s embassy in London, Julian Assange revealed that the United States planned to overthrow the Syrian government as far back as 2006, several years before the start of the current crisis…WikiLeaks cables reveal that these plans came from the Israeli government, and show that the U.S. government intended to work with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt to encourage the breakdown of the Assad regime as a way of also weakening Iran and Hezbollah.”

    In 2013, israeli media interviewed Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, lifting any doubts about who really wants Assad to go:

    “The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran,” he said.
    This was the case, he said, even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated to al-Qaida.

    “We understand that they are pretty bad guys,” he said, adding that this designation did not apply to everyone in the Syrian opposition. “Still, the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go.”

    http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Oren-Jerusalem-has-wanted-Assad-ousted-since-the-outbreak-of-the-Syrian-civil-war-326328

    Of course that those Al-Ciada ‘bad’ guys are not really bad guys at all, from Israels POV.

    Anyone noticed how the various Wahhabi/Salafi gangs, Nusra & ISIS included, have never attacked Israel, only its enemies?

    During a RT CrossTalk interview, @ around 0:50, R.T’s Peter Lavelle turns to retired CIA veteran, Ray McGovern, with a question re Washington’s seemingly irrational position towards Syria;
    McGovern then mentions what he calls…. the “Elephant in the room”, i.e., Israel.. and goes on to explain Israel’s role in this proxy war on Syria

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Anyone noticed how the various Wahhabi/Salafi gangs, Nusra & ISIS included, have never attacked Israel, only its enemies?
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g10QAaZZKJk

    and the US is funding and arming Al Nusra and Al Quiada and ISIS

    screeching that Russia is killing ISIS terrorists in Aleppo

    it's surreal man

    but then when I was growing up, if you'd have told me that the US would be operating a permanent torture camp in Cuba, I have said you're nuts

    we have become Israelis

    we allow our police to shoot people with impunity

    we're treated like Palestinians at the airports

    and all you see all around are Americans chewing their cud and turning on the game

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. mcohen says:

    iran is blocking a pipeline from uae to turkey.shite is fighting sunni.plain to see.same goes for yemen.plain to see,nothing new.israel stuck in the middle

    yours and rurik long winded posts with nothing new.blah blah blah.the whole escapade is a waste of precious dwindling resources being fought over by vultures.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    iran is blocking a pipeline from uae to turkey.shite is fighting sunni.plain to see.same goes for yemen.plain to see,nothing new.israel stuck in the middle

    Oh my - poor poor little Israel - oh the suffering - the suffering - when will it end?

    p.s. mcohen our little ZZ (Zionist Zombie) is doing just what his Big Jews have programmed him to do - lie and lie and lie - so sad.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Rurik says:
    @L.K
    Well, Israeli, "america the exceptional" is a Zionist colony basically.

    So yeah, it would and did fight - and continues to do so - for zionist/israeli interests.

    In Iraq as in Syria( in Syria so far through jihadists & mercenaries ).

    Re Syria, we have the wiki cables now which show that the plan to force regime change in Syria goes back to 2006.

    "Speaking from Ecuador’s embassy in London, Julian Assange revealed that the United States planned to overthrow the Syrian government as far back as 2006, several years before the start of the current crisis...WikiLeaks cables reveal that these plans came from the Israeli government, and show that the U.S. government intended to work with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt to encourage the breakdown of the Assad regime as a way of also weakening Iran and Hezbollah."

     

    In 2013, israeli media interviewed Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, lifting any doubts about who really wants Assad to go:

    “The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran,” he said.
    This was the case, he said, even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated to al-Qaida.

    “We understand that they are pretty bad guys,” he said, adding that this designation did not apply to everyone in the Syrian opposition. “Still, the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go.”
     
    http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Oren-Jerusalem-has-wanted-Assad-ousted-since-the-outbreak-of-the-Syrian-civil-war-326328

    Of course that those Al-Ciada 'bad' guys are not really bad guys at all, from Israels POV.

    Anyone noticed how the various Wahhabi/Salafi gangs, Nusra & ISIS included, have never attacked Israel, only its enemies?

    During a RT CrossTalk interview, @ around 0:50, R.T's Peter Lavelle turns to retired CIA veteran, Ray McGovern, with a question re Washington's seemingly irrational position towards Syria;
    McGovern then mentions what he calls.... the "Elephant in the room", i.e., Israel.. and goes on to explain Israel's role in this proxy war on Syria


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd5fuAUM2BM

    Anyone noticed how the various Wahhabi/Salafi gangs, Nusra & ISIS included, have never attacked Israel, only its enemies?

    and the US is funding and arming Al Nusra and Al Quiada and ISIS

    screeching that Russia is killing ISIS terrorists in Aleppo

    it’s surreal man

    but then when I was growing up, if you’d have told me that the US would be operating a permanent torture camp in Cuba, I have said you’re nuts

    we have become Israelis

    we allow our police to shoot people with impunity

    we’re treated like Palestinians at the airports

    and all you see all around are Americans chewing their cud and turning on the game

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Art says:
    @mcohen
    iran is blocking a pipeline from uae to turkey.shite is fighting sunni.plain to see.same goes for yemen.plain to see,nothing new.israel stuck in the middle

    yours and rurik long winded posts with nothing new.blah blah blah.the whole escapade is a waste of precious dwindling resources being fought over by vultures.

    iran is blocking a pipeline from uae to turkey.shite is fighting sunni.plain to see.same goes for yemen.plain to see,nothing new.israel stuck in the middle

    Oh my – poor poor little Israel – oh the suffering – the suffering – when will it end?

    p.s. mcohen our little ZZ (Zionist Zombie) is doing just what his Big Jews have programmed him to do – lie and lie and lie – so sad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    "programmed him to do" or paid?
    This Z.Zombie may be sitting at Hasbara Central, or working remotely for same.
    , @iffen
    Zionist Zombie

    McOhen is not a Jewish name.

    The Irish are quite familiar with the consequences of being the victim of a Great Power, so it is no surprise that they would have sympathy for someone going it alone in a hostile neighborhood.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. RobinG says:
    @Art
    iran is blocking a pipeline from uae to turkey.shite is fighting sunni.plain to see.same goes for yemen.plain to see,nothing new.israel stuck in the middle

    Oh my - poor poor little Israel - oh the suffering - the suffering - when will it end?

    p.s. mcohen our little ZZ (Zionist Zombie) is doing just what his Big Jews have programmed him to do - lie and lie and lie - so sad.

    “programmed him to do” or paid?
    This Z.Zombie may be sitting at Hasbara Central, or working remotely for same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    “programmed him to do” or paid?
    This Z.Zombie may be sitting at Hasbara Central, or working remotely for same.

    I must say that the quality of what Hasbara Center is putting out has fallen drastically.

    mcohen is so obviously a Zionombie. He is no fun. :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. iffen says:
    @Stonehands
    Your snide comment is just the usual "thin" gruel from you.

    usual “thin” gruel

    I read many of the comments here and I wish to speak in defense of geo. He can spread it just as thickly as anyone else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. iffen says:
    @Art
    iran is blocking a pipeline from uae to turkey.shite is fighting sunni.plain to see.same goes for yemen.plain to see,nothing new.israel stuck in the middle

    Oh my - poor poor little Israel - oh the suffering - the suffering - when will it end?

    p.s. mcohen our little ZZ (Zionist Zombie) is doing just what his Big Jews have programmed him to do - lie and lie and lie - so sad.

    Zionist Zombie

    McOhen is not a Jewish name.

    The Irish are quite familiar with the consequences of being the victim of a Great Power, so it is no surprise that they would have sympathy for someone going it alone in a hostile neighborhood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    ... going it alone...
     
    Going it alone? Let's see if I got this straight... Key members of The Lobby back in the 90s look at the situation the Zionist project is facing post Oslo and come to the conclusion that the "land for peace" formula runs the risk of putting an end to their dreams of an Eretz Israel that runs from the Nile to the Euphrates. So they decide to devise the brilliant plan to address this unfortunate situation. They first do their SWOT analysis and conclude that their enemies can be defeated by exploiting their internal divisions - the sectarian divide between Sunni/Shia, the ethnic divide between Arabs and non-Arabs, etc. The challange, of course, was to find the catalyst to initiate the process of disintegration. So rather than going it alone, as iffen suggests, they called upon their brethren in the US, England, France, etc., who held key positions in their respective lobbies, to push for an invasion of Iraq first and then to take out the remaining 7 Muslim countries in 5 years. So the US assembled the coalition of the willing and "shocked and awed" Iraq to the Stone Age. The did the same to Libya, and have been doing the same to Syria via a proxy war, and would like to do the same to Iran, the final piece of the Shia Arc.

    And the Israelis managed to accomplish all this without spending a single shekel or shedding a single drop of their blood. How's that for going it alone?... and you have the chutzpah of accusing me of "spreading it thick"?
    , @L.K
    Hahahahaha, these Zionist agents like 'iffen' are all such great comedians!!

    Take a look at this one!
    iffen goes: "McOhen is not a Jewish name." pfffhahahahaha

    So, let me see if I get this straight; the bloke's handle 'mcohen' gets turned into 'McOhen'!

    Hilarious, keep it coming 'iffen'!
    , @Art
    McOhen is not a Jewish name.

    iffen --- Very clever - I like it! -- Thanks --- Art
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Art says:
    @RobinG
    "programmed him to do" or paid?
    This Z.Zombie may be sitting at Hasbara Central, or working remotely for same.

    “programmed him to do” or paid?
    This Z.Zombie may be sitting at Hasbara Central, or working remotely for same.

    I must say that the quality of what Hasbara Center is putting out has fallen drastically.

    mcohen is so obviously a Zionombie. He is no fun. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. geokat62 says:
    @iffen
    Zionist Zombie

    McOhen is not a Jewish name.

    The Irish are quite familiar with the consequences of being the victim of a Great Power, so it is no surprise that they would have sympathy for someone going it alone in a hostile neighborhood.

    … going it alone…

    Going it alone? Let’s see if I got this straight… Key members of The Lobby back in the 90s look at the situation the Zionist project is facing post Oslo and come to the conclusion that the “land for peace” formula runs the risk of putting an end to their dreams of an Eretz Israel that runs from the Nile to the Euphrates. So they decide to devise the brilliant plan to address this unfortunate situation. They first do their SWOT analysis and conclude that their enemies can be defeated by exploiting their internal divisions – the sectarian divide between Sunni/Shia, the ethnic divide between Arabs and non-Arabs, etc. The challange, of course, was to find the catalyst to initiate the process of disintegration. So rather than going it alone, as iffen suggests, they called upon their brethren in the US, England, France, etc., who held key positions in their respective lobbies, to push for an invasion of Iraq first and then to take out the remaining 7 Muslim countries in 5 years. So the US assembled the coalition of the willing and “shocked and awed” Iraq to the Stone Age. The did the same to Libya, and have been doing the same to Syria via a proxy war, and would like to do the same to Iran, the final piece of the Shia Arc.

    And the Israelis managed to accomplish all this without spending a single shekel or shedding a single drop of their blood. How’s that for going it alone?… and you have the chutzpah of accusing me of “spreading it thick”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    ....and so the unmelodious tune of a conspiracy by "international" jews spanning nations and time, continues the familiar refrain. I am reminded of a meeting I had recently with an elderly gentleman [a Washinton insider, he is a very well recognised republican and an opponent of the neocon faction] to whom I posed this *theory* propounded by flearsheimer and waltz. He smiled, looked at me quizzically, nodded his head and replied: "nice fiction". The fact is U.S.' Israeli lobby is influential but nowhere near the crazy capabilities attributed to it by you folks. Think about it for a moment; if they were that potent would the Iran deal have gotten through despite their strong protestations? You chaps wave flearsheiner as if it were the final word!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. L.K says:
    @iffen
    Zionist Zombie

    McOhen is not a Jewish name.

    The Irish are quite familiar with the consequences of being the victim of a Great Power, so it is no surprise that they would have sympathy for someone going it alone in a hostile neighborhood.

    Hahahahaha, these Zionist agents like ‘iffen’ are all such great comedians!!

    Take a look at this one!
    iffen goes: “McOhen is not a Jewish name.” pfffhahahahaha

    So, let me see if I get this straight; the bloke’s handle ‘mcohen’ gets turned into ‘McOhen’!

    Hilarious, keep it coming ‘iffen’!

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Please! Show some respect for real comedians. Comedy has a long history of speaking truth to power. The very best of the best like Bruce, Prior, Hicks and many more know that the best comedy has truth at its core. Comedians with mastery of comedy know that the greater the truth content of a joke or bit so the greater is the wounding or outrage generated.

    iffen and his ilk would be more accurately termed hack comedians with their pathetic unfunny fantasies and lies. If you've ever cringed watching/listening to a comedian bombing you know it is embarrassment for that weak clown that you feel just like I constantly feel for iffen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Keith says:

    I totally agree with Chuck Orloshi ‘s strong belief that America desperately needs to
    de-Zionization. America will never be able to establish a new normal without perpetual war unless we purge the Jewish NeoCon warparty from influential positions in our government and force the Jewish lobby (AIPAC) to register as a foreign agent of Israel. In addition, and as important, we need to wrestle the Zio main stream media from their control. Our media is basically the Propaganda

    Ministry for the NeoCons and other pro Zionist organizations in America and Israel. Recently the noted journalist, Car Bernstein, told Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe, that the Jewish Neo Cons, who wanted to remake the world, pushed for the illegal criminal Iraq war. Maybe Carl Berstein can get away with saying this because of his Jewish heritage. However, he just might be under attack by Zionist organizations and be called a self hating Jew. Certainly I would be labeled a anti Semite for my patriotism and loyalty to America and only to America. Unlike the Neocons, who’s loyalty is to Israel.

    Unfortunately Philip Giraldi, in his The Legacy of United States Intervention, does not name names of who have been pushing for the wars in the Middle East for Israel. Why? Is he self censoring because he is afraid to touch the third rail and rightly point his finger at the 800 pound Gorilla in the room, Israel and the Jewish Zionist neoconservative? Just like the Republican party’s mantra, ” if you can’t name your enemy ” Radical Islamist Terrorists” you will never be able to defeat the terrorists. If we want to stop perpetual wars we need to name the names of the NeoCon warmongers.

    The only name Philip Giraldi mentions by name is Colin Powell, who was the US Secretary of State under the war criminal George W. Bush. The Secretary of State who was duped by bad intellengence. If you believe this story, I have a Brooklyn Bridge to sell you. The intelligence on Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction wasn’t bad, it was perfect for a pretex for a war planted in the Zio media by the NeoCons. See the movie “The GreenZone” It is hard for me to believe Colin Powell didn’t have knowledge of Israel’s military strategy “Protecting the Realm” and the Zionist NeoCons’s “Plan for American Centry”. A plan for American military interventions round the world. Knowledge of these plans should have tipped off Colin Powell of the deception. “Israel will wage war by deception” .

    To facilitate the De-Zionization of America, we need the famed Charles Mason’s proceutor, Vincent Bugliosi, to open a Nuremberg like trial to prosecute George Bush, members of his administration and the Neocons for mass murder. They would be convicted and all of them would be hang from the gallows for mass murder and war crimes that were committed in our name. See Vincent Bugliosi plan to try George Bush for mass murder on You Tube. So who are the Zionist interventionists? Go to The American Enterprise Instiute “War Party” on You Tube”. The majority of the members o AEI are Jewish dual loyalists. In reality, the organization is not American and the enterprise is establishing Israel’s hedgmony over the Middle East.

    Talking about Non Intervention endlessly is fruitless. Unless we hold the Neocons accountable for their crimes and start the process of naming names and implement De-Zionization of America, the Jewish NeoCons will continue to use America’s military to remake the world, a world unsafe for all of us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Smith
    The key to deZionisation is NOT to attack the Jews directly (they'll scream "Anti-Semitism!" and that'll be the end of it)...but, rather, destroy their Shabbos Goyim connections first. That will severely cripple them; THEN move in for the kill.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @L.K
    Hahahahaha, these Zionist agents like 'iffen' are all such great comedians!!

    Take a look at this one!
    iffen goes: "McOhen is not a Jewish name." pfffhahahahaha

    So, let me see if I get this straight; the bloke's handle 'mcohen' gets turned into 'McOhen'!

    Hilarious, keep it coming 'iffen'!

    Please! Show some respect for real comedians. Comedy has a long history of speaking truth to power. The very best of the best like Bruce, Prior, Hicks and many more know that the best comedy has truth at its core. Comedians with mastery of comedy know that the greater the truth content of a joke or bit so the greater is the wounding or outrage generated.

    iffen and his ilk would be more accurately termed hack comedians with their pathetic unfunny fantasies and lies. If you’ve ever cringed watching/listening to a comedian bombing you know it is embarrassment for that weak clown that you feel just like I constantly feel for iffen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Hey Nosy, sorry, you are right, when referring to these clowns, comedians must automatically be understood as 'hack comedians'.

    Cheers
    , @iffen
    it is embarrassment for that weak clown that you feel just like I constantly feel for iffen.

    Thanks for the kind words, NTD. It makes me want to put a better shine on my boots today, NOT.

    I was just telling ilk the other day that we needed to climb out of this rabbit hole and get back to the real world and ilk told me, "I can't, iffen, I am too weak to break this scatological perversion enabled by Nazism."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Keith
    I totally agree with Chuck Orloshi 's strong belief that America desperately needs to
    de-Zionization. America will never be able to establish a new normal without perpetual war unless we purge the Jewish NeoCon warparty from influential positions in our government and force the Jewish lobby (AIPAC) to register as a foreign agent of Israel. In addition, and as important, we need to wrestle the Zio main stream media from their control. Our media is basically the Propaganda

    Ministry for the NeoCons and other pro Zionist organizations in America and Israel. Recently the noted journalist, Car Bernstein, told Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe, that the Jewish Neo Cons, who wanted to remake the world, pushed for the illegal criminal Iraq war. Maybe Carl Berstein can get away with saying this because of his Jewish heritage. However, he just might be under attack by Zionist organizations and be called a self hating Jew. Certainly I would be labeled a anti Semite for my patriotism and loyalty to America and only to America. Unlike the Neocons, who's loyalty is to Israel.

    Unfortunately Philip Giraldi, in his The Legacy of United States Intervention, does not name names of who have been pushing for the wars in the Middle East for Israel. Why? Is he self censoring because he is afraid to touch the third rail and rightly point his finger at the 800 pound Gorilla in the room, Israel and the Jewish Zionist neoconservative? Just like the Republican party's mantra, " if you can't name your enemy " Radical Islamist Terrorists" you will never be able to defeat the terrorists. If we want to stop perpetual wars we need to name the names of the NeoCon warmongers.

    The only name Philip Giraldi mentions by name is Colin Powell, who was the US Secretary of State under the war criminal George W. Bush. The Secretary of State who was duped by bad intellengence. If you believe this story, I have a Brooklyn Bridge to sell you. The intelligence on Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction wasn't bad, it was perfect for a pretex for a war planted in the Zio media by the NeoCons. See the movie "The GreenZone" It is hard for me to believe Colin Powell didn't have knowledge of Israel's military strategy "Protecting the Realm" and the Zionist NeoCons's "Plan for American Centry". A plan for American military interventions round the world. Knowledge of these plans should have tipped off Colin Powell of the deception. "Israel will wage war by deception" .

    To facilitate the De-Zionization of America, we need the famed Charles Mason's proceutor, Vincent Bugliosi, to open a Nuremberg like trial to prosecute George Bush, members of his administration and the Neocons for mass murder. They would be convicted and all of them would be hang from the gallows for mass murder and war crimes that were committed in our name. See Vincent Bugliosi plan to try George Bush for mass murder on You Tube. So who are the Zionist interventionists? Go to The American Enterprise Instiute "War Party" on You Tube". The majority of the members o AEI are Jewish dual loyalists. In reality, the organization is not American and the enterprise is establishing Israel's hedgmony over the Middle East.

    Talking about Non Intervention endlessly is fruitless. Unless we hold the Neocons accountable for their crimes and start the process of naming names and implement De-Zionization of America, the Jewish NeoCons will continue to use America's military to remake the world, a world unsafe for all of us.

    The key to deZionisation is NOT to attack the Jews directly (they’ll scream “Anti-Semitism!” and that’ll be the end of it)…but, rather, destroy their Shabbos Goyim connections first. That will severely cripple them; THEN move in for the kill.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. L.K says:
    @Greg Bacon
    https://youtu.be/URAe4XJ0V5w

    Great find, Greg!
    What a funny little animation!

    Cheers

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. L.K says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Please! Show some respect for real comedians. Comedy has a long history of speaking truth to power. The very best of the best like Bruce, Prior, Hicks and many more know that the best comedy has truth at its core. Comedians with mastery of comedy know that the greater the truth content of a joke or bit so the greater is the wounding or outrage generated.

    iffen and his ilk would be more accurately termed hack comedians with their pathetic unfunny fantasies and lies. If you've ever cringed watching/listening to a comedian bombing you know it is embarrassment for that weak clown that you feel just like I constantly feel for iffen.

    Hey Nosy, sorry, you are right, when referring to these clowns, comedians must automatically be understood as ‘hack comedians’.

    Cheers

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. L.K says:
    @anonymous
    All US wars have been wars of choice triggered by the smell of weakness and the opportunity for easy pickings. Cutting through the thick fog of high-minded rhetoric and other mumbo-jumbo it's apparent the US is a bandit state cruising the world for victims to waylay. That's it in a nutshell, it's a gangster state that has smaller accomplices such as Britain, roaming around looking for the next score. This is the history of the US; once it consolidated itself territorially it saw the weakness of Spain and moved in, grabbing properties such as the Philippines which thus inserted it into Asia and made it an Asian power also. From that point on it's been on the move ever since, whenever the chance presented itself. Here and there it's suffered a bloody rebuff such as in Korea and Vietnam when it miscalculated it's strength and underestimated the other. The US is a country that's been almost continually at war or actively interfering in other countries just about every single year since 1898.
    The average American of course desires peace, stability and an increasing standard of living. They've been propagandized into thinking that the US is a peaceful state that has to protect itself now and then. The truth is the very opposite, that war is the natural state of being for the US and it is an aggressive country always on the march. Always was, is now, and will continue to be so until it hits the wall of resistance of other countries big enough to defend themselves. Force is what it understands and respects, nothing else. Once people realize this then it all becomes very clear.

    Great post, anonymous!

    …that war is the natural state of being for the US and it is an aggressive country always on the march. Always was, is now, and will continue to be so until it hits the wall of resistance of other countries big enough to defend themselves. Force is what it understands and respects, nothing else.

    Exactly and It seems that it may finally have hit that wall… time will tell.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. iffen says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Please! Show some respect for real comedians. Comedy has a long history of speaking truth to power. The very best of the best like Bruce, Prior, Hicks and many more know that the best comedy has truth at its core. Comedians with mastery of comedy know that the greater the truth content of a joke or bit so the greater is the wounding or outrage generated.

    iffen and his ilk would be more accurately termed hack comedians with their pathetic unfunny fantasies and lies. If you've ever cringed watching/listening to a comedian bombing you know it is embarrassment for that weak clown that you feel just like I constantly feel for iffen.

    it is embarrassment for that weak clown that you feel just like I constantly feel for iffen.

    Thanks for the kind words, NTD. It makes me want to put a better shine on my boots today, NOT.

    I was just telling ilk the other day that we needed to climb out of this rabbit hole and get back to the real world and ilk told me, “I can’t, iffen, I am too weak to break this scatological perversion enabled by Nazism.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. iffen says:
    @RobinG
    Well, okay, I didn't want to say this before, because I'm not a fan of identity politics (much less femiNazis or the trash that some western women have become), but I was thinking more of rights for women and education for children. Materialism aside, the Tibetan hierarchy may have been a trifle oppressive. (Or not. That's what I'm asking.)

    Climbing in the snow? Suit yourself, but the Buddha is everywhere. ;)

    the trash that some western women have become

    But I like my music hot and my women wild
    You see I like my women just a tad on the trashy side
    When they wear their clothes too tight and their hair is dyed
    Too much lipstick and too much rouge
    Gets me excited, leaves me feeling confused
    I like my women just a tad on the trashy side

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Boris N says:

    The problem is that vital interests of the USA are everywhere. There is no “the USA and the outer world”. The USA is the world. Or rather there are the inner USA (the 50 states) and the outer USA (the world). And whatever is being done by others in every corner of the planet (and in outer space as well), sooner or later it would threaten vital interests of the USA. Or at least the USA would think so. So the reason why the USA pokes its nose into here and there everywhere is because the USA does not see other countries as independent, as other countries, they are the outer USA, no more, no less. It’s a real world empire on an unprecedented global level.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  132. Art says:
    @iffen
    Zionist Zombie

    McOhen is not a Jewish name.

    The Irish are quite familiar with the consequences of being the victim of a Great Power, so it is no surprise that they would have sympathy for someone going it alone in a hostile neighborhood.

    McOhen is not a Jewish name.

    iffen — Very clever – I like it! — Thanks — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Art says:
    @mcohen
    your fantasy of blaming israel is amusing.to think that america the exceptional would sacrifice all that blood and treasure for a country the size of rich mans back yard is a pipe dream

    the west are fighting for oil.america attacked iraq for oil and no amount of bullshit spin can hide this fact.

    the war in syria is a pipeline war.anyone who think s otherwise is an idiot

    the war in syria is a pipeline war.anyone who think s otherwise is an idiot

    Mr. mcohen,

    Here is the truth. Syria is being attacked because Israel wants it – PERIOD.

    Art

    ‘It’s About World War Three” – President Bashar Al Assad’s Interview

    12 October President of the Syrian Arab Republic Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to reporter of “Komsomolskaya Pravda” Daria Aslamova. We offer the full version of the interview

    President Assad: Not only ISIS, of course, or Daesh, not only al-Nusra; anyone, any terrorist who holds a machinegun and started killing and destroying in Syria was supported by Israel

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45674.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG

    "The ‘public’ Hillary Clinton supports self-determination, freedom and human rights for Syrians. The ‘private’ Hillary Clinton supports the wholesale massacre of Syrians by a closely allied network of depraved sectarian terrorists – in order to weaken Iran and strengthen Israel."
     
    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/362819-clinton-emails-syria-wikileaks/
    WikiLeaks: The two faces of Hillary Clinton on Syria
    by Sharmine Narwani
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. RobinG says:
    @Art
    the war in syria is a pipeline war.anyone who think s otherwise is an idiot

    Mr. mcohen,

    Here is the truth. Syria is being attacked because Israel wants it - PERIOD.

    Art

    'It's About World War Three" - President Bashar Al Assad's Interview

    12 October President of the Syrian Arab Republic Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to reporter of "Komsomolskaya Pravda" Daria Aslamova. We offer the full version of the interview

    President Assad: Not only ISIS, of course, or Daesh, not only al-Nusra; anyone, any terrorist who holds a machinegun and started killing and destroying in Syria was supported by Israel

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45674.htm
     

    “The ‘public’ Hillary Clinton supports self-determination, freedom and human rights for Syrians. The ‘private’ Hillary Clinton supports the wholesale massacre of Syrians by a closely allied network of depraved sectarian terrorists – in order to weaken Iran and strengthen Israel.”

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/362819-clinton-emails-syria-wikileaks/

    WikiLeaks: The two faces of Hillary Clinton on Syria
    by Sharmine Narwani

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. jtgw says:

    Sadly, Giraldi’s observations are still not received wisdom among a lot of conservatives. Just finished arguing with a guy who seriously thinks Russia is backing Islamist terror throughout the world and we need to be fighting on all fronts, all the time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I agree and find it to be commonplace. I watch RT News daily and find it more trustworthy in most instances than other English language "news" outlets (the US ones are even worse than the British). Last week they showed a series of Americans (I think they were New Yorkers) being interviewed on the street on the matter of Syria. The degree to which they were misinformed was truly staggering, and all the more so because they were not stupid people.

    We don't live in the Information Age so much as the Disinformation Age! The bellicose rhetoric coming from officials in the US and Britain (Australia too) is nothing short of frightening and is an indicator of what is to come. Only the people of those respective nations can stop this ongoing march to self-destruction but it looks like the lunacy is endemic.

    The nerve of the British to mock Donald Trump whilst simultaneously having Boris Johnson as Foreign Minister is hypocrisy writ large.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @jtgw
    Sadly, Giraldi's observations are still not received wisdom among a lot of conservatives. Just finished arguing with a guy who seriously thinks Russia is backing Islamist terror throughout the world and we need to be fighting on all fronts, all the time.

    I agree and find it to be commonplace. I watch RT News daily and find it more trustworthy in most instances than other English language “news” outlets (the US ones are even worse than the British). Last week they showed a series of Americans (I think they were New Yorkers) being interviewed on the street on the matter of Syria. The degree to which they were misinformed was truly staggering, and all the more so because they were not stupid people.

    We don’t live in the Information Age so much as the Disinformation Age! The bellicose rhetoric coming from officials in the US and Britain (Australia too) is nothing short of frightening and is an indicator of what is to come. Only the people of those respective nations can stop this ongoing march to self-destruction but it looks like the lunacy is endemic.

    The nerve of the British to mock Donald Trump whilst simultaneously having Boris Johnson as Foreign Minister is hypocrisy writ large.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    ... going it alone...
     
    Going it alone? Let's see if I got this straight... Key members of The Lobby back in the 90s look at the situation the Zionist project is facing post Oslo and come to the conclusion that the "land for peace" formula runs the risk of putting an end to their dreams of an Eretz Israel that runs from the Nile to the Euphrates. So they decide to devise the brilliant plan to address this unfortunate situation. They first do their SWOT analysis and conclude that their enemies can be defeated by exploiting their internal divisions - the sectarian divide between Sunni/Shia, the ethnic divide between Arabs and non-Arabs, etc. The challange, of course, was to find the catalyst to initiate the process of disintegration. So rather than going it alone, as iffen suggests, they called upon their brethren in the US, England, France, etc., who held key positions in their respective lobbies, to push for an invasion of Iraq first and then to take out the remaining 7 Muslim countries in 5 years. So the US assembled the coalition of the willing and "shocked and awed" Iraq to the Stone Age. The did the same to Libya, and have been doing the same to Syria via a proxy war, and would like to do the same to Iran, the final piece of the Shia Arc.

    And the Israelis managed to accomplish all this without spending a single shekel or shedding a single drop of their blood. How's that for going it alone?... and you have the chutzpah of accusing me of "spreading it thick"?

    ….and so the unmelodious tune of a conspiracy by “international” jews spanning nations and time, continues the familiar refrain. I am reminded of a meeting I had recently with an elderly gentleman [a Washinton insider, he is a very well recognised republican and an opponent of the neocon faction] to whom I posed this *theory* propounded by flearsheimer and waltz. He smiled, looked at me quizzically, nodded his head and replied: “nice fiction”. The fact is U.S.’ Israeli lobby is influential but nowhere near the crazy capabilities attributed to it by you folks. Think about it for a moment; if they were that potent would the Iran deal have gotten through despite their strong protestations? You chaps wave flearsheiner as if it were the final word!

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Sam Shama
    common zio thug gussied up Boulmiche style.

    Vivian dressed up in hi-class duds paid for by her pimp (but w/o Julia Roberts class).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu3x5SZrMHo

    quelle surprise?
    not

    a ziothug
    is a ziothug
    is a ziothug
    (apologies to roses).
    , @geokat62

    ... and so the unmelodious tune of a conspiracy by “international” jews spanning nations and time, continues the familiar refrain....

    I am reminded of a meeting I had recently with an elderly gentleman... to whom I posed this *theory* propounded by flearsheimer and waltz. He smiled, looked at me quizzically, nodded his head and replied: “nice fiction”.
     
    Sam, are you equating M&W's The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

    Rather than dismissing their book out of hand, could you provide specific examples of their "nice fiction" by quoting specific passages and the corresponding page numbers? To assist you, I have appended the 175 notes to Ch. 8:



    George Packer, The Assassins’ Gate: America in Iraq (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005), 46. Former CIA director George Tenet offers a similar view, writing in his memoirs that “one of the great mysteries to me is when the war in Iraq became inevitable.” George Tenet with Bill Harlow, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA (New York: Harper, 2007), 301.

    As the New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman reportedly observed in May 2003, “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.” See Ari Shavit, “White Man’s Burden,” Haaretz, May 4, 2003.

    Quoted in Emad Mekay, “Iraq Was Invaded ‘to Protect Israel’—US Officiai,” Asia Times On­ line, March 31, 2004. We used these quotations in our original article in the London Review of Books, and Zelikow challenged our interpretation of them. We based our discussion on a full and unimpeachable record of his remarks, and his challenge has no basis in fact. For a more detailed discussion of Zelikow’s charge and our response, see “Letters,” London Re­ view of Books, May 25, 2006. Zelikow also served with Rice on the National Security Coun­ cil during the first Bush administration and later coauthored a book with her on German reunification. He was one of the principal authors of the document that is probably the most comprehensive statement of the Bush Doctrine: The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Washington, DC: White House, September 2002).

    Quoted in “US Assumes UK Help in Iraq, Says General,” Guardian, August 20, 2002. Quoted in an interview with Sascha Lehnartz, “Dann helfen uns eben die Osteuropaer,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, January 26, 2003. On the influence of the Defense Policy Board in Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, see Stephen J. Hedges, “Iraq Hawks Have Bush’s Ear,” Chicago Tribune, August 18, 2002.
    Joe Klein, “How Israel Is Wrapped Up in Iraq,” Time, February 10, 2003.
    Senator Ernest F. Hollings, “Bush’s Failed Mideast Policy Is Creating More Terrorism,” Charleston Post and Courier (online), May 6, 2004; and “Sen. Hollings Floor Statement Setting the Record Straight on His Mideast Newspaper Column,” May 20, 2004, originally posted on the former senator’s website (now defunct) but still available at www.shalomctr.org/node/620. “ADL Urges Senator Hollings to Disavow Statements on Jews and the Iraq War,” Anti- Defamation League press release, May 14, 2004.
    Matthew E. Berger, “Not So Gentle Rhetoric from the Gentleman from South Carolina,”

    JTA.org, May 23, 2004; “Sen. Hollings Floor Statement”; and “Senator Lautenberg’s Floor Statement in Support of Senator Hollings,” June 3, 2004, http://lautenberg.senate.gov/news room/video.cfm.
    Aluf Benn, “Scapegoat for Israel,” Haaretz, May 13, 2004; Matthew Berger, “Will Some Jews’ Backing for War in Iraq Have Repercussions for All1?”JTA.org, June 10, 2004; Patrick J. Buchanan, “Whose War?”American Conservative, March 24, 2003; Arnaud de Borchgrave, “A Bush-Sharon Doctrine?” Washington Times, February 14, 2003; Ami Eden, “Israel’s Role: The ‘Elephant’They’re Talking About,” Forward, February 28, 2003; “The Ground Shifts,” Forward, May 28, 2004; Nathan Guttman, “Prominent U.S. Jews, Israel Blamed for Start of Iraq War,” Haaretz, May 31, 2004; Spencer S. Hsu, “Moran Said Jews Are Pushing War,” Washington Post, March 11, 2003; Lawrence F. Kaplan, “Toxic Talk on War,” Washington

    Post, February 18, 2003; E. J. Kessler, “Gary Hart Says ‘Dual Loyalty’ Barb Was Not Aimed at Jews,” Forward, February 21, 2003; Ori Nir and Ami Eden, “Ex-Mideast Envoy Zinni Charges Neocons Pushed Iraq War to Benefit Israel,” Forward, May 28, 2004; and Robert Novak, “Sharon’s War?” CNN.com, December 26, 2002.

    Quoted in Akiva Eldar, “Sharp Pen, Cruel Tongue,” Haaretz, April 13, 2007.

    Michael Kinsley, “What Bush Isn’t Saying About Iraq,” Slate.com, October 24, 2002. Also

    see Michael Kinsley, “J’Accuse, Sort Of,” Slate.com, March 12, 2003.

    Nathan Guttman, “Some Blame Israel for U.S. War in Iraq,” Haaretz, March 5, 2003.

    Bill Keller, “Is It Good for the Jews?” New York Times, March 8, 2003.

    Ori Nir, “FBI Probe: More Questions Than Answers,” Forward, May 13, 2005.

    Shai Feldman, “The Bombing of Osiraq—Revisited,” International Security 7, no. 2 (Au­

    tumn 1982); and Dan Reiter, “Preventive Attacks Against Nuclear Programs and the ‘Suc­

    cess’ at Osiraq,” Nonproliferation Review 12, no. 2 (July 2005).

    Joel Brinkley, “Confrontation in the Gulf: Israelis Worried by U.S. Restraint,” New York

    Times, August 30, 1990;Joel Brinkley, “Top Israelis Warn of Deep Worry over Diplomatic Accord in Gulf,” New York Times, December 4, 1990; Hugh Carnegy, “Pullout Not Enough, Says Israel,” Financial Times, January 10, 1991; Sabra Chartrand, “Israel Warns Against a Gulf Retreat,” New York Times, December 6, 1990; Jackson Diehl, “Israelis Fear Iraqi Threat Will Endure,” Washington Post, August 29, 1990; Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, “Israel’s Call for Action,” Washington Post, August 24, 1990; Michael Massing, “The Way to War,” New York Review of Books, March 28, 1991; Martin Merzer, “Israel Hopes Diplomacy Won’t Let Iraqi Stay in Power,” Miami Herald, August 29, 1990; and “Sharon to Americans: Blast Iraqis Immediately,” Jerusalem Post, August 12, 1990.

    Aluf Benn, “Sharon Shows Powell His Practical Side,” Haaretz, February 26, 2001.

    Seymour Hersh, “The Iran Game,” New Yorker, December 3, 2001; Peter Hirschberg, “Background: Peres Raises Iranian Threat,” Haaretz, February 5, 2002; David Hirst, “Israel

    Thrusts Iran in Line of US Fire,” Guardian, February 2, 2002; “Israel Once Again Sees Iran as a Cause for Concern,” Haaretz, May 7, 2001; and Alan Sipress, “Israel Emphasizes Iran­ ian Threat,” Washington Post, February 7, 2002.

    Robert Novak, “Netanyahu’s Nuke Warning,” Chicago Sun-Times, April 14, 2002; Robert Novak, “War on Iraq Won’t Be ‘Cakewalk,’” Chicago Sun-Times, April 25, 2002; and William Raspberry, “To Solve the Crisis,” Washington Post, April 15, 2002.

    Elizabeth Sullivan, “Sharon Aide Expects United States to Attack Iraq; He Says Saddam Must Be Stopped from Making Nuclear Arms,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (online), May 3, 2002.

    Quoted in Joyce Howard Price, “Peres Encourages U.S. Action on Iraq,” Washington Times,

    May 12, 2002.

    Ehud Barak, “No Quick Fix,” Washington Post, June 8, 2002.

    Quoted in Gideon Alon, “Sharon to Panel: Iraq Is Our Biggest Danger,” Haaretz, August 13,

    2002. Also see Nina Gilbert, “Iraq Poses Greatest Threat,”Jerusalem Post, August 13, 2002.

    “Israel to US: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack,” CBSNews.com, August 16, 2002. The Sharon and Peres quotations are from Aluf Benn, “PM Urging U.S. Not to Delay Strike Against Iraq,” Haaretz, August 16, 2002. The Gissen quotation is from Jason Keyser, “Israel Urges U.S. to

    Attack,” Washington Post, August 16, 2002. The Shiry quotation is from Ben Lynfield, “Is­ rael Sees Opportunity in Possible US Strike on Iraq,” Christian Science Monitor, August 30, 2002. Also see Anton La Guardia, “Sharon Urges America to Bring Down Saddam,” Daily Telegraph (London), August 17, 2002; Reuven Pedhatzur, “Israel’s Interest in the War on Saddam,” Haaretz, August 4, 2002; Jonathan Steele, “Israel Puts Pressure on US to Strike Iraq,” Guardian, August 17, 2002; Walter Rodgers, “Rice and Peres Warn of Iraqi Threat,” CNN.com, August 16, 2002; Tony Snow et al., interview with Ra’anan Gissen, “Fox Special Report with Brit Hume,” August 16, 2002; and Ze’ev Schiff, “Into the Rough,” Haaretz, Au­ gust 16, 2002.

    Benn, “PM Urging U.S.” For additional evidence that “Israel and its supporters” were deeply concerned in 2002 “that critics would claim that the United States was going to war on

    Israel’s behalf—or even, as some have suggested, at Israel’s behest,” see Marc Perelman, “Iraqi Move Puts Israel in Lonely U.S. Corner,” Forward, September 20, 2002.
    On the lobby’s concerns in the run-up to the 1991 Gulf War, see John B. Judis, “Jews and the Gulf: Fallout from the Six-Week War,” Tikkun, May/June 1991; Allison Kaplan, “Sad­ dam Splits Jewish Lobby,”Jerusalem Post,January 14, 1991;and David Rogers,”Pro-Israel Lobbyists Quietly Backed Resolution Allowing Bush to Commit U.S. Troops to Combat,” Wall Street Journal, January 28, 1991. On Israel’s concerns at the same time, see Brinkley, “Top Israelis Warn of Deep Worry”; Carnegy, “Pullout Not Enough”; Chartrand,”Israel Warns”; Diehl, “Israelis Fear Iraqi Threat”; and Merzer, “Israel Hopes.” The Buchanan quo­ tation is from Chris Reidy, “The War Between the Columnists Gets Nasty,” Boston Globe, September 22, 1990.

    Benn, “PM Aide”; and Keyser, “Israel Urges U.S. to Attack.”
    Quoted in Rodgers, “Rice and Peres Warn.”
    Benn, “PM Aide.”
    Alon, “Sharon to Panel.” At a White House press conference with President Bush on Octo­ ber 16, 2002, Sharon said, “I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for the friendship and cooperation. And as far as I remember, as we look back towards many years now, I think that we never had such relations with any President of the United States as we have with you, and we never had such cooperation in everything as we have with the current administra­ tion.” “President Bush Welcomes Prime Minister Sharon to White House; Question and Answer Session with the Press,” transcript of press conference, U.S. Department of State, October 16, 2002. Also see Robert G. Kaiser, “Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Mideast Policy,” Washington Post, February 9, 2003.

    Shlomo Brom, “An Intelligence Failure,” Strategic Assessment (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University) 6, no. 3 (November 2003): 9. Also see “Intelligence Assess­ ment: Selections from the Media, 1998-2003,” ibid., 17-19; Gideon Alon, “Report Slams Assessment of Dangers Posed by Libya, Iraq,” Haaretz, March 28, 2004; Dan Baron, “Israeli Report Blasts Intelligence for Exaggerating the Iraqi Threat,” JTA.org, March 29, 2004; Molly Moore, “Israel Shares Blame on Iraq Intelligence, Report Says,” Washington Post, De­ cember 5, 2003; Greg Myre, “Israeli Report Faults Intelligence on Iraq,” New York Times, March 28, 2004; Ori Nir, “Senate Report on Iraq Intel Points to Role of Jerusalem,” For­ ward, July 16, 2004; and James Risen, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration (NewYork: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 72-73.

    On the general phenomenon of buck-passing, see John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (NewYork: Norton, 2001), 157-62.
    Quoted in Perelman, “Iraqi Move.”
    Herb Keinon, “Sharon to Putin: Too Late for Iraq Arms Inspection, “Jerusalem Post, October 1, 2002.

    “Peres Questions France Permanent Status on Security Council,” Haaretz, February 20, 2003. Perelman, “Iraqi Move.”
    Shlomo Avineri, “A Haunting Echo,” Los Angeles Times, November 24, 2002. Also see Ben­ jamin Netanyahu, “The Case for Toppling Saddam,” Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2002; and Nathan Guttman, “Shimon Peres Warns Against Repeat of 1930s Appeasement,” Haaretz, September 15, 2002.

    For some representative editorials, see “Next Stop, Baghdad,” Jerusalem Post editorial, No­ vember 15, 2 0 0 1 ; “Don’t Wait for Saddam,” Jerusalem Post editorial, August 18, 2002; “Mak­ ing the Case for War,” Jerusalem Post editorial, September 9, 2002. For some representative op-eds, see Ron Dermer, “The March to Baghdad,” Jerusalem Post, December 21, 2001; Efraim Inbar, “Ousting Saddam, Instilling Stability,” Jerusalem Post, October 8, 2002; and Gerald M. Steinberg, “Imagining the Liberation of Iraq,”Jerusalem Post, November 18, 2001. “Don’t Wait for Saddam.”

    Ehud Barak, “Taking Apart Iraq’s Nuclear Threat,” New York Times, September 4, 2002.

    Netanyahu, “The Case for Toppling Saddam.” Also see Benjamin Netanyahu, “U.S. Must Beat Saddam to the Punch,” Chicago Sun-Times, September 17, 2002.
    See, for example, “Benjamin Netanyahu Testifies About Iraq to Congress,” CNN Live Event, CNN.com, September 12, 2002; Jim Lobe, “Hawks Justify Iraq Strike as War for Democracy,” Inter Press Service, September 27, 2002; and Janine Zacharia, “Netanyahu: US Must Guarantee Israel’s Safety from Iraqi Attack,” Jerusalem Post, September 13, 2002. Aluf Benn, “Background: Enthusiastic IDF Awaits War in Iraq,” Haaretz, February 17, 2003; James Bennet, “Israel Says War on Iraq Would Benefit the Region,” New York Times, February 27, 2003; and Chemi Shalev, “Jerusalem Frets as U.S. Battles Iraq War Delays,” Forward, March 7, 2003.

    Quoted in James Bennet, “Clinton Redux,” The Atlantic@Aspen weblog, July 8, 2006. Asher Arian, “Israeli Public Opinion on National Security 2002,” Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, Memorandum no. 61, July 2002, 10, 34.
    Ephraim Yaar and Tamar Hermann, “Peace Index: Most Israelis Support the Attack on Iraq,” Haaretz, March 6, 2003. Regarding Kuwait, a public opinion poll released in March 2003 found that 89.6 percent of Kuwaitis favored the impending war against Iraq. James Morri­ son, “Kuwaitis Support War,” Washington Times, March 18, 2003. In a poll taken in Israel in early May 2007, 59 percent of the respondents said that the U.S. decision to invade Iraq was correct. “Poll Shows That Israel Is a Staunch American Ally,” Anti-Defamation League press release, May 18, 2007. By that time, most Americans had concluded that the war was a tragic mistake.
    “America’s Image Further Erodes, Europeans Want Weaker Ties: a Nine-Country Survey,” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Washington, DC, March 18, 2003. Also see Alan Travis and Ian Black, “Blair’s Popularity Plummets,” Guardian, February 18, 2003. Gideon Levy, “A Deafening Silence,” Haaretz, October 6, 2002.
    See Dan Izenberg, “Foreign Ministry Warns Israeli War Talk Fuels US Anti-Semitism,” Je­ rusalem Post, March 10, 2003, which makes clear that “the Foreign Ministry has received reports from the US” telling Israelis to be more circumspect because the U.S. media is portraying Israel as “trying to goad the administration into war.”
    Quoted in Dana Milbank, “Group Urges Pro-Israel Leaders Silence on Iraq,” Washington Post,November 27, 2002.
    David Horovitz, “Sharon Warns Colleagues Not to Discuss Iraq Conflict,” Irish Times, March 12, 2003. Also see James Bennet, “Threats and Responses: Israel’s Role; Not Urging War, Sharon Says,” New York Times, March 11, 2003; and Aluf Benn, “Sharon Says U.S. Should Also Disarm Iran, Libya and Syria,” Haaretz, February 18, 2003.

    The influence of the neoconservatives and their allies was widely reflected before the war and is clearly reflected in the following articles, all written before or just after the war be­ gan: Joel Beinin, “Pro-Israel Hawks and the Second Gulf War,” Middle East Report Online, April 6, 2003; Elisabeth Bumiller and Eric Schmitt, “On the Job and at Home, Influential Hawks’ 30-Year Friendship Evolves,” New York Times, September 11, 2002; Kathleen and Bill Christison, “A Rose by Another Name: The Bush Administration’s Dual Loyalties,” CounterPunch.org, December 13, 2002; Robert Dreyfuss, “The Pentagon Muzzles the CIA,” American Prospect, December 16, 2002; Michael Elliott and James Carney, “First Stop, Iraq,” Time, March 31, 2003; Seymour Hersh, “The Iraq Hawks,” New Yorker, December 24-31, 2001; Michael Hirsh, “Hawks, Doves and Dubya,” Newsweek, September 2, 2002; Glenn Kessler, “U.S. Decision on Iraq Has Puzzling Past,” Washington Post, January 12, 2003; Joshua M. Marshall, “Bomb Saddam?” Washington Monthly, June 2002; Dana Milbank, “White House Push for Iraqi Strike Is on Hold,” Washington Post, August 18, 2002; Susan Page, “Showdown with Saddam: The Decision to Act,” USA Today, September 11, 2002; Sam Tanenhaus, “Bush’s Brain Trust,” Vanity Fair (online), July 2003; Patrick E. Tyler and Elaine Sciolino, “Bush Advisers Split on Scope of Retaliation,” New York Times, September 20, 2001 ; and Jason A. Vest, “The Men from JINSA and CSP,” Nation, September 2/9, 2002. Janine Zacharia, “All the President’s Middle East Men,”Jerusalem Post, January 19,2001.

    55. “Rally Unites Anguished Factions Under Flag of ‘Stand with Israel,’” Forward, April 19, 2002; and “Forward 50,” Forward, November 15, 2002.

    56. John McCaslin, “Israeli-Trained Cops,” Washington Times, November 5, 2002; Bret Stephens, “Man of the Year,”Jerusalem Post (Rosh Hashana Supplement), September 26, 2003; and Janine Zacharia, “Invasive Treatment,” ibid. Other useful pieces on Wolfowitz in­ clude Peter J. Boyer, “The Believer,” New Yorker, November 1, 2004; Michael Dobbs, “For Wolfowitz, a Vision May Be Realized,” Washington Post, April 7, 2003; James Fallows, “The Unilateralist,” Atlantic, March 2002; Bill Keller, “The Sunshine Warrior,” New York Times Magazine, September 22, 2002; and “Paul Wolfowitz, Velociraptor,” Economist, February 7, 2002.

    See, for example, Douglas J. Feith, “The Inner Logic of Israel’s Negotiations: Withdrawal Process, Not Peace Process,” Middle East Quarterly 3, no. 1 (March 1996); and Douglas Feith, “A Strategy for Israel,” Commentary, September 1997. For useful discussions of Feith s views, see Jeffrey Goldberg, “A Little Learning: What Douglas Feith Knew and When He Knew It,” New Yorker, May 9, 2005; Jim Lobe, “Losing Feith, or Is the Bush Team Shedding Its Sharper Edges?” Daily Star (online), January 31, 2005; James J. Zogby, “A Dangerous Ap­ pointment: Profile of Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense Under Bush,” Middle East Information Center, April 18, 2001; and “Israeli Settlements: Legitimate, Democratically Mandated, Vital to Israel’s Security and, Therefore, in U.S. Interest,” Center for Security Pol­ icy, Transition Brief no. 96-T 130, December 17, 1996. Note that the title of the latter piece, which was published by an organization in the lobby, says that what is in Israel’s interest is in America’s national interest. In “Losing Feith,” Lobe writes, “In 2003, when Feith, who was standing in for Rumsfeld at an interagency ‘Principals’ Meeting’ on the Middle East, con­ cluded his remarks on behalf of the Pentagon, according to the Washington insider newslet­ ter, The Nelson Report, [National Security Adviser Condoleezza] Rice said, ‘Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we’ll invite the ambassador.’”

    “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” was prepared for the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Jerusalem and published in June 1996. A copy can be found at www.iasps.org/stratl.htm.

    Akiva Eldar, “Perles of Wisdom for the Feithful,” Haaretz, October 1, 2002.

    Packer, Assassins ‘Gate, 32.

    “Israel’s UN Ambassador Slams Qatar, Praises U.S. Envoy Bolton,” Haaretz, May 23, 2006.

    Also see “Bolton Is Israel’s Secret Weapon, Says Gillerman,” BigNewsNetwork.com, Novem­

    ber 18, 2006; and Ori Nir, “Senate Probes Bolton’s Pro-Israel Efforts,” Forward, May 6, 2005.

    Marc Perelman, “Siding with White House, Groups Back Bolton,” Forward, November 17,

    2006; and “Dear John,” Forward editorial, December 8, 2006.

    Ori Nir, “Libby Played Leading Role on Foreign Policy Decisions,” Forward, November 4,

    2005.

    “He Tarries: Jewish Messianism and the Oslo Peace,” Rennert Lecture for 2002. Krautham­

    mer fiercely defends Israel at every turn in his columns.

    65. Asia Aydintasbas, “The Midnight Ride of James Woolsey,” Salon.com, December 20, 2001;

    Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender, “Cheney Link of Iraq, 9/11 Dismissed,” Boston Globe, September 16, 2003; David E. Sanger and Robin Toner, “Bush and Cheney Talk Strongly of Qaeda Links with Hussein,” New York Times, June 18, 2004; and R. James Woolsey, “The Iraq Connection,” Wall Street Journal, October 18,2001.

    Goldberg added that “among Jewish lobbyists in the Beltway, support for the impending war is almost taken for granted—several are puzzled by the very suggestion that any kind of strenuous opposition to an Iraq invasion might emerge.” Michelle Goldberg, “Why Ameri­ can Jewish Groups Support War with Iraq,” Salon.com, September 14, 2002.

    “An Unseemly Silence,” Forward editorial, May 7, 2004.

    Nacha Cattan, “Resolutions on Invasion Divide Jewish Leadership,” Forward, October 11,

    2002; Laurie Goodstein, “Threats and Responses: American Jews; Divide Among Jews Leads to Silence on Iraq War,” New York Times, March 15, 2003; and Milbank, “Group Urges.”

    Matthew E. Berger, “Jewish Groups Back U.S. Stand on Iraq,” Jewish Journal (online), Oc­ tober 18, 2002; and Jewish Council for Public Affairs, “Statement on Iraq,” adopted by the JCPA Board of Directors, October 2002.
    Mortimer B. Zuckerman, “No Time for Equivocation,” U.S. News & World Report, August 2 6 / September 2, 2002. Also see Mortimer B. Zuckerman, “No More Cat and Mouse,” U.S. News &• World Report, October 28, 2002; Mortimer B. Zuckerman, “Clear and Compelling Proof,” U.S. News & World Report, February 10, 2003; and Mortimer B. Zuckerman, “The High Price of Waiting,” U.S. News & World Report, March 10, 2003.

    Both quotes are from Goldberg, “Why American Jewish Groups.”
    Gary Rosenblatt, “The Case for War Against Saddam,” Jewish Week, December 13, 2002. Also see Gary Rosenblatt, “Hussein Asylum,” Jewish Week, August 23, 2002.
    Ron Kampeas, “Cheney: Iran, Iraq a Package Deal,” JTA.org, March 13, 2007.
    Nathan Guttman, “Background: AIPAC and the Iraqi Opposition,” Haaretz, April 7, 2003. Also see Dana Milbank, “For Israel Lobby Group, War Is Topic A, Quietly,” Washington Post, April 1, 2003.
    David Twersky, “A Bittersweet Affair for AIPAC,” New York Sun, January 23, 2003. On the ADL, see Cattan, “Resolutions on Invasion”; Nacha Cattan, “Jewish Groups Pressed to Line Up on Iraq,” Forward, August 23, 2002; and Nathan Guttman, “Groups Mum on Iraq, Despite Antiwar Tide,” Forward, March 2, 2007.
    Jeffrey Goldberg, “Real Insiders: A Pro-Israel Lobby and an FBI Sting,” New Yorker, July 4, 2005. Near East Report (NER), AIPAC’s biweekly publication dealing with Middle East is­ sues, is filled with articles dealing with Iraq in the months before the war began. Although none explicitly calls for invading Iraq, they all portray Saddam as an especially dangerous threat, leaving the reader with little doubt that both Israel and the United States will be in serious trouble if he is not toppled from power. See, for example, “Saddam’s Diversion,” NER, October 7, 2002; interview with Ze’ev Schiff, NER, October 21, 2002; interview with Amatzia Baram, NER, February 25, 2002; interview with Amatzia Baram, NER, October 7, 2002; interview with Kenneth M. Pollack, NER, September 23, 2002; “Arming Iraq,” NER, July 1, 2002; and “Backing Saddam,” NER, February 3, 2003.
    John Bresnahan, “GOP Turns to Israeli Lobby to Boost Iraq Support,” Roll Call (online), October 6, 2003.
    Matthew E. Berger, “Bush Makes Iraq Case in AIPAC Appearance,” Deep South Jewish Voice (online), May 11, 2004.
    David Horovitz, “Editor’s Notes: Wading into the Great Debate,” Jerusalem Post, March 15, 2007. According to Ron Kampeas, Cheney’s “message was not received enthusiastically. Only about one-third to one-half of the audience . . . applauded politely.” See “Cheney: Iran, Iraq a Package Deal.” Similarly, Nathan Guttman wrote that Cheney’s speech “re­ ceived a lukewarm welcome.” See “Cheney Links Action on Iran to Winning Iraq,” Forward, March 16, 2007. However, writing in Salon, Gregory Levey noted that “Cheney got a warm reception and forceful applause.” See “Inside America’s Powerful Israel Lobby,” Salon.com, March 16, 2007.
    On the reception Boehner and Pelosi received, see Guttman, “Cheney Links Action”; Levey, “Inside”; and Ian Swanson, “Pelosi Hears Boos at AIPAC,” The Hill (online), March 13, 2007. Guttman, “Groups Mum on Iraq.”
    Ibid.; and Jeffrey M. Jones, “Among Religious Groups, Jewish Americans Most Strongly Op­ pose War,” Gallup News Service, February 23, 2007.
    Shortly before the United States invaded Iraq, Congressman James P. Moran created a stir when he said, “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this.” Quoted in Hsu, “Moran Said.” However, Moran mis­ spoke, because there was not widespread support for the war in the Jewish community. He should have said, “If it were not for the strong support of the neoconservatives and the lead­ ership of the Israel lobby for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this.”

    Samuel G. Freedman, “Don’t Blame Jews for This War,” USA Today, April 2, 2003. Also see

    James D. Besser, “Jews Souring on Iraq War,” Jewish Week, September 24, 2004; Goodstein, “Threats and Responses”; and Ori Nir, “Poll Finds Jewish Political Gap,” Forward, February 4, 2005. The same situation obtained before the 1991 Gulf War. By the time Congress voted to endorse the war on January 12, 1991, “the only significant Washington Jewish organization not on record in favor of the administration’s position was American Friends of Peace Now, which favored the continuation of sanctions.” Judis, “Jews and the Gulf,” 13. Despite the lobby’s efforts to make the 1991 war happen, however, a large portion of the American Jew­ ish community opposed the war, as was the case in 2003. For example, Jewish members of the House of Representatives voted 1 7 – 1 6 against the resolution authorizing war, while Jew­ ish senators voted 5-3 against it. Ibid., 14. This outcome reflects the fact that in contrast to what happened in 2002—03, there was a serious debate in 1990-91 about whether to go to war against Iraq, as well as the fact that the lobby sometimes takes positions that are at odds with a substantial portion of the American Jewish community.

    The January 26, 1998, letter can be found on the website of the Project for the New Amer­ ican Century, www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm; the February 19, 1998, letter can be found on the Iraq Watch website, www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/rumsfeld- openletter.htm. For background on the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, see Judis, “Jews and the Gulf,” 12. Also see the May 29, 1998, letter to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott written under the auspices of PNAC, www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletterl998.htm. The neoconservatives, it should be emphasized, advocated invading Iraq to topple Saddam. See “The End of Containment,” Weekly Standard, December 1, 1997; Zalmay M. Khalilzad and Paul Wolfowitz, “Overthrow Him,” ibid.; Frederick W. Kagan, “Not by Air Alone,” ibid.; and Robert Kagan, “A Way to Oust Saddam,” Weekly Standard, September 28, 1998.

    A copy of the Iraq Liberation Act can be found at www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/ Legislation/ILA.htm.
    John Dizard, “How Ahmed Chalabi Conned the Neocons,” Salon.com, May 4, 2004; “Iraqi Myths,” Jerusalem Post editorial, October 7, 1998; Seth Gitell, “Neocons Meet Israeli to Gain U.S. Backing,” Forward, July 31, 1998; Kagan, “Way to Oust Saddam”; Martin Kettle, “Pentagon Balks at ‘Idiotic’ Law Urging Bay of Pigs-type Invasion of Iraq,” Guardian, Octo­ ber 21,1998;andVernonLoeb,”CongressStokesVisionsofWar toOustSaddam;White House Fears Fiasco in Aid to Rebels,” Washington Post, October 20, 1998. On JINSA, see “Concrete Responses to Saddam,” jinsa.org, Report no. 79, August 10, 1998; “To Overthrow Saddam,” jinsa.org, Report no. 82, October 2, 1998; “Spring 1998 Board Resolution—Iraq,”

    jinsa.org, March 22, 1998; and “Resolution in Support of the Iraqi Opposition,” jinsa.org, October 19, 1998.
    See Clinton’s comments after he signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Statement by the President, White House Press Office, October 31, 1998. Also see Kettle, “Pentagon Balks”; and Loeb, “Congress Stokes.”

    Vernon Loeb, “Saddam’s Iraqi Foes Heartened by Clinton,” Washington Post, November 16, 1998; Nicholas Lemann, “The Iraq Factor: Will the New Bush Team’s Old Memories Shape Its Foreign Policies?” New Yorker, January 22, 2001; and Robert Litwak, Rogue States and U.S. Foreign Policy (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2000), chap. 4. Packer, Assassins’ Gate, 41.

    Jane Perlez, “Capitol Hawks Seek Tougher Line on Iraq,” New York Times, March 7, 2001; and “Have Hawks Become Doves?” Washington Times editorial, March 8, 2001. Also see Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 129-31.

    Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror (New York: Free Press, 2004); and Ron Suskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill (NewYork: Simon & Schuster, 2004).
    Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack (NewYork: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 12. Also see Lemann,

    “Iraq Factor”; and Eric Schmitt and Steven Lee Meyers, “Bush Administration Warns Iraq on Weapons Programs,” New York Times, January 2 3 , 2 0 0 1 .

    She also noted that if Iraq did get W M D , the appropriate U.S. response would be a “clear and classical statement of deterrence—if they do acquire W M D , their weapons will be un­ usable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.” Condoleezza Rice, “Promoting the National Interest,” Foreign Affairs 79, no. 1 (January/February 2000): 60-62. Timothy Noah, “Dick Cheney, Dove,” Slate.com, October 16, 2002; Adam Meyerson, “Calm After Desert Storm,” interview with Dick Cheney, Policy Reiriew 65 (Summer 1993). Quoted in Kessler, “U.S. Decision on Iraq Has Puzzling Past.” Elliott and Carney (“First Stop, Iraq”) report that neoconservatives like William Kristol were upset when Cheney was chosen as Bush’s running mate, because of Cheney’s position on ending the first Gulf War. But after 9 / 1 1 , says Kristol, “neoconservatives happily consider him a fellow-traveler.’” Elliott and Carney, “First Stop, Iraq”; Glenn Kessler and Peter Slavin, “Cheney Is Fulcrum of Foreign Policy,” Washington Post, October 13, 2002; Kessler, “U.S. Decision on Iraq Has Puzzling Past”; and “Vice President Dick Cheney Talks About Bush’s Energy Plan,” inter­ view with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, May 20, 2001. Although Cheney’s views on conquering Iraq fundamentally changed after 9 / 1 1 , this apparently did not happen overnight. See “The Vice President Appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert,” Camp David, Maryland, Office of the White House Press Secretary, September 16, 2001. Cheney’s response to specific questions about Iraq does not indicate that he had changed his thinking about the need to topple Saddam five days after the Twin Towers fell.

    Both Kagan quotations are from Packer, Assassins’ Gate, 38. Also see similar comments by Packer himself in ibid., 32.
    Woodward, Plan of Attack, 25-26.
    Page, “Showdown with Saddam.”

    Elliott and Carney, “First Stop, Iraq.” Woodward describes Wolfowitz as “like a drum that would not stop.” Plan of Attack, 22.
    Woodward, Plan of Attack, 1-44.
    Regarding the neoconservatives’ influence on Cheney, see Elliott and Carney, “First Stop, Iraq”; Page, “Showdown with Saddam”; Michael Hirsh, “Bernard Lewis Revisited,” Wash­ ington Monthly, November 2004; Frederick Kempe, “Lewis’s ‘Liberation’ Doctrine for Mid­ east Faces New Tests,” Wall Street Journal, December 13, 2005; and Caria Anne Robbins and Jeanne Cummings, “How Bush Decided That Hussein Must Be Ousted from Atop Iraq,” Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2002. On Ajami in particular, see Adam Shatz, “The Na­ tive Informant,” Nation, April 28, 2003.

    Jacob Weisberg, “Are Neo-cons History?” Financial Times, March 14, 2007. This article makes clear that Cheney and Lewis have a close relationship.
    Woodward succinctly describes Libby’s influence in Plan of Attack (48—49): “Libby had three formal titles. He was chief of staff to Vice President Cheney; he was also national se­ curity adviser to the vice president; and he was finally an assistant to President Bush. It was a trifecta of positions probably never held before by a single person. Scooter was a power center unto himself . . . Libby was one of only two people who were not principals to attend the National Security Council meetings with the president and the separate principals meetings chaired by Rice.”Also see ibid., 50-51, 288-92, 300-301, 409-10; Bumiller and Schmitt, “On the Job and at Home”; Karen Kwiatkowski, “The New Pentagon Papers,” Salon.com, March 10, 2004; and Tyler and Sciolino, “Bush Advisers Split.”

    Tyler and Sciolino, “Bush Advisers Split.” Also see Bumiller and Schmitt, “On the Job and at Home”; and William Safire, “Phony War II,” New York Times, November 28, 2002.
    On Cheney’s significant influence in the Bush administration, see Jeanne Cummings and Greg Hitt, “In Iraq Drama, Cheney Emerges as President’s War Counselor,” Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2003; Mark Hosenball, Michael Isikoff, and Evan Thomas, “Cheney’s Long Path to War,” Newsweek, November 17, 2003; Kessler and Slavin, “Cheney Is Ful-

    crum”; Barbara Slavin and Susan Page, “Cheney Rewrites Roles in Foreign Policy,” USA To­ day, July 29, 2002; and Woodward, Plan of Attack, 27-30.
    Kessler, “U.S. Decision on Iraq Has Puzzling Past”; and Woodward, Plan of Attack, 410. Also see ibid., 164-65,409.

    Quoted in Eric Schmitt, “Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force’s Size,” New York Times, February 28, 2003.
    “This Goes Beyond Bin Laden,” jinsa.org, September 13, 2 0 0 1 . Also see Vest, “The Men from JINSA and CSP.”

    This letter was published in the Weekly Standard, October 1, 2001. Among the signatories were William Bennett, Eliot Cohen, Aaron Friedberg, Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, Jeane Kirkpatrick, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz, Stephen Solarz, and Leon Wieseltier.

    Charles Krauthammer, “The War: A Road Map,” Washington Post, September 28, 2001 ; and Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “The Right War,” Weekly Standard, October 1, 2001. Also see “War Aims,” Wall Street Journal editorial, September 20,2001.
    Michael Barone, “War by Ultimatum,” U.S. News & World Report, October 1, 2001. Also see Bill Gertz, “Iraq Suspected of Sponsoring Terrorist Attacks,” Washington Times, Septem­ ber 21, 2001; “Drain the Ponds of Terror,” Jerusalem Post editorial, September 25, 2001; William Safire, “The Ultimate Enemy,” New York Times, September 24, 2001 ; and Mortimer B. Zuckerman, “A Question of Priorities,” U.S. News &• World Report, October 8, 2001.

    The April 3, 2002, letter can be found at www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter- 040302.htm.
    Daniel Byman, Kenneth M. Pollack, and Gideon Rose, “The Rollback Fantasy,” Foreign Af­

    fairs 78, no. 1 (January/February 1999).
    Kenneth M. Pollack, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq (New York: Random House, 2002); Kenneth M. Pollack, “Why Iraq Can’t Be Deterred,” New York Times, Sep­ tember 26, 2002; Kenneth M. Pollack, “A Last Chance to Stop Iraq,” New York Times, Feb­ ruary 21, 2003; Martin S. Indyk and Kenneth M. Pollack, “How Bush Can Avoid the Inspections Trap,” New York Times, January 27, 2003; and Martin S. Indyk and Kenneth M. Pollack, “Lock and Load,” Los Angeles Times, December 19, 2002.
    William Kristol, “The Axis of Appeasement,” Weekly Standard, August 26/September 2, 2002; Robert Bartley, “Thinking Things Over: What We Learned,” Wall Street Journal, September 9, 2002; Michael Ledeen, “Scowcroft Strikes Out,” National Review Online, August 6, 2002; George Melloan, “Who Really Doubts That Saddam’s Got to Go,” Wall Street Journal, Sep­ tember 10, 2002; John O’Sullivan, “Chamberlain Deserves an Apology: Scowcroft, Hagel, and Raines Are No Chamberlains,” National Review Online, September 3, 2002; “This Is Opposition? There Is No Revolt in the GOP Against Bush’s Iraq Policy,” Wall Street Journal editorial, August 19, 2002; and “Who Is Brent Scowcroft?” New York Sun editorial, August 19, 2002. None of the targets of the neoconservatives’ ire were advocating appeasement of Iraq but instead favored containment over war.
    William Safire, “Our ‘Relentless’ Liberation,” New York Times, October 8, 2001. Also see William Safire, “Saddam and Terror,” New York Times, August 22, 2002; and William Safire, “BigMo,”New YorkTimes, November 19,2001.
    Robert Kagan, “On to Phase II,” Washington Post, November 27, 2001; Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “What to Do About Iraq,” Weekly Standard, January 21, 2002; and Safire, “Saddam and Terror.”

    Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “The U.N. Trap?” Weekly Standard, November 18, 2002; Charles Krauthammer, “A Costly Charade at the U.N.,” Washington Post, February 28, 2003; George F. Will, “Stuck to the U.N. Tar Baby,” Washington Post, September 19, 2002; and William Safire, “The French Connection,” New York Times, March 14, 2003. Krauthammer, “Our First Move.” Also see Reuel Marc Gerecht, “A Necessary War,” Weekly Standard, October 21, 2002; and Charles Krauthammer, “Where Power Talks,” Washington Post, January 4, 2002.

    An excellent account of the administration’s campaign to sell the war is Frank Rich, The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina (NewYork: Pen­ guin Press, 2006).

    James Bamford, A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agen­ cies (NewYork: Doubleday, 2004), chaps. 13-14; Karen DeYoung, Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell (NewYork: Knopf, 2006), 440-46; and Woodward, Plan of Attack, 288-92, 297-301. Also see ibid., 72, 163.

    Woodward, Plan of Attack, 290.

    “Powell Regrets UN Speech on Iraq WMDs,” ABC News Online, September 9, 2005.

    Bamford, Pretext for War, 287-91, 307-31 ;Julian Borger, “The Spies Who Pushed for War,”

    Guardian, July 17, 2003; David S. Cloud, “Prewar Intelligence Inquiry Zeroes in on Penta­ gon Office,” Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2004; Seymour M. Hersh, “Selective Intelli­ gence,” New Yorker, May 12, 2003; Kwiatkowski, “New Pentagon Papers”; W. Patrick Lang, “Drinking the Kool-Aid,” Middle East Policy 11, no. 2 (Summer 2004); Jim Lobe, “Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network,” Inter Press Service, August 7, 2003; Greg Miller, “Spy Unit Skirted CIA on Iraq,” Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2004; Paul R. Pillar, “Intelligence, Policy, and the War in Iraq,” Foreign Affairs 85, no. 2 (March-April 2006); James Risen, “How Pair’s Finding on Terror Led to Clash on Shaping Intelligence,” New York Times, April 28, 2004; and Eric Schmitt and Thorn Shanker, “Threats and Responses: A C.I.A. Rival; Pentagon Sets Up Intelligence Unit,” New York Times, October 24, 2002.

    Risen, State of War, 72-73.

    Lobe, “Pentagon Office.” On Makovsky, see Jack Herman, “A Whole New Ballgame Over­

    seas,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, February 20, 1989. This article was written when Makovsky was about to leave the United States and move to Israel. “I have strong feelings about help­ ing to build a Jewish state,” he told Herman. He then added, “It’s like returning to your roots.”

    Borger, “The Spies.”

    Inspector General, Department of Defense, “Review of the Pre—Iraqi War Activities of the

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy,” Report no. 07-INTEL-04, February 9,

    2007.

    Franklin Foer, “Founding Fakers,” New Republic, August 18, 2003.

    Robert Dreyfuss, “Tinker, Banker, NeoCon, Spy,” American Prospect, November 18, 2002.

    Also see “Who Will Lead a Free Iraq?”jinsa.org, May 9, 2003; and “Creating a Post-Saddam

    Iraq,”jinsa.org, Report no. 481,April 6, 2005.

    Quoted in Dreyfuss, “Tinker, Banker.” Also see Matthew E. Berger, “Iraqi Exiles and Jews

    Form Unlikely Alliance,” Jewish News Weekly (online), October 18, 2002; Juan Cole, “All the Vice-President’s Men,” Salon.com, October 28, 2005; and Michelle Goldberg, “The War over the Peace,” Salon.com, April 14, 2003.

    Quoted in Robert Dreyfuss, “Chalabi and AEI: The Sequel,” TomPaine.com, November 10, 2005. Also see Laurie Mylroie, “Unusually Effective,” New York Sun, November 8, 2005; and Michael Rubin, “Iraq’s Comeback Kid,” National Review Online, December 5, 2005.

    Bernard Lewis, “Put the Iraqis in Charge,” Wall Street Journal, August 29, 2003. Also see Ian Buruma, “Lost in Translation,” New Yorker, June 14, 2004; and Michael Hirsh, “Bernard Lewis Revisited,” Washington Monthly, November 2004.

    Dizard, “How Ahmed Chalabi Conned the Neocons.” In mid-June 2003, Benjamin Ne­ tanyahu announced, “It won’t be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa.” Reuters, “Netanyahu Says Iraq-Israel Oil Line Not Pipe-Dream,” Haaretz, June 20, 2003. Of course, this did not happen and it is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. Also see Douglas Davis, “Peace with Israel Said to Top New Iraq’s Agenda,” Jerusalem Post, April 21, 2003.

    Matthew E. Berger, “New Chance to Build Israel-Iraq Ties,” Jewish Journal (online), April 28, 2003. Also see Bamford, Pretext to War, 293; and Ed Blanche, “Securing Iraqi Oil for Israel: The Plot Thickens,” Lebanonwire.com, April 25, 2003.

    Nathan Guttman, “Mutual Wariness: AIPAC and the Iraqi Opposition,” Haaretz, April 27, 2003.

    Quoted in Packer, Assassins’ Gate, 41.

    Friedman qualifed this remark by adding, “In the final analysis, what fomented the war is

    America’s over-reaction to September 11.” We agree; it was a combination of the neoconser­ vatives’ active promotion of the war, the support from key groups in the lobby, and a partic­ ular set of international and domestic circumstances that led the United States into the Iraqi quagmire. See Shavit, “White Man’s Burden.”

    Noam Chomsky, “The Israel Lobby?” Znet (online), March 28, 2006. Also see Stephen Zunes, “The Israel Lobby: How Powerful Is It Really?” Znet (online), May 25, 2006.

    One pundit notes that the “preferred slogan” of the antiwar forces in the run-up to the Iraq

    war was “no blood for oil.” John B. Judis, “Over a Barrel,” New Republic, January 20, 2003, 20. Also see William R. Clark, Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar (Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2005); Michael Elliott, “The Selling of the President’s War: Bush Should Take Israel and Oil Out of the Iraq Equation,” Time, No­ vember 18, 2002; Michael Meacher, “This War on Terrorism Is Bogus,” Guardian, Septem­ ber 6, 2003; Kevin Phillips, “American Petrocacy,” American Conservative, July 17, 2006; and Sandy Tolan, “Beyond Regime Change,” Los Angeles Times, December 1, 2002.

    Judis, “Jews and the Gulf,” 16-17.

    Stephen J. Hedges, “Allies Not Swayed on Iraq Strike,” Chicago Tribune, August 28, 2002;

    “Saudi Arabia Says It Won’t Join a War,” New York Times, March 19, 2003; “Saudis Warn US over Iraq War,” B B C News (online), February 17, 2003; Jon Sawyer, “Saudi Arabia Won’t Back War on Iraq without U.N. Authority, Prince Warns,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch (online), January 23, 2003; “Scorecard: For or Against Military Action,” New York Times, August 27, 2002; and Brian Whitaker and John Hooper, “Saudis Will Not Aid US War Effort,” Guardian, August 8, 2002.

    Peter Beinart, “Crude,” New Republic, October 7, 2002; Michael Moran and Alex Johnson, “The Rush for Iraq’s Oil,” MSNBC.com, November 7, 2002; Anthony Sampson, “Oilmen Don’t Want Another Suez,” Observer, December 22, 2002; John W. Schoen, “Iraqi Oil, American Bonanza?” MSNBC.com, November 11, 2002; and Daniel Yergin, “A Crude View of the Crisis in Iraq,” Washington Post, December 8, 2002.

    Remarks by the Vice President to the Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention, Nashville, Tennessee (White House, Office of the Press Secretary, August 26, 2002). Also see Remarks by the Vice President to the Veterans of the Korean War, San Antonio, Texas (White House, Office of the Press Secretary, August 29, 2002).

    For a copy of the speech, see “In the President’s Words: ‘Free People Will Keep the Peace of the World,’” New York Times, February 27, 2003. Also see Remarks by the President to the United Nations General Assembly, New York (White House, Office of the Press Secretary, September 12, 2002); Remarks by the President to the Graduating Class, West Point (White House, Office of the Press Secretary, June 1, 2002); President’s Inaugural Speech, Washington, DC (White House, Office of the Press Secretary, January 20, 2005); and Na­ tional Security Strategy of the United States (2002).

    Robert S. Greenberger and Karby Leggett, “President’s Dream: Changing Not Just Regime but a Region: A Pro-U.S., Democratic Area Is a Goal That Has Israeli and Neoconserva­ tive Roots,” Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2003. Also see George Packer, “Dreaming of Democracy,” New York Times Magazine, March 2, 2003; Paul Sperry, “Bush the Nation- Builder: So Much for Campaign Promises,” Antiwar.com, October 6, 2006; and Wayne Washington, “Once Against Nation-Building, Bush Now Involved,” Boston Globe, March 2, 2004.

    Charles Krauthammer, “Peace Through Democracy,” Washington Post, June 28, 2002.

    Barak, “Taking Apart.”

    Quoted in Lynfield, “Israel Sees Opportunity in Possible U.S. Strike on Iraq.”

    Benn, “Background.”

    Bennet, “Israel Says.”

    Shalev, “Jerusalem Frets.”

    See, for example, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New

    Century, Report of the Project for the New American Century (Washington, DC, Septem­

    ber 2000), 14, 17-18.

    Martin Indyk, “The Clinton Administration’s Approach to the Middle East,” speech to Soref

    Symposium, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, May 18, 1993. Also see Anthony

    Lake, “Confronting Backlash States,” Foreign Affairs 73, no. 2 (March/April 1994).

    Kenneth M. Pollack, The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America (New York:

    Random House, 2004), 261-65.

    Robert Kagan and William Kristol, eds., Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in Ameri­

    can Foreign and Defense Policy (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000); Charles Kraut­ hammer, “Universal Dominion: Toward a Unipolar World,” National Interest 18 (Winter 1989/90); Michael A. Ledeen, Freedom Betrayed: How America Led a Global Democratic Revolution, Won the Cold War, and Walked Away (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1996); Joshua Muravchik, Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America’s Destiny (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1991); Marina Ottaway et al., “Democratic Mirage in the Middle East,” Policy Brief 20 (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 2002); Norman Podhoretz, “Strange Bedfellows: A Guide to the New Foreign-Policy Debates,” Commentary, December 1999; “Statement of Principles,” Project for the New American Century, June 3, 1997; and Albert Wohlstetter, “A Vote in Cuba? Why Not in Iraq?” Wall

    Street Journal, May 24, 1991.

    On the neoconservatives’ thinking about regional transformation, see Robert Blecher, “Free

    People Will Set the Course of History,” Middle East Report Online, March 2003; Jack Don­ nelly and Anthony Shadid, “Iraq War Hawks Have Plans to Reshape Entire Mideast,” Boston Globe, September 10, 2002; Halper and Clarke, America Alone, 76-90; Nicholas Le­ mann, “After Iraq: The Plan to Remake the Middle East,” New Yorker, February 17, 2003; and Klein, “How Israel.”

    Quoted in Roula Khalaf, “Rice ‘New Middle East’ Comments Fuel Arab Fury over US Pol­ icy,” Financial Times, July 31, 2006.

    Orly Halpern, “Israeli Experts Say Middle East Was Safer with Saddam in Iraq,” Forward, January 5, 2007. Also see Leslie Susser, “Iraq War: Good or Bad for Israel? Saddam’s Exe­ cution Revives Debate,” JTA.org, January 2, 2007.

    Quoted in Chris McGreal, “Israelis May Regret Saddam Ousting, Says Security Chief,” Guardian, February 9, 2006.

    James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, co-chairs, The Iraq Study Group Report (NewYork: Random House, 2006), xv, 28-29, 43-45, 50-58. Tony Blair, who repeatedly called for set­ tling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and who favors negotiating with Iran and Syria, said that the Iraq Study Group “offers a strong way forward.” Quoted in Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Kate Zernike, “Bush Expresses Caution on Key Points in Iraq Panel’s Report,” New York Times, December 7, 2006. Also see Kirk Semple, “Syrian Official, in Iraq, Offers Assis­ tance,” New York Times, November 19, 2006.

    Akiva Eldar, “The Gewalt Agenda,” Haaretz, November 20, 2006.

    Michael Abramowitz and Glenn Kessler, “Hawks Bolster Skeptical President,” Washington

    Post, December 10, 2006; Associated Press, “Israel Experts Doubt Focusing on Israel-Arab Conflict Will Help in Iraq,”International Herald Tribune, December 6, 2006; “Gates’s Shock­ ing Thinking on Iran,” Jerusalem Post editorial, December 6, 2006; Nathan Guttman, “Baker Group Advisers ‘Surprised,’ ‘Upset’ at Report’s Israel-Iraq Link,” Forward, January 30, 2007; Jeff Jacoby, “Fighting to Win in Iraq,” Boston Globe, December 3, 2006; Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “A Perfect Failure,” Weekly Standard, December 11, 2006; Ron Kampeas, “ISG Fallout Continues with Query: Is Israeli-Arab Peace the Linchpin?”/TA.org, December 10, 2006; Jim Lobe, “Neocons Move to Preempt Baker Report,” Antiwar.com, December 6, 2006; Marc Perelman, “As Washington Studies Iraq Report, Jerusalem Frets over Tehran

    Talk,” Forward, December 15, 2006; Shmuel Rosner, “Baker’s Brew,” Haaretz, December 8,

    2006; and “The Iraq Muddle Group,” Wall Street Journal editorial, December 7, 2006.

    Quoted in Shmuel Rosner, “FM Livni: U.S. Must Stand Firm on Iraq,” Haaretz, March 13, 2007. Also see Shmuel Rosner, “Livni to AIPAC: U.S. Can’t Show Weakness on Iraq, Iran,”

    Haaretz, March 12, 2007.

    The Olmert quotations are from Bradley Burston, “Israel Must Stay the Hell Out of U.S.

    Debate on Iraq,” Haaretz, March 13, 2007; and Hilary L. Krieger, “PM’s AIPAC Talk Sur­

    prises Delegates,” Jerusalem Post, March 13, 2007.

    Burston, “Israel Must Stay.” Also see Krieger, “PM’s AIPAC Talk”; and Shmuel Rosner, “No

    Easy Answers on Israel and the Iraq Debate,” Haaretz, March 13, 2007.

    “President Bush Welcomes Prime Minister Olmert of Israel to the White House,” White

    House, Office of the Press Secretary, November 13, 2006.

    Quoted in James D. Besser, “Olmert Support for Iraq War Stirs Anger,” Jewish Week, No­

    vember 17, 2006.

    David Horovitz, “Editor’s Notes: Wading into the Great Debate,” Jerusalem Post, March 15,

    2007.

    Quoted in Glenn Frankel, “A Beautiful Friendship?” Washington Post Sunday Magazine,

    July 16, 2006.

    Martin Kramer, “The American Interest,” Azure 5767, no. 26 (Fall 2006): 29. Kramer also

    claims that “the assertion that the Iraq war is being waged on behalf of Israel is pure fiction,” a remark at odds with Prime Minister Olmert’s statement to the 2007 AIPAC Policy Con­ ference, where he explicitly linked Israel’s security to victory in Iraq. See note 167 above. Also see Yossi Alpher, “Sharon Warned Bush,” Forward, January 12, 2007.

    Alpher, “Sharon Warned Bush.” Also see Herb Keinon, “Sharon Warned Bush of Saddam Threat,” Jerusalem Post, January 11, 2007.

    See notes 21 and 25 above.
    , @Art
    Voltaire on the Jews: ''They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not someday become deadly to the human race...

    Shama: ….and so the unmelodious tune of a conspiracy by “international” jews spanning nations and time, continues the familiar refrain. I am reminded of a meeting I had recently with an elderly gentleman [a Washinton insider, he is a very well recognised republican and an opponent of the neocon faction] to whom I posed this *theory* propounded by flearsheimer and waltz.

     

    flearsheimer and waltz - Really.

    Walt and Mearsheimer are respected members of America’s intellectual community – why the childish name calling? Clearly Mr. Shama disagrees with them – but why this juvenile imbecilic response?

    Is Mr. Shama a brilliant grown up – or a 10-year-old Jew child inculcated with both arrogance and hate? “flearsheimer and waltz ” shows us the Jew child.

    He shows us the power of cultural conditioning at an early age – this poor man is not in charge of his logical thinking brain. He was conditioned not in the good arts of idealism – but in the dark arts of tribal hatred. The trauma inflected on the Jew child is a crime. He can never truly love his fellow humans.

    As has been already said - how sad!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Sam Shama
    ....and so the unmelodious tune of a conspiracy by "international" jews spanning nations and time, continues the familiar refrain. I am reminded of a meeting I had recently with an elderly gentleman [a Washinton insider, he is a very well recognised republican and an opponent of the neocon faction] to whom I posed this *theory* propounded by flearsheimer and waltz. He smiled, looked at me quizzically, nodded his head and replied: "nice fiction". The fact is U.S.' Israeli lobby is influential but nowhere near the crazy capabilities attributed to it by you folks. Think about it for a moment; if they were that potent would the Iran deal have gotten through despite their strong protestations? You chaps wave flearsheiner as if it were the final word!

    Sam Shama
    common zio thug gussied up Boulmiche style.

    Vivian dressed up in hi-class duds paid for by her pimp (but w/o Julia Roberts class).

    quelle surprise?
    not

    a ziothug
    is a ziothug
    is a ziothug
    (apologies to roses).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    You must be one of those zoological specimens, a few hundred and forty pimples on the post-middle-age face, the lowest order of intelligence with the possible exception of the garden slug, known to science. Not the product of mere chance, but a carefully bred scullion for menial duties.
    , @L.K
    We must try to understand Shama, what motivates this creature...

    You see, the guy is a degenerate, shameless(!) serial LIAR & propagandist for Israel and Zionism.
    He lies/distorts/obfuscates as effortlessly as most people breathe or walk.
    Shama would make Pinocchio blush.
    So sad...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Sam Shama says:
    @anon
    Sam Shama
    common zio thug gussied up Boulmiche style.

    Vivian dressed up in hi-class duds paid for by her pimp (but w/o Julia Roberts class).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu3x5SZrMHo

    quelle surprise?
    not

    a ziothug
    is a ziothug
    is a ziothug
    (apologies to roses).

    You must be one of those zoological specimens, a few hundred and forty pimples on the post-middle-age face, the lowest order of intelligence with the possible exception of the garden slug, known to science. Not the product of mere chance, but a carefully bred scullion for menial duties.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. L.K says:
    @anon
    Sam Shama
    common zio thug gussied up Boulmiche style.

    Vivian dressed up in hi-class duds paid for by her pimp (but w/o Julia Roberts class).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu3x5SZrMHo

    quelle surprise?
    not

    a ziothug
    is a ziothug
    is a ziothug
    (apologies to roses).

    We must try to understand Shama, what motivates this creature…

    You see, the guy is a degenerate, shameless(!) serial LIAR & propagandist for Israel and Zionism.
    He lies/distorts/obfuscates as effortlessly as most people breathe or walk.
    Shama would make Pinocchio blush.
    So sad…

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    It's true. Sam the Shameless Sham displays those lower 'human' qualities of having flexibility of morality. He is always ready to express outrage at anything that challenges his agenda but always willing to defend the indefensible when he perceives the wrongdoings to be to his advantage.
    , @Anonymous Smith

    He lies/distorts/obfuscates as effortlessly as most people breathe or walk.
     
    The philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, called the Jews the "great masters of the lie."
    , @Sam Shama
    It's true that most people breathe and walk. Not so the reptile, garden slug and nosy the pangolin. Fine meeting of the "minds" here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama
    ....and so the unmelodious tune of a conspiracy by "international" jews spanning nations and time, continues the familiar refrain. I am reminded of a meeting I had recently with an elderly gentleman [a Washinton insider, he is a very well recognised republican and an opponent of the neocon faction] to whom I posed this *theory* propounded by flearsheimer and waltz. He smiled, looked at me quizzically, nodded his head and replied: "nice fiction". The fact is U.S.' Israeli lobby is influential but nowhere near the crazy capabilities attributed to it by you folks. Think about it for a moment; if they were that potent would the Iran deal have gotten through despite their strong protestations? You chaps wave flearsheiner as if it were the final word!

    … and so the unmelodious tune of a conspiracy by “international” jews spanning nations and time, continues the familiar refrain….

    I am reminded of a meeting I had recently with an elderly gentleman… to whom I posed this *theory* propounded by flearsheimer and waltz. He smiled, looked at me quizzically, nodded his head and replied: “nice fiction”.

    Sam, are you equating M&W’s The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

    Rather than dismissing their book out of hand, could you provide specific examples of their “nice fiction” by quoting specific passages and the corresponding page numbers? To assist you, I have appended the 175 notes to Ch. 8:

    [MORE]

    George Packer, The Assassins’ Gate: America in Iraq (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005), 46. Former CIA director George Tenet offers a similar view, writing in his memoirs that “one of the great mysteries to me is when the war in Iraq became inevitable.” George Tenet with Bill Harlow, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA (New York: Harper, 2007), 301.

    As the New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman reportedly observed in May 2003, “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.” See Ari Shavit, “White Man’s Burden,” Haaretz, May 4, 2003.

    Quoted in Emad Mekay, “Iraq Was Invaded ‘to Protect Israel’—US Officiai,” Asia Times On­ line, March 31, 2004. We used these quotations in our original article in the London Review of Books, and Zelikow challenged our interpretation of them. We based our discussion on a full and unimpeachable record of his remarks, and his challenge has no basis in fact. For a more detailed discussion of Zelikow’s charge and our response, see “Letters,” London Re­ view of Books, May 25, 2006. Zelikow also served with Rice on the National Security Coun­ cil during the first Bush administration and later coauthored a book with her on German reunification. He was one of the principal authors of the document that is probably the most comprehensive statement of the Bush Doctrine: The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Washington, DC: White House, September 2002).

    Quoted in “US Assumes UK Help in Iraq, Says General,” Guardian, August 20, 2002. Quoted in an interview with Sascha Lehnartz, “Dann helfen uns eben die Osteuropaer,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, January 26, 2003. On the influence of the Defense Policy Board in Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, see Stephen J. Hedges, “Iraq Hawks Have Bush’s Ear,” Chicago Tribune, August 18, 2002.
    Joe Klein, “How Israel Is Wrapped Up in Iraq,” Time, February 10, 2003.
    Senator Ernest F. Hollings, “Bush’s Failed Mideast Policy Is Creating More Terrorism,” Charleston Post and Courier (online), May 6, 2004; and “Sen. Hollings Floor Statement Setting the Record Straight on His Mideast Newspaper Column,” May 20, 2004, originally posted on the former senator’s website (now defunct) but still available at http://www.shalomctr.org/node/620. “ADL Urges Senator Hollings to Disavow Statements on Jews and the Iraq War,” Anti- Defamation League press release, May 14, 2004.
    Matthew E. Berger, “Not So Gentle Rhetoric from the Gentleman from South Carolina,”

    JTA.org, May 23, 2004; “Sen. Hollings Floor Statement”; and “Senator Lautenberg’s Floor Statement in Support of Senator Hollings,” June 3, 2004, http://lautenberg.senate.gov/news room/video.cfm.
    Aluf Benn, “Scapegoat for Israel,” Haaretz, May 13, 2004; Matthew Berger, “Will Some Jews’ Backing for War in Iraq Have Repercussions for All1?”JTA.org, June 10, 2004; Patrick J. Buchanan, “Whose War?”American Conservative, March 24, 2003; Arnaud de Borchgrave, “A Bush-Sharon Doctrine?” Washington Times, February 14, 2003; Ami Eden, “Israel’s Role: The ‘Elephant’They’re Talking About,” Forward, February 28, 2003; “The Ground Shifts,” Forward, May 28, 2004; Nathan Guttman, “Prominent U.S. Jews, Israel Blamed for Start of Iraq War,” Haaretz, May 31, 2004; Spencer S. Hsu, “Moran Said Jews Are Pushing War,” Washington Post, March 11, 2003; Lawrence F. Kaplan, “Toxic Talk on War,” Washington

    Post, February 18, 2003; E. J. Kessler, “Gary Hart Says ‘Dual Loyalty’ Barb Was Not Aimed at Jews,” Forward, February 21, 2003; Ori Nir and Ami Eden, “Ex-Mideast Envoy Zinni Charges Neocons Pushed Iraq War to Benefit Israel,” Forward, May 28, 2004; and Robert Novak, “Sharon’s War?” CNN.com, December 26, 2002.

    Quoted in Akiva Eldar, “Sharp Pen, Cruel Tongue,” Haaretz, April 13, 2007.

    Michael Kinsley, “What Bush Isn’t Saying About Iraq,” Slate.com, October 24, 2002. Also

    see Michael Kinsley, “J’Accuse, Sort Of,” Slate.com, March 12, 2003.

    Nathan Guttman, “Some Blame Israel for U.S. War in Iraq,” Haaretz, March 5, 2003.

    Bill Keller, “Is It Good for the Jews?” New York Times, March 8, 2003.

    Ori Nir, “FBI Probe: More Questions Than Answers,” Forward, May 13, 2005.

    Shai Feldman, “The Bombing of Osiraq—Revisited,” International Security 7, no. 2 (Au­

    tumn 1982); and Dan Reiter, “Preventive Attacks Against Nuclear Programs and the ‘Suc­

    cess’ at Osiraq,” Nonproliferation Review 12, no. 2 (July 2005).

    Joel Brinkley, “Confrontation in the Gulf: Israelis Worried by U.S. Restraint,” New York

    Times, August 30, 1990;Joel Brinkley, “Top Israelis Warn of Deep Worry over Diplomatic Accord in Gulf,” New York Times, December 4, 1990; Hugh Carnegy, “Pullout Not Enough, Says Israel,” Financial Times, January 10, 1991; Sabra Chartrand, “Israel Warns Against a Gulf Retreat,” New York Times, December 6, 1990; Jackson Diehl, “Israelis Fear Iraqi Threat Will Endure,” Washington Post, August 29, 1990; Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, “Israel’s Call for Action,” Washington Post, August 24, 1990; Michael Massing, “The Way to War,” New York Review of Books, March 28, 1991; Martin Merzer, “Israel Hopes Diplomacy Won’t Let Iraqi Stay in Power,” Miami Herald, August 29, 1990; and “Sharon to Americans: Blast Iraqis Immediately,” Jerusalem Post, August 12, 1990.

    Aluf Benn, “Sharon Shows Powell His Practical Side,” Haaretz, February 26, 2001.

    Seymour Hersh, “The Iran Game,” New Yorker, December 3, 2001; Peter Hirschberg, “Background: Peres Raises Iranian Threat,” Haaretz, February 5, 2002; David Hirst, “Israel

    Thrusts Iran in Line of US Fire,” Guardian, February 2, 2002; “Israel Once Again Sees Iran as a Cause for Concern,” Haaretz, May 7, 2001; and Alan Sipress, “Israel Emphasizes Iran­ ian Threat,” Washington Post, February 7, 2002.

    Robert Novak, “Netanyahu’s Nuke Warning,” Chicago Sun-Times, April 14, 2002; Robert Novak, “War on Iraq Won’t Be ‘Cakewalk,’” Chicago Sun-Times, April 25, 2002; and William Raspberry, “To Solve the Crisis,” Washington Post, April 15, 2002.

    Elizabeth Sullivan, “Sharon Aide Expects United States to Attack Iraq; He Says Saddam Must Be Stopped from Making Nuclear Arms,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (online), May 3, 2002.

    Quoted in Joyce Howard Price, “Peres Encourages U.S. Action on Iraq,” Washington Times,

    May 12, 2002.

    Ehud Barak, “No Quick Fix,” Washington Post, June 8, 2002.

    Quoted in Gideon Alon, “Sharon to Panel: Iraq Is Our Biggest Danger,” Haaretz, August 13,

    2002. Also see Nina Gilbert, “Iraq Poses Greatest Threat,”Jerusalem Post, August 13, 2002.

    “Israel to US: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack,” CBSNews.com, August 16, 2002. The Sharon and Peres quotations are from Aluf Benn, “PM Urging U.S. Not to Delay Strike Against Iraq,” Haaretz, August 16, 2002. The Gissen quotation is from Jason Keyser, “Israel Urges U.S. to

    Attack,” Washington Post, August 16, 2002. The Shiry quotation is from Ben Lynfield, “Is­ rael Sees Opportunity in Possible US Strike on Iraq,” Christian Science Monitor, August 30, 2002. Also see Anton La Guardia, “Sharon Urges America to Bring Down Saddam,” Daily Telegraph (London), August 17, 2002; Reuven Pedhatzur, “Israel’s Interest in the War on Saddam,” Haaretz, August 4, 2002; Jonathan Steele, “Israel Puts Pressure on US to Strike Iraq,” Guardian, August 17, 2002; Walter Rodgers, “Rice and Peres Warn of Iraqi Threat,” CNN.com, August 16, 2002; Tony Snow et al., interview with Ra’anan Gissen, “Fox Special Report with Brit Hume,” August 16, 2002; and Ze’ev Schiff, “Into the Rough,” Haaretz, Au­ gust 16, 2002.

    Benn, “PM Urging U.S.” For additional evidence that “Israel and its supporters” were deeply concerned in 2002 “that critics would claim that the United States was going to war on

    Israel’s behalf—or even, as some have suggested, at Israel’s behest,” see Marc Perelman, “Iraqi Move Puts Israel in Lonely U.S. Corner,” Forward, September 20, 2002.
    On the lobby’s concerns in the run-up to the 1991 Gulf War, see John B. Judis, “Jews and the Gulf: Fallout from the Six-Week War,” Tikkun, May/June 1991; Allison Kaplan, “Sad­ dam Splits Jewish Lobby,”Jerusalem Post,January 14, 1991;and David Rogers,”Pro-Israel Lobbyists Quietly Backed Resolution Allowing Bush to Commit U.S. Troops to Combat,” Wall Street Journal, January 28, 1991. On Israel’s concerns at the same time, see Brinkley, “Top Israelis Warn of Deep Worry”; Carnegy, “Pullout Not Enough”; Chartrand,”Israel Warns”; Diehl, “Israelis Fear Iraqi Threat”; and Merzer, “Israel Hopes.” The Buchanan quo­ tation is from Chris Reidy, “The War Between the Columnists Gets Nasty,” Boston Globe, September 22, 1990.

    Benn, “PM Aide”; and Keyser, “Israel Urges U.S. to Attack.”
    Quoted in Rodgers, “Rice and Peres Warn.”
    Benn, “PM Aide.”
    Alon, “Sharon to Panel.” At a White House press conference with President Bush on Octo­ ber 16, 2002, Sharon said, “I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for the friendship and cooperation. And as far as I remember, as we look back towards many years now, I think that we never had such relations with any President of the United States as we have with you, and we never had such cooperation in everything as we have with the current administra­ tion.” “President Bush Welcomes Prime Minister Sharon to White House; Question and Answer Session with the Press,” transcript of press conference, U.S. Department of State, October 16, 2002. Also see Robert G. Kaiser, “Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Mideast Policy,” Washington Post, February 9, 2003.

    Shlomo Brom, “An Intelligence Failure,” Strategic Assessment (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University) 6, no. 3 (November 2003): 9. Also see “Intelligence Assess­ ment: Selections from the Media, 1998-2003,” ibid., 17-19; Gideon Alon, “Report Slams Assessment of Dangers Posed by Libya, Iraq,” Haaretz, March 28, 2004; Dan Baron, “Israeli Report Blasts Intelligence for Exaggerating the Iraqi Threat,” JTA.org, March 29, 2004; Molly Moore, “Israel Shares Blame on Iraq Intelligence, Report Says,” Washington Post, De­ cember 5, 2003; Greg Myre, “Israeli Report Faults Intelligence on Iraq,” New York Times, March 28, 2004; Ori Nir, “Senate Report on Iraq Intel Points to Role of Jerusalem,” For­ ward, July 16, 2004; and James Risen, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration (NewYork: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 72-73.

    On the general phenomenon of buck-passing, see John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (NewYork: Norton, 2001), 157-62.
    Quoted in Perelman, “Iraqi Move.”
    Herb Keinon, “Sharon to Putin: Too Late for Iraq Arms Inspection, “Jerusalem Post, October 1, 2002.

    “Peres Questions France Permanent Status on Security Council,” Haaretz, February 20, 2003. Perelman, “Iraqi Move.”
    Shlomo Avineri, “A Haunting Echo,” Los Angeles Times, November 24, 2002. Also see Ben­ jamin Netanyahu, “The Case for Toppling Saddam,” Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2002; and Nathan Guttman, “Shimon Peres Warns Against Repeat of 1930s Appeasement,” Haaretz, September 15, 2002.

    For some representative editorials, see “Next Stop, Baghdad,” Jerusalem Post editorial, No­ vember 15, 2 0 0 1 ; “Don’t Wait for Saddam,” Jerusalem Post editorial, August 18, 2002; “Mak­ ing the Case for War,” Jerusalem Post editorial, September 9, 2002. For some representative op-eds, see Ron Dermer, “The March to Baghdad,” Jerusalem Post, December 21, 2001; Efraim Inbar, “Ousting Saddam, Instilling Stability,” Jerusalem Post, October 8, 2002; and Gerald M. Steinberg, “Imagining the Liberation of Iraq,”Jerusalem Post, November 18, 2001. “Don’t Wait for Saddam.”

    Ehud Barak, “Taking Apart Iraq’s Nuclear Threat,” New York Times, September 4, 2002.

    Netanyahu, “The Case for Toppling Saddam.” Also see Benjamin Netanyahu, “U.S. Must Beat Saddam to the Punch,” Chicago Sun-Times, September 17, 2002.
    See, for example, “Benjamin Netanyahu Testifies About Iraq to Congress,” CNN Live Event, CNN.com, September 12, 2002; Jim Lobe, “Hawks Justify Iraq Strike as War for Democracy,” Inter Press Service, September 27, 2002; and Janine Zacharia, “Netanyahu: US Must Guarantee Israel’s Safety from Iraqi Attack,” Jerusalem Post, September 13, 2002. Aluf Benn, “Background: Enthusiastic IDF Awaits War in Iraq,” Haaretz, February 17, 2003; James Bennet, “Israel Says War on Iraq Would Benefit the Region,” New York Times, February 27, 2003; and Chemi Shalev, “Jerusalem Frets as U.S. Battles Iraq War Delays,” Forward, March 7, 2003.

    Quoted in James Bennet, “Clinton Redux,” The Atlantic@Aspen weblog, July 8, 2006. Asher Arian, “Israeli Public Opinion on National Security 2002,” Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, Memorandum no. 61, July 2002, 10, 34.
    Ephraim Yaar and Tamar Hermann, “Peace Index: Most Israelis Support the Attack on Iraq,” Haaretz, March 6, 2003. Regarding Kuwait, a public opinion poll released in March 2003 found that 89.6 percent of Kuwaitis favored the impending war against Iraq. James Morri­ son, “Kuwaitis Support War,” Washington Times, March 18, 2003. In a poll taken in Israel in early May 2007, 59 percent of the respondents said that the U.S. decision to invade Iraq was correct. “Poll Shows That Israel Is a Staunch American Ally,” Anti-Defamation League press release, May 18, 2007. By that time, most Americans had concluded that the war was a tragic mistake.
    “America’s Image Further Erodes, Europeans Want Weaker Ties: a Nine-Country Survey,” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Washington, DC, March 18, 2003. Also see Alan Travis and Ian Black, “Blair’s Popularity Plummets,” Guardian, February 18, 2003. Gideon Levy, “A Deafening Silence,” Haaretz, October 6, 2002.
    See Dan Izenberg, “Foreign Ministry Warns Israeli War Talk Fuels US Anti-Semitism,” Je­ rusalem Post, March 10, 2003, which makes clear that “the Foreign Ministry has received reports from the US” telling Israelis to be more circumspect because the U.S. media is portraying Israel as “trying to goad the administration into war.”
    Quoted in Dana Milbank, “Group Urges Pro-Israel Leaders Silence on Iraq,” Washington Post,November 27, 2002.
    David Horovitz, “Sharon Warns Colleagues Not to Discuss Iraq Conflict,” Irish Times, March 12, 2003. Also see James Bennet, “Threats and Responses: Israel’s Role; Not Urging War, Sharon Says,” New York Times, March 11, 2003; and Aluf Benn, “Sharon Says U.S. Should Also Disarm Iran, Libya and Syria,” Haaretz, February 18, 2003.

    The influence of the neoconservatives and their allies was widely reflected before the war and is clearly reflected in the following articles, all written before or just after the war be­ gan: Joel Beinin, “Pro-Israel Hawks and the Second Gulf War,” Middle East Report Online, April 6, 2003; Elisabeth Bumiller and Eric Schmitt, “On the Job and at Home, Influential Hawks’ 30-Year Friendship Evolves,” New York Times, September 11, 2002; Kathleen and Bill Christison, “A Rose by Another Name: The Bush Administration’s Dual Loyalties,” CounterPunch.org, December 13, 2002; Robert Dreyfuss, “The Pentagon Muzzles the CIA,” American Prospect, December 16, 2002; Michael Elliott and James Carney, “First Stop, Iraq,” Time, March 31, 2003; Seymour Hersh, “The Iraq Hawks,” New Yorker, December 24-31, 2001; Michael Hirsh, “Hawks, Doves and Dubya,” Newsweek, September 2, 2002; Glenn Kessler, “U.S. Decision on Iraq Has Puzzling Past,” Washington Post, January 12, 2003; Joshua M. Marshall, “Bomb Saddam?” Washington Monthly, June 2002; Dana Milbank, “White House Push for Iraqi Strike Is on Hold,” Washington Post, August 18, 2002; Susan Page, “Showdown with Saddam: The Decision to Act,” USA Today, September 11, 2002; Sam Tanenhaus, “Bush’s Brain Trust,” Vanity Fair (online), July 2003; Patrick E. Tyler and Elaine Sciolino, “Bush Advisers Split on Scope of Retaliation,” New York Times, September 20, 2001 ; and Jason A. Vest, “The Men from JINSA and CSP,” Nation, September 2/9, 2002. Janine Zacharia, “All the President’s Middle East Men,”Jerusalem Post, January 19,2001.

    55. “Rally Unites Anguished Factions Under Flag of ‘Stand with Israel,’” Forward, April 19, 2002; and “Forward 50,” Forward, November 15, 2002.

    56. John McCaslin, “Israeli-Trained Cops,” Washington Times, November 5, 2002; Bret Stephens, “Man of the Year,”Jerusalem Post (Rosh Hashana Supplement), September 26, 2003; and Janine Zacharia, “Invasive Treatment,” ibid. Other useful pieces on Wolfowitz in­ clude Peter J. Boyer, “The Believer,” New Yorker, November 1, 2004; Michael Dobbs, “For Wolfowitz, a Vision May Be Realized,” Washington Post, April 7, 2003; James Fallows, “The Unilateralist,” Atlantic, March 2002; Bill Keller, “The Sunshine Warrior,” New York Times Magazine, September 22, 2002; and “Paul Wolfowitz, Velociraptor,” Economist, February 7, 2002.

    See, for example, Douglas J. Feith, “The Inner Logic of Israel’s Negotiations: Withdrawal Process, Not Peace Process,” Middle East Quarterly 3, no. 1 (March 1996); and Douglas Feith, “A Strategy for Israel,” Commentary, September 1997. For useful discussions of Feith s views, see Jeffrey Goldberg, “A Little Learning: What Douglas Feith Knew and When He Knew It,” New Yorker, May 9, 2005; Jim Lobe, “Losing Feith, or Is the Bush Team Shedding Its Sharper Edges?” Daily Star (online), January 31, 2005; James J. Zogby, “A Dangerous Ap­ pointment: Profile of Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense Under Bush,” Middle East Information Center, April 18, 2001; and “Israeli Settlements: Legitimate, Democratically Mandated, Vital to Israel’s Security and, Therefore, in U.S. Interest,” Center for Security Pol­ icy, Transition Brief no. 96-T 130, December 17, 1996. Note that the title of the latter piece, which was published by an organization in the lobby, says that what is in Israel’s interest is in America’s national interest. In “Losing Feith,” Lobe writes, “In 2003, when Feith, who was standing in for Rumsfeld at an interagency ‘Principals’ Meeting’ on the Middle East, con­ cluded his remarks on behalf of the Pentagon, according to the Washington insider newslet­ ter, The Nelson Report, [National Security Adviser Condoleezza] Rice said, ‘Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we’ll invite the ambassador.’”

    “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” was prepared for the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Jerusalem and published in June 1996. A copy can be found at http://www.iasps.org/stratl.htm.

    Akiva Eldar, “Perles of Wisdom for the Feithful,” Haaretz, October 1, 2002.

    Packer, Assassins ‘Gate, 32.

    “Israel’s UN Ambassador Slams Qatar, Praises U.S. Envoy Bolton,” Haaretz, May 23, 2006.

    Also see “Bolton Is Israel’s Secret Weapon, Says Gillerman,” BigNewsNetwork.com, Novem­

    ber 18, 2006; and Ori Nir, “Senate Probes Bolton’s Pro-Israel Efforts,” Forward, May 6, 2005.

    Marc Perelman, “Siding with White House, Groups Back Bolton,” Forward, November 17,

    2006; and “Dear John,” Forward editorial, December 8, 2006.

    Ori Nir, “Libby Played Leading Role on Foreign Policy Decisions,” Forward, November 4,

    2005.

    “He Tarries: Jewish Messianism and the Oslo Peace,” Rennert Lecture for 2002. Krautham­

    mer fiercely defends Israel at every turn in his columns.

    65. Asia Aydintasbas, “The Midnight Ride of James Woolsey,” Salon.com, December 20, 2001;

    Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender, “Cheney Link of Iraq, 9/11 Dismissed,” Boston Globe, September 16, 2003; David E. Sanger and Robin Toner, “Bush and Cheney Talk Strongly of Qaeda Links with Hussein,” New York Times, June 18, 2004; and R. James Woolsey, “The Iraq Connection,” Wall Street Journal, October 18,2001.

    Goldberg added that “among Jewish lobbyists in the Beltway, support for the impending war is almost taken for granted—several are puzzled by the very suggestion that any kind of strenuous opposition to an Iraq invasion might emerge.” Michelle Goldberg, “Why Ameri­ can Jewish Groups Support War with Iraq,” Salon.com, September 14, 2002.

    “An Unseemly Silence,” Forward editorial, May 7, 2004.

    Nacha Cattan, “Resolutions on Invasion Divide Jewish Leadership,” Forward, October 11,

    2002; Laurie Goodstein, “Threats and Responses: American Jews; Divide Among Jews Leads to Silence on Iraq War,” New York Times, March 15, 2003; and Milbank, “Group Urges.”

    Matthew E. Berger, “Jewish Groups Back U.S. Stand on Iraq,” Jewish Journal (online), Oc­ tober 18, 2002; and Jewish Council for Public Affairs, “Statement on Iraq,” adopted by the JCPA Board of Directors, October 2002.
    Mortimer B. Zuckerman, “No Time for Equivocation,” U.S. News & World Report, August 2 6 / September 2, 2002. Also see Mortimer B. Zuckerman, “No More Cat and Mouse,” U.S. News &• World Report, October 28, 2002; Mortimer B. Zuckerman, “Clear and Compelling Proof,” U.S. News & World Report, February 10, 2003; and Mortimer B. Zuckerman, “The High Price of Waiting,” U.S. News & World Report, March 10, 2003.

    Both quotes are from Goldberg, “Why American Jewish Groups.”
    Gary Rosenblatt, “The Case for War Against Saddam,” Jewish Week, December 13, 2002. Also see Gary Rosenblatt, “Hussein Asylum,” Jewish Week, August 23, 2002.
    Ron Kampeas, “Cheney: Iran, Iraq a Package Deal,” JTA.org, March 13, 2007.
    Nathan Guttman, “Background: AIPAC and the Iraqi Opposition,” Haaretz, April 7, 2003. Also see Dana Milbank, “For Israel Lobby Group, War Is Topic A, Quietly,” Washington Post, April 1, 2003.
    David Twersky, “A Bittersweet Affair for AIPAC,” New York Sun, January 23, 2003. On the ADL, see Cattan, “Resolutions on Invasion”; Nacha Cattan, “Jewish Groups Pressed to Line Up on Iraq,” Forward, August 23, 2002; and Nathan Guttman, “Groups Mum on Iraq, Despite Antiwar Tide,” Forward, March 2, 2007.
    Jeffrey Goldberg, “Real Insiders: A Pro-Israel Lobby and an FBI Sting,” New Yorker, July 4, 2005. Near East Report (NER), AIPAC’s biweekly publication dealing with Middle East is­ sues, is filled with articles dealing with Iraq in the months before the war began. Although none explicitly calls for invading Iraq, they all portray Saddam as an especially dangerous threat, leaving the reader with little doubt that both Israel and the United States will be in serious trouble if he is not toppled from power. See, for example, “Saddam’s Diversion,” NER, October 7, 2002; interview with Ze’ev Schiff, NER, October 21, 2002; interview with Amatzia Baram, NER, February 25, 2002; interview with Amatzia Baram, NER, October 7, 2002; interview with Kenneth M. Pollack, NER, September 23, 2002; “Arming Iraq,” NER, July 1, 2002; and “Backing Saddam,” NER, February 3, 2003.
    John Bresnahan, “GOP Turns to Israeli Lobby to Boost Iraq Support,” Roll Call (online), October 6, 2003.
    Matthew E. Berger, “Bush Makes Iraq Case in AIPAC Appearance,” Deep South Jewish Voice (online), May 11, 2004.
    David Horovitz, “Editor’s Notes: Wading into the Great Debate,” Jerusalem Post, March 15, 2007. According to Ron Kampeas, Cheney’s “message was not received enthusiastically. Only about one-third to one-half of the audience . . . applauded politely.” See “Cheney: Iran, Iraq a Package Deal.” Similarly, Nathan Guttman wrote that Cheney’s speech “re­ ceived a lukewarm welcome.” See “Cheney Links Action on Iran to Winning Iraq,” Forward, March 16, 2007. However, writing in Salon, Gregory Levey noted that “Cheney got a warm reception and forceful applause.” See “Inside America’s Powerful Israel Lobby,” Salon.com, March 16, 2007.
    On the reception Boehner and Pelosi received, see Guttman, “Cheney Links Action”; Levey, “Inside”; and Ian Swanson, “Pelosi Hears Boos at AIPAC,” The Hill (online), March 13, 2007. Guttman, “Groups Mum on Iraq.”
    Ibid.; and Jeffrey M. Jones, “Among Religious Groups, Jewish Americans Most Strongly Op­ pose War,” Gallup News Service, February 23, 2007.
    Shortly before the United States invaded Iraq, Congressman James P. Moran created a stir when he said, “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this.” Quoted in Hsu, “Moran Said.” However, Moran mis­ spoke, because there was not widespread support for the war in the Jewish community. He should have said, “If it were not for the strong support of the neoconservatives and the lead­ ership of the Israel lobby for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this.”

    Samuel G. Freedman, “Don’t Blame Jews for This War,” USA Today, April 2, 2003. Also see

    James D. Besser, “Jews Souring on Iraq War,” Jewish Week, September 24, 2004; Goodstein, “Threats and Responses”; and Ori Nir, “Poll Finds Jewish Political Gap,” Forward, February 4, 2005. The same situation obtained before the 1991 Gulf War. By the time Congress voted to endorse the war on January 12, 1991, “the only significant Washington Jewish organization not on record in favor of the administration’s position was American Friends of Peace Now, which favored the continuation of sanctions.” Judis, “Jews and the Gulf,” 13. Despite the lobby’s efforts to make the 1991 war happen, however, a large portion of the American Jew­ ish community opposed the war, as was the case in 2003. For example, Jewish members of the House of Representatives voted 1 7 – 1 6 against the resolution authorizing war, while Jew­ ish senators voted 5-3 against it. Ibid., 14. This outcome reflects the fact that in contrast to what happened in 2002—03, there was a serious debate in 1990-91 about whether to go to war against Iraq, as well as the fact that the lobby sometimes takes positions that are at odds with a substantial portion of the American Jewish community.

    The January 26, 1998, letter can be found on the website of the Project for the New Amer­ ican Century, http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm; the February 19, 1998, letter can be found on the Iraq Watch website, http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/rumsfeld- openletter.htm. For background on the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, see Judis, “Jews and the Gulf,” 12. Also see the May 29, 1998, letter to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott written under the auspices of PNAC, http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletterl998.htm. The neoconservatives, it should be emphasized, advocated invading Iraq to topple Saddam. See “The End of Containment,” Weekly Standard, December 1, 1997; Zalmay M. Khalilzad and Paul Wolfowitz, “Overthrow Him,” ibid.; Frederick W. Kagan, “Not by Air Alone,” ibid.; and Robert Kagan, “A Way to Oust Saddam,” Weekly Standard, September 28, 1998.

    A copy of the Iraq Liberation Act can be found at http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/ Legislation/ILA.htm.
    John Dizard, “How Ahmed Chalabi Conned the Neocons,” Salon.com, May 4, 2004; “Iraqi Myths,” Jerusalem Post editorial, October 7, 1998; Seth Gitell, “Neocons Meet Israeli to Gain U.S. Backing,” Forward, July 31, 1998; Kagan, “Way to Oust Saddam”; Martin Kettle, “Pentagon Balks at ‘Idiotic’ Law Urging Bay of Pigs-type Invasion of Iraq,” Guardian, Octo­ ber 21,1998;andVernonLoeb,”CongressStokesVisionsofWar toOustSaddam;White House Fears Fiasco in Aid to Rebels,” Washington Post, October 20, 1998. On JINSA, see “Concrete Responses to Saddam,” jinsa.org, Report no. 79, August 10, 1998; “To Overthrow Saddam,” jinsa.org, Report no. 82, October 2, 1998; “Spring 1998 Board Resolution—Iraq,”

    jinsa.org, March 22, 1998; and “Resolution in Support of the Iraqi Opposition,” jinsa.org, October 19, 1998.
    See Clinton’s comments after he signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Statement by the President, White House Press Office, October 31, 1998. Also see Kettle, “Pentagon Balks”; and Loeb, “Congress Stokes.”

    Vernon Loeb, “Saddam’s Iraqi Foes Heartened by Clinton,” Washington Post, November 16, 1998; Nicholas Lemann, “The Iraq Factor: Will the New Bush Team’s Old Memories Shape Its Foreign Policies?” New Yorker, January 22, 2001; and Robert Litwak, Rogue States and U.S. Foreign Policy (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2000), chap. 4. Packer, Assassins’ Gate, 41.

    Jane Perlez, “Capitol Hawks Seek Tougher Line on Iraq,” New York Times, March 7, 2001; and “Have Hawks Become Doves?” Washington Times editorial, March 8, 2001. Also see Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 129-31.

    Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror (New York: Free Press, 2004); and Ron Suskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill (NewYork: Simon & Schuster, 2004).
    Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack (NewYork: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 12. Also see Lemann,

    “Iraq Factor”; and Eric Schmitt and Steven Lee Meyers, “Bush Administration Warns Iraq on Weapons Programs,” New York Times, January 2 3 , 2 0 0 1 .

    She also noted that if Iraq did get W M D , the appropriate U.S. response would be a “clear and classical statement of deterrence—if they do acquire W M D , their weapons will be un­ usable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.” Condoleezza Rice, “Promoting the National Interest,” Foreign Affairs 79, no. 1 (January/February 2000): 60-62. Timothy Noah, “Dick Cheney, Dove,” Slate.com, October 16, 2002; Adam Meyerson, “Calm After Desert Storm,” interview with Dick Cheney, Policy Reiriew 65 (Summer 1993). Quoted in Kessler, “U.S. Decision on Iraq Has Puzzling Past.” Elliott and Carney (“First Stop, Iraq”) report that neoconservatives like William Kristol were upset when Cheney was chosen as Bush’s running mate, because of Cheney’s position on ending the first Gulf War. But after 9 / 1 1 , says Kristol, “neoconservatives happily consider him a fellow-traveler.’” Elliott and Carney, “First Stop, Iraq”; Glenn Kessler and Peter Slavin, “Cheney Is Fulcrum of Foreign Policy,” Washington Post, October 13, 2002; Kessler, “U.S. Decision on Iraq Has Puzzling Past”; and “Vice President Dick Cheney Talks About Bush’s Energy Plan,” inter­ view with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, May 20, 2001. Although Cheney’s views on conquering Iraq fundamentally changed after 9 / 1 1 , this apparently did not happen overnight. See “The Vice President Appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert,” Camp David, Maryland, Office of the White House Press Secretary, September 16, 2001. Cheney’s response to specific questions about Iraq does not indicate that he had changed his thinking about the need to topple Saddam five days after the Twin Towers fell.

    Both Kagan quotations are from Packer, Assassins’ Gate, 38. Also see similar comments by Packer himself in ibid., 32.
    Woodward, Plan of Attack, 25-26.
    Page, “Showdown with Saddam.”

    Elliott and Carney, “First Stop, Iraq.” Woodward describes Wolfowitz as “like a drum that would not stop.” Plan of Attack, 22.
    Woodward, Plan of Attack, 1-44.
    Regarding the neoconservatives’ influence on Cheney, see Elliott and Carney, “First Stop, Iraq”; Page, “Showdown with Saddam”; Michael Hirsh, “Bernard Lewis Revisited,” Wash­ ington Monthly, November 2004; Frederick Kempe, “Lewis’s ‘Liberation’ Doctrine for Mid­ east Faces New Tests,” Wall Street Journal, December 13, 2005; and Caria Anne Robbins and Jeanne Cummings, “How Bush Decided That Hussein Must Be Ousted from Atop Iraq,” Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2002. On Ajami in particular, see Adam Shatz, “The Na­ tive Informant,” Nation, April 28, 2003.

    Jacob Weisberg, “Are Neo-cons History?” Financial Times, March 14, 2007. This article makes clear that Cheney and Lewis have a close relationship.
    Woodward succinctly describes Libby’s influence in Plan of Attack (48—49): “Libby had three formal titles. He was chief of staff to Vice President Cheney; he was also national se­ curity adviser to the vice president; and he was finally an assistant to President Bush. It was a trifecta of positions probably never held before by a single person. Scooter was a power center unto himself . . . Libby was one of only two people who were not principals to attend the National Security Council meetings with the president and the separate principals meetings chaired by Rice.”Also see ibid., 50-51, 288-92, 300-301, 409-10; Bumiller and Schmitt, “On the Job and at Home”; Karen Kwiatkowski, “The New Pentagon Papers,” Salon.com, March 10, 2004; and Tyler and Sciolino, “Bush Advisers Split.”

    Tyler and Sciolino, “Bush Advisers Split.” Also see Bumiller and Schmitt, “On the Job and at Home”; and William Safire, “Phony War II,” New York Times, November 28, 2002.
    On Cheney’s significant influence in the Bush administration, see Jeanne Cummings and Greg Hitt, “In Iraq Drama, Cheney Emerges as President’s War Counselor,” Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2003; Mark Hosenball, Michael Isikoff, and Evan Thomas, “Cheney’s Long Path to War,” Newsweek, November 17, 2003; Kessler and Slavin, “Cheney Is Ful-

    crum”; Barbara Slavin and Susan Page, “Cheney Rewrites Roles in Foreign Policy,” USA To­ day, July 29, 2002; and Woodward, Plan of Attack, 27-30.
    Kessler, “U.S. Decision on Iraq Has Puzzling Past”; and Woodward, Plan of Attack, 410. Also see ibid., 164-65,409.

    Quoted in Eric Schmitt, “Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force’s Size,” New York Times, February 28, 2003.
    “This Goes Beyond Bin Laden,” jinsa.org, September 13, 2 0 0 1 . Also see Vest, “The Men from JINSA and CSP.”

    This letter was published in the Weekly Standard, October 1, 2001. Among the signatories were William Bennett, Eliot Cohen, Aaron Friedberg, Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, Jeane Kirkpatrick, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz, Stephen Solarz, and Leon Wieseltier.

    Charles Krauthammer, “The War: A Road Map,” Washington Post, September 28, 2001 ; and Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “The Right War,” Weekly Standard, October 1, 2001. Also see “War Aims,” Wall Street Journal editorial, September 20,2001.
    Michael Barone, “War by Ultimatum,” U.S. News & World Report, October 1, 2001. Also see Bill Gertz, “Iraq Suspected of Sponsoring Terrorist Attacks,” Washington Times, Septem­ ber 21, 2001; “Drain the Ponds of Terror,” Jerusalem Post editorial, September 25, 2001; William Safire, “The Ultimate Enemy,” New York Times, September 24, 2001 ; and Mortimer B. Zuckerman, “A Question of Priorities,” U.S. News &• World Report, October 8, 2001.

    The April 3, 2002, letter can be found at http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter- 040302.htm.
    Daniel Byman, Kenneth M. Pollack, and Gideon Rose, “The Rollback Fantasy,” Foreign Af­

    fairs 78, no. 1 (January/February 1999).
    Kenneth M. Pollack, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq (New York: Random House, 2002); Kenneth M. Pollack, “Why Iraq Can’t Be Deterred,” New York Times, Sep­ tember 26, 2002; Kenneth M. Pollack, “A Last Chance to Stop Iraq,” New York Times, Feb­ ruary 21, 2003; Martin S. Indyk and Kenneth M. Pollack, “How Bush Can Avoid the Inspections Trap,” New York Times, January 27, 2003; and Martin S. Indyk and Kenneth M. Pollack, “Lock and Load,” Los Angeles Times, December 19, 2002.
    William Kristol, “The Axis of Appeasement,” Weekly Standard, August 26/September 2, 2002; Robert Bartley, “Thinking Things Over: What We Learned,” Wall Street Journal, September 9, 2002; Michael Ledeen, “Scowcroft Strikes Out,” National Review Online, August 6, 2002; George Melloan, “Who Really Doubts That Saddam’s Got to Go,” Wall Street Journal, Sep­ tember 10, 2002; John O’Sullivan, “Chamberlain Deserves an Apology: Scowcroft, Hagel, and Raines Are No Chamberlains,” National Review Online, September 3, 2002; “This Is Opposition? There Is No Revolt in the GOP Against Bush’s Iraq Policy,” Wall Street Journal editorial, August 19, 2002; and “Who Is Brent Scowcroft?” New York Sun editorial, August 19, 2002. None of the targets of the neoconservatives’ ire were advocating appeasement of Iraq but instead favored containment over war.
    William Safire, “Our ‘Relentless’ Liberation,” New York Times, October 8, 2001. Also see William Safire, “Saddam and Terror,” New York Times, August 22, 2002; and William Safire, “BigMo,”New YorkTimes, November 19,2001.
    Robert Kagan, “On to Phase II,” Washington Post, November 27, 2001; Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “What to Do About Iraq,” Weekly Standard, January 21, 2002; and Safire, “Saddam and Terror.”

    Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “The U.N. Trap?” Weekly Standard, November 18, 2002; Charles Krauthammer, “A Costly Charade at the U.N.,” Washington Post, February 28, 2003; George F. Will, “Stuck to the U.N. Tar Baby,” Washington Post, September 19, 2002; and William Safire, “The French Connection,” New York Times, March 14, 2003. Krauthammer, “Our First Move.” Also see Reuel Marc Gerecht, “A Necessary War,” Weekly Standard, October 21, 2002; and Charles Krauthammer, “Where Power Talks,” Washington Post, January 4, 2002.

    An excellent account of the administration’s campaign to sell the war is Frank Rich, The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina (NewYork: Pen­ guin Press, 2006).

    James Bamford, A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agen­ cies (NewYork: Doubleday, 2004), chaps. 13-14; Karen DeYoung, Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell (NewYork: Knopf, 2006), 440-46; and Woodward, Plan of Attack, 288-92, 297-301. Also see ibid., 72, 163.

    Woodward, Plan of Attack, 290.

    “Powell Regrets UN Speech on Iraq WMDs,” ABC News Online, September 9, 2005.

    Bamford, Pretext for War, 287-91, 307-31 ;Julian Borger, “The Spies Who Pushed for War,”

    Guardian, July 17, 2003; David S. Cloud, “Prewar Intelligence Inquiry Zeroes in on Penta­ gon Office,” Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2004; Seymour M. Hersh, “Selective Intelli­ gence,” New Yorker, May 12, 2003; Kwiatkowski, “New Pentagon Papers”; W. Patrick Lang, “Drinking the Kool-Aid,” Middle East Policy 11, no. 2 (Summer 2004); Jim Lobe, “Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network,” Inter Press Service, August 7, 2003; Greg Miller, “Spy Unit Skirted CIA on Iraq,” Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2004; Paul R. Pillar, “Intelligence, Policy, and the War in Iraq,” Foreign Affairs 85, no. 2 (March-April 2006); James Risen, “How Pair’s Finding on Terror Led to Clash on Shaping Intelligence,” New York Times, April 28, 2004; and Eric Schmitt and Thorn Shanker, “Threats and Responses: A C.I.A. Rival; Pentagon Sets Up Intelligence Unit,” New York Times, October 24, 2002.

    Risen, State of War, 72-73.

    Lobe, “Pentagon Office.” On Makovsky, see Jack Herman, “A Whole New Ballgame Over­

    seas,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, February 20, 1989. This article was written when Makovsky was about to leave the United States and move to Israel. “I have strong feelings about help­ ing to build a Jewish state,” he told Herman. He then added, “It’s like returning to your roots.”

    Borger, “The Spies.”

    Inspector General, Department of Defense, “Review of the Pre—Iraqi War Activities of the

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy,” Report no. 07-INTEL-04, February 9,

    2007.

    Franklin Foer, “Founding Fakers,” New Republic, August 18, 2003.

    Robert Dreyfuss, “Tinker, Banker, NeoCon, Spy,” American Prospect, November 18, 2002.

    Also see “Who Will Lead a Free Iraq?”jinsa.org, May 9, 2003; and “Creating a Post-Saddam

    Iraq,”jinsa.org, Report no. 481,April 6, 2005.

    Quoted in Dreyfuss, “Tinker, Banker.” Also see Matthew E. Berger, “Iraqi Exiles and Jews

    Form Unlikely Alliance,” Jewish News Weekly (online), October 18, 2002; Juan Cole, “All the Vice-President’s Men,” Salon.com, October 28, 2005; and Michelle Goldberg, “The War over the Peace,” Salon.com, April 14, 2003.

    Quoted in Robert Dreyfuss, “Chalabi and AEI: The Sequel,” TomPaine.com, November 10, 2005. Also see Laurie Mylroie, “Unusually Effective,” New York Sun, November 8, 2005; and Michael Rubin, “Iraq’s Comeback Kid,” National Review Online, December 5, 2005.

    Bernard Lewis, “Put the Iraqis in Charge,” Wall Street Journal, August 29, 2003. Also see Ian Buruma, “Lost in Translation,” New Yorker, June 14, 2004; and Michael Hirsh, “Bernard Lewis Revisited,” Washington Monthly, November 2004.

    Dizard, “How Ahmed Chalabi Conned the Neocons.” In mid-June 2003, Benjamin Ne­ tanyahu announced, “It won’t be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa.” Reuters, “Netanyahu Says Iraq-Israel Oil Line Not Pipe-Dream,” Haaretz, June 20, 2003. Of course, this did not happen and it is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. Also see Douglas Davis, “Peace with Israel Said to Top New Iraq’s Agenda,” Jerusalem Post, April 21, 2003.

    Matthew E. Berger, “New Chance to Build Israel-Iraq Ties,” Jewish Journal (online), April 28, 2003. Also see Bamford, Pretext to War, 293; and Ed Blanche, “Securing Iraqi Oil for Israel: The Plot Thickens,” Lebanonwire.com, April 25, 2003.

    Nathan Guttman, “Mutual Wariness: AIPAC and the Iraqi Opposition,” Haaretz, April 27, 2003.

    Quoted in Packer, Assassins’ Gate, 41.

    Friedman qualifed this remark by adding, “In the final analysis, what fomented the war is

    America’s over-reaction to September 11.” We agree; it was a combination of the neoconser­ vatives’ active promotion of the war, the support from key groups in the lobby, and a partic­ ular set of international and domestic circumstances that led the United States into the Iraqi quagmire. See Shavit, “White Man’s Burden.”

    Noam Chomsky, “The Israel Lobby?” Znet (online), March 28, 2006. Also see Stephen Zunes, “The Israel Lobby: How Powerful Is It Really?” Znet (online), May 25, 2006.

    One pundit notes that the “preferred slogan” of the antiwar forces in the run-up to the Iraq

    war was “no blood for oil.” John B. Judis, “Over a Barrel,” New Republic, January 20, 2003, 20. Also see William R. Clark, Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar (Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2005); Michael Elliott, “The Selling of the President’s War: Bush Should Take Israel and Oil Out of the Iraq Equation,” Time, No­ vember 18, 2002; Michael Meacher, “This War on Terrorism Is Bogus,” Guardian, Septem­ ber 6, 2003; Kevin Phillips, “American Petrocacy,” American Conservative, July 17, 2006; and Sandy Tolan, “Beyond Regime Change,” Los Angeles Times, December 1, 2002.

    Judis, “Jews and the Gulf,” 16-17.

    Stephen J. Hedges, “Allies Not Swayed on Iraq Strike,” Chicago Tribune, August 28, 2002;

    “Saudi Arabia Says It Won’t Join a War,” New York Times, March 19, 2003; “Saudis Warn US over Iraq War,” B B C News (online), February 17, 2003; Jon Sawyer, “Saudi Arabia Won’t Back War on Iraq without U.N. Authority, Prince Warns,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch (online), January 23, 2003; “Scorecard: For or Against Military Action,” New York Times, August 27, 2002; and Brian Whitaker and John Hooper, “Saudis Will Not Aid US War Effort,” Guardian, August 8, 2002.

    Peter Beinart, “Crude,” New Republic, October 7, 2002; Michael Moran and Alex Johnson, “The Rush for Iraq’s Oil,” MSNBC.com, November 7, 2002; Anthony Sampson, “Oilmen Don’t Want Another Suez,” Observer, December 22, 2002; John W. Schoen, “Iraqi Oil, American Bonanza?” MSNBC.com, November 11, 2002; and Daniel Yergin, “A Crude View of the Crisis in Iraq,” Washington Post, December 8, 2002.

    Remarks by the Vice President to the Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention, Nashville, Tennessee (White House, Office of the Press Secretary, August 26, 2002). Also see Remarks by the Vice President to the Veterans of the Korean War, San Antonio, Texas (White House, Office of the Press Secretary, August 29, 2002).

    For a copy of the speech, see “In the President’s Words: ‘Free People Will Keep the Peace of the World,’” New York Times, February 27, 2003. Also see Remarks by the President to the United Nations General Assembly, New York (White House, Office of the Press Secretary, September 12, 2002); Remarks by the President to the Graduating Class, West Point (White House, Office of the Press Secretary, June 1, 2002); President’s Inaugural Speech, Washington, DC (White House, Office of the Press Secretary, January 20, 2005); and Na­ tional Security Strategy of the United States (2002).

    Robert S. Greenberger and Karby Leggett, “President’s Dream: Changing Not Just Regime but a Region: A Pro-U.S., Democratic Area Is a Goal That Has Israeli and Neoconserva­ tive Roots,” Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2003. Also see George Packer, “Dreaming of Democracy,” New York Times Magazine, March 2, 2003; Paul Sperry, “Bush the Nation- Builder: So Much for Campaign Promises,” Antiwar.com, October 6, 2006; and Wayne Washington, “Once Against Nation-Building, Bush Now Involved,” Boston Globe, March 2, 2004.

    Charles Krauthammer, “Peace Through Democracy,” Washington Post, June 28, 2002.

    Barak, “Taking Apart.”

    Quoted in Lynfield, “Israel Sees Opportunity in Possible U.S. Strike on Iraq.”

    Benn, “Background.”

    Bennet, “Israel Says.”

    Shalev, “Jerusalem Frets.”

    See, for example, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New

    Century, Report of the Project for the New American Century (Washington, DC, Septem­

    ber 2000), 14, 17-18.

    Martin Indyk, “The Clinton Administration’s Approach to the Middle East,” speech to Soref

    Symposium, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, May 18, 1993. Also see Anthony

    Lake, “Confronting Backlash States,” Foreign Affairs 73, no. 2 (March/April 1994).

    Kenneth M. Pollack, The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America (New York:

    Random House, 2004), 261-65.

    Robert Kagan and William Kristol, eds., Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in Ameri­

    can Foreign and Defense Policy (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000); Charles Kraut­ hammer, “Universal Dominion: Toward a Unipolar World,” National Interest 18 (Winter 1989/90); Michael A. Ledeen, Freedom Betrayed: How America Led a Global Democratic Revolution, Won the Cold War, and Walked Away (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1996); Joshua Muravchik, Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America’s Destiny (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1991); Marina Ottaway et al., “Democratic Mirage in the Middle East,” Policy Brief 20 (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 2002); Norman Podhoretz, “Strange Bedfellows: A Guide to the New Foreign-Policy Debates,” Commentary, December 1999; “Statement of Principles,” Project for the New American Century, June 3, 1997; and Albert Wohlstetter, “A Vote in Cuba? Why Not in Iraq?” Wall

    Street Journal, May 24, 1991.

    On the neoconservatives’ thinking about regional transformation, see Robert Blecher, “Free

    People Will Set the Course of History,” Middle East Report Online, March 2003; Jack Don­ nelly and Anthony Shadid, “Iraq War Hawks Have Plans to Reshape Entire Mideast,” Boston Globe, September 10, 2002; Halper and Clarke, America Alone, 76-90; Nicholas Le­ mann, “After Iraq: The Plan to Remake the Middle East,” New Yorker, February 17, 2003; and Klein, “How Israel.”

    Quoted in Roula Khalaf, “Rice ‘New Middle East’ Comments Fuel Arab Fury over US Pol­ icy,” Financial Times, July 31, 2006.

    Orly Halpern, “Israeli Experts Say Middle East Was Safer with Saddam in Iraq,” Forward, January 5, 2007. Also see Leslie Susser, “Iraq War: Good or Bad for Israel? Saddam’s Exe­ cution Revives Debate,” JTA.org, January 2, 2007.

    Quoted in Chris McGreal, “Israelis May Regret Saddam Ousting, Says Security Chief,” Guardian, February 9, 2006.

    James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, co-chairs, The Iraq Study Group Report (NewYork: Random House, 2006), xv, 28-29, 43-45, 50-58. Tony Blair, who repeatedly called for set­ tling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and who favors negotiating with Iran and Syria, said that the Iraq Study Group “offers a strong way forward.” Quoted in Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Kate Zernike, “Bush Expresses Caution on Key Points in Iraq Panel’s Report,” New York Times, December 7, 2006. Also see Kirk Semple, “Syrian Official, in Iraq, Offers Assis­ tance,” New York Times, November 19, 2006.

    Akiva Eldar, “The Gewalt Agenda,” Haaretz, November 20, 2006.

    Michael Abramowitz and Glenn Kessler, “Hawks Bolster Skeptical President,” Washington

    Post, December 10, 2006; Associated Press, “Israel Experts Doubt Focusing on Israel-Arab Conflict Will Help in Iraq,”International Herald Tribune, December 6, 2006; “Gates’s Shock­ ing Thinking on Iran,” Jerusalem Post editorial, December 6, 2006; Nathan Guttman, “Baker Group Advisers ‘Surprised,’ ‘Upset’ at Report’s Israel-Iraq Link,” Forward, January 30, 2007; Jeff Jacoby, “Fighting to Win in Iraq,” Boston Globe, December 3, 2006; Robert Kagan and William Kristol, “A Perfect Failure,” Weekly Standard, December 11, 2006; Ron Kampeas, “ISG Fallout Continues with Query: Is Israeli-Arab Peace the Linchpin?”/TA.org, December 10, 2006; Jim Lobe, “Neocons Move to Preempt Baker Report,” Antiwar.com, December 6, 2006; Marc Perelman, “As Washington Studies Iraq Report, Jerusalem Frets over Tehran

    Talk,” Forward, December 15, 2006; Shmuel Rosner, “Baker’s Brew,” Haaretz, December 8,

    2006; and “The Iraq Muddle Group,” Wall Street Journal editorial, December 7, 2006.

    Quoted in Shmuel Rosner, “FM Livni: U.S. Must Stand Firm on Iraq,” Haaretz, March 13, 2007. Also see Shmuel Rosner, “Livni to AIPAC: U.S. Can’t Show Weakness on Iraq, Iran,”

    Haaretz, March 12, 2007.

    The Olmert quotations are from Bradley Burston, “Israel Must Stay the Hell Out of U.S.

    Debate on Iraq,” Haaretz, March 13, 2007; and Hilary L. Krieger, “PM’s AIPAC Talk Sur­

    prises Delegates,” Jerusalem Post, March 13, 2007.

    Burston, “Israel Must Stay.” Also see Krieger, “PM’s AIPAC Talk”; and Shmuel Rosner, “No

    Easy Answers on Israel and the Iraq Debate,” Haaretz, March 13, 2007.

    “President Bush Welcomes Prime Minister Olmert of Israel to the White House,” White

    House, Office of the Press Secretary, November 13, 2006.

    Quoted in James D. Besser, “Olmert Support for Iraq War Stirs Anger,” Jewish Week, No­

    vember 17, 2006.

    David Horovitz, “Editor’s Notes: Wading into the Great Debate,” Jerusalem Post, March 15,

    2007.

    Quoted in Glenn Frankel, “A Beautiful Friendship?” Washington Post Sunday Magazine,

    July 16, 2006.

    Martin Kramer, “The American Interest,” Azure 5767, no. 26 (Fall 2006): 29. Kramer also

    claims that “the assertion that the Iraq war is being waged on behalf of Israel is pure fiction,” a remark at odds with Prime Minister Olmert’s statement to the 2007 AIPAC Policy Con­ ference, where he explicitly linked Israel’s security to victory in Iraq. See note 167 above. Also see Yossi Alpher, “Sharon Warned Bush,” Forward, January 12, 2007.

    Alpher, “Sharon Warned Bush.” Also see Herb Keinon, “Sharon Warned Bush of Saddam Threat,” Jerusalem Post, January 11, 2007.

    See notes 21 and 25 above.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @L.K
    We must try to understand Shama, what motivates this creature...

    You see, the guy is a degenerate, shameless(!) serial LIAR & propagandist for Israel and Zionism.
    He lies/distorts/obfuscates as effortlessly as most people breathe or walk.
    Shama would make Pinocchio blush.
    So sad...

    It’s true. Sam the Shameless Sham displays those lower ‘human’ qualities of having flexibility of morality. He is always ready to express outrage at anything that challenges his agenda but always willing to defend the indefensible when he perceives the wrongdoings to be to his advantage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @L.K
    We must try to understand Shama, what motivates this creature...

    You see, the guy is a degenerate, shameless(!) serial LIAR & propagandist for Israel and Zionism.
    He lies/distorts/obfuscates as effortlessly as most people breathe or walk.
    Shama would make Pinocchio blush.
    So sad...

    He lies/distorts/obfuscates as effortlessly as most people breathe or walk.

    The philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, called the Jews the “great masters of the lie.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. geokat62 says:

    … and so the unmelodious tune of a conspiracy by “international” jews spanning nations and time, continues the familiar refrain….

    More evidence from a truth-telling former Jew:

    Can American Jews unplug the Israel lobby?
    By Gilad Atzmon

    It is amusing to witness the energy and effort mainstream news outlets are investing in diverting attention from the fact that the current mess in Iraq is the direct outcome of Jewish political domination of the West for the last two decades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Gilad will keep talking - trumpeting - to himself [=Atzmo, almost his last name, perhaps he was condemned at brith by the Almighty :-) ]

    Robin and I discussed Atzmon recently. There are strong hints that he's been shifted off of the normal mental axes, and cannot possibly bring about any welfare for the people he presumes to wage constant battle, against even the mildest of detractors in the shrillest of manners, with the result that the poor championed cry 'basta!'. Most Pals would keep a safe distance from Gilly.

    Pals need a pragmatic, honest leadership; one cannot stress this enough: not self-appointed crazies, drama queens or the fattened mandarins scurrying from high teas to banquets in Paris.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. geokat62 says:

    Here’s the rest of the GA article:

    [MORE]

    When America and Britain launched the criminal second Gulf War, it was the Zionist Neocons, a bunch of politically influential Jews who urged the ‘liberation’ of the Iraqi people. Members of the same breed of tribal exponents have rallied for intervention in Iran, Libya and most recently in Syria.

    But Zio-cons were not the only Jewish players in this iniquitous game, they were opposed by a Jewish progressive front largely funded by George Soros and his Open Society Institute. These so called ‘good Jews’ had a different strategy for the Middle East, they planned to ruin the Muslims through the use of Identity Politics by funding Gay, Lesbian, Feminist and Queer groups in the region.

    Why do these Jews intervene in Arab and Muslim life? What motivates George Soros and Paul Wolfowitz to ‘revolutionize’ or ‘liberate’ people living thousands of miles away from Manhattan or Washington? Why did Lord Goldsmith give a green light to the war? What drove Jewish Chronicle writer David Aaronovitch to campaign for a series of interventionist criminal wars? What pushed Lord ‘cash machine’ Levy to the forefront of Blair’s fundraisers?

    In 2007, American political science professors James Petras, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt reached the conclusion that American foreign policy was dominated by Israel’s lobby. Surely, Israel’s Lobby is just a polite, politically correct name for the Jewish Lobby. But what motivates the Jewish lobby to destroy Iraq, Libya and Syria? Is it their commitment to the Jewish State?

    It didn’t take long for influential Jews to learn that buying a Western politician is much cheaper than buying a tank. When you buy an American or British politician, he often comes with the tank and an army of young soldiers willing to die for Zion.

    But George Soros, as a highly sophisticated light Zionist merchant, employed a cheaper method to advance the interests of the tribe in the region and beyond. Instead of buying professional politicians, he invested his money in marginal actors and ID politics. He made the NGO into an effective system of neutralizing potential leaders. He supports ‘very good causes’ that are also extremely good for the Jews.

    But here there is a problem – these present day Jewish merchants and stockbrokers, who run AIAPC, LFI, CFI, CRIF and the Open Society Institute excel at selling commodities and stocks. They show talent in inventing false needs that quickly translate into mammon and a lot of it. But they are useless or uninterested in advancing America and Britain’s national interests. They are devoted to the interests of a single tribe, though they often don’t agree amongst themselves what those interests are.

    Although probably unintentionally, the Jewish Lobby often fails to bolster Israel’s long- term interests. The destruction of Iraq, for instance, has made Iran into a regional super power. The failure of the Jewish Lobby to foresee its own role in strengthening Iran is evident. Moreover, it has become clear in the last few days that Iran is uniquely positioned to rescue America from the total mess it was pushed into by the Lobby. Clearly, this is no good news for Israel and the Lobby.

    If America and Britain want to remain major powers, each must identify corrosive factors within its own politics, media and finance. They must scrutinize the motives of the Jewish lobby and recognize its dangers. It is time to develop the necessary antidote to deal with this acute political poison.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  146. Sam Shama says:
    @L.K
    We must try to understand Shama, what motivates this creature...

    You see, the guy is a degenerate, shameless(!) serial LIAR & propagandist for Israel and Zionism.
    He lies/distorts/obfuscates as effortlessly as most people breathe or walk.
    Shama would make Pinocchio blush.
    So sad...

    It’s true that most people breathe and walk. Not so the reptile, garden slug and nosy the pangolin. Fine meeting of the “minds” here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    ... and so the unmelodious tune of a conspiracy by “international” jews spanning nations and time, continues the familiar refrain….
     
    More evidence from a truth-telling former Jew:

    Can American Jews unplug the Israel lobby?
    By Gilad Atzmon

    It is amusing to witness the energy and effort mainstream news outlets are investing in diverting attention from the fact that the current mess in Iraq is the direct outcome of Jewish political domination of the West for the last two decades.



    When America and Britain launched the criminal second Gulf War, it was the Zionist Neocons, a bunch of politically influential Jews who urged the ‘liberation’ of the Iraqi people. Members of the same breed of tribal exponents have rallied for intervention in Iran, Libya and most recently in Syria.

    But Zio-cons were not the only Jewish players in this iniquitous game, they were opposed by a Jewish progressive front largely funded by George Soros and his Open Society Institute. These so called ‘good Jews’ had a different strategy for the Middle East, they planned to ruin the Muslims through the use of Identity Politics by funding Gay, Lesbian, Feminist and Queer groups in the region.

    Why do these Jews intervene in Arab and Muslim life? What motivates George Soros and Paul Wolfowitz to ‘revolutionize’ or ‘liberate’ people living thousands of miles away from Manhattan or Washington? Why did Lord Goldsmith give a green light to the war? What drove Jewish Chronicle writer David Aaronovitch to campaign for a series of interventionist criminal wars? What pushed Lord ‘cash machine’ Levy to the forefront of Blair’s fundraisers?

    In 2007, American political science professors James Petras, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt reached the conclusion that American foreign policy was dominated by Israel’s lobby. Surely, Israel’s Lobby is just a polite, politically correct name for the Jewish Lobby. But what motivates the Jewish lobby to destroy Iraq, Libya and Syria? Is it their commitment to the Jewish State?

    It didn’t take long for influential Jews to learn that buying a Western politician is much cheaper than buying a tank. When you buy an American or British politician, he often comes with the tank and an army of young soldiers willing to die for Zion.

    But George Soros, as a highly sophisticated light Zionist merchant, employed a cheaper method to advance the interests of the tribe in the region and beyond. Instead of buying professional politicians, he invested his money in marginal actors and ID politics. He made the NGO into an effective system of neutralizing potential leaders. He supports ‘very good causes’ that are also extremely good for the Jews.

    But here there is a problem - these present day Jewish merchants and stockbrokers, who run AIAPC, LFI, CFI, CRIF and the Open Society Institute excel at selling commodities and stocks. They show talent in inventing false needs that quickly translate into mammon and a lot of it. But they are useless or uninterested in advancing America and Britain’s national interests. They are devoted to the interests of a single tribe, though they often don’t agree amongst themselves what those interests are.

    Although probably unintentionally, the Jewish Lobby often fails to bolster Israel’s long- term interests. The destruction of Iraq, for instance, has made Iran into a regional super power. The failure of the Jewish Lobby to foresee its own role in strengthening Iran is evident. Moreover, it has become clear in the last few days that Iran is uniquely positioned to rescue America from the total mess it was pushed into by the Lobby. Clearly, this is no good news for Israel and the Lobby.

    If America and Britain want to remain major powers, each must identify corrosive factors within its own politics, media and finance. They must scrutinize the motives of the Jewish lobby and recognize its dangers. It is time to develop the necessary antidote to deal with this acute political poison.
     

    Gilad will keep talking – trumpeting - to himself [=Atzmo, almost his last name, perhaps he was condemned at brith by the Almighty :-) ]

    Robin and I discussed Atzmon recently. There are strong hints that he’s been shifted off of the normal mental axes, and cannot possibly bring about any welfare for the people he presumes to wage constant battle, against even the mildest of detractors in the shrillest of manners, with the result that the poor championed cry ‘basta!’. Most Pals would keep a safe distance from Gilly.

    Pals need a pragmatic, honest leadership; one cannot stress this enough: not self-appointed crazies, drama queens or the fattened mandarins scurrying from high teas to banquets in Paris.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Pals need a pragmatic, honest leadership; one cannot stress this enough

    Problem #1001 in considering the whole.

    If they were going to have such leadership, it would have appeared by now.

    Facts are stupid things.
    , @geokat62

    Gilad will keep talking – trumpeting - to himself...
     
    I thought he plays the alto sax.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    Gilad will keep talking - trumpeting - to himself [=Atzmo, almost his last name, perhaps he was condemned at brith by the Almighty :-) ]

    Robin and I discussed Atzmon recently. There are strong hints that he's been shifted off of the normal mental axes, and cannot possibly bring about any welfare for the people he presumes to wage constant battle, against even the mildest of detractors in the shrillest of manners, with the result that the poor championed cry 'basta!'. Most Pals would keep a safe distance from Gilly.

    Pals need a pragmatic, honest leadership; one cannot stress this enough: not self-appointed crazies, drama queens or the fattened mandarins scurrying from high teas to banquets in Paris.

    Pals need a pragmatic, honest leadership; one cannot stress this enough

    Problem #1001 in considering the whole.

    If they were going to have such leadership, it would have appeared by now.

    Facts are stupid things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Art says:
    @Sam Shama
    ....and so the unmelodious tune of a conspiracy by "international" jews spanning nations and time, continues the familiar refrain. I am reminded of a meeting I had recently with an elderly gentleman [a Washinton insider, he is a very well recognised republican and an opponent of the neocon faction] to whom I posed this *theory* propounded by flearsheimer and waltz. He smiled, looked at me quizzically, nodded his head and replied: "nice fiction". The fact is U.S.' Israeli lobby is influential but nowhere near the crazy capabilities attributed to it by you folks. Think about it for a moment; if they were that potent would the Iran deal have gotten through despite their strong protestations? You chaps wave flearsheiner as if it were the final word!

    Voltaire on the Jews: ”They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not someday become deadly to the human race…

    Shama: ….and so the unmelodious tune of a conspiracy by “international” jews spanning nations and time, continues the familiar refrain. I am reminded of a meeting I had recently with an elderly gentleman [a Washinton insider, he is a very well recognised republican and an opponent of the neocon faction] to whom I posed this *theory* propounded by flearsheimer and waltz.

    flearsheimer and waltz – Really.

    Walt and Mearsheimer are respected members of America’s intellectual community – why the childish name calling? Clearly Mr. Shama disagrees with them – but why this juvenile imbecilic response?

    Is Mr. Shama a brilliant grown up – or a 10-year-old Jew child inculcated with both arrogance and hate? “flearsheimer and waltz ” shows us the Jew child.

    He shows us the power of cultural conditioning at an early age – this poor man is not in charge of his logical thinking brain. He was conditioned not in the good arts of idealism – but in the dark arts of tribal hatred. The trauma inflected on the Jew child is a crime. He can never truly love his fellow humans.

    As has been already said – how sad!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama
    Gilad will keep talking - trumpeting - to himself [=Atzmo, almost his last name, perhaps he was condemned at brith by the Almighty :-) ]

    Robin and I discussed Atzmon recently. There are strong hints that he's been shifted off of the normal mental axes, and cannot possibly bring about any welfare for the people he presumes to wage constant battle, against even the mildest of detractors in the shrillest of manners, with the result that the poor championed cry 'basta!'. Most Pals would keep a safe distance from Gilly.

    Pals need a pragmatic, honest leadership; one cannot stress this enough: not self-appointed crazies, drama queens or the fattened mandarins scurrying from high teas to banquets in Paris.

    Gilad will keep talking – trumpeting – to himself…

    I thought he plays the alto sax.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Hahaha, if you say so Geo; not a keen listener of wind instruments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    Gilad will keep talking – trumpeting - to himself...
     
    I thought he plays the alto sax.

    Hahaha, if you say so Geo; not a keen listener of wind instruments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    not a keen listener of wind instruments

    Belied by your reading of many of the comments here. :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    Hahaha, if you say so Geo; not a keen listener of wind instruments.

    not a keen listener of wind instruments

    Belied by your reading of many of the comments here. :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I was expecting this from you :)

    Geo is not one of them. He is sincere and a fine individual if somewhat excessively idealistic at times.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    not a keen listener of wind instruments

    Belied by your reading of many of the comments here. :)

    I was expecting this from you :)

    Geo is not one of them. He is sincere and a fine individual if somewhat excessively idealistic at times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    ... if somewhat excessively idealistic at times.
     
    You say that like it was a bad thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Art says:

    Mr. Shama and iffen: “I was expecting this from you :)”

    Oh my – I see that there are still some of them around – Jewus Lemmingus Zionus Zombieus – clogging the bandwidth with pseudo-intellectual nothings.

    Hi boys!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  155. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama
    I was expecting this from you :)

    Geo is not one of them. He is sincere and a fine individual if somewhat excessively idealistic at times.

    … if somewhat excessively idealistic at times.

    You say that like it was a bad thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    You say that like it was a bad thing.

    Being an 88 is a bad thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. iffen says:
    @geokat62

    ... if somewhat excessively idealistic at times.
     
    You say that like it was a bad thing.

    You say that like it was a bad thing.

    Being an 88 is a bad thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    So, according to you, people "somewhat excessively idealistic at times" are 88s?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. geokat62 says:
    @iffen
    You say that like it was a bad thing.

    Being an 88 is a bad thing.

    So, according to you, people “somewhat excessively idealistic at times” are 88s?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    So, according to you, people “somewhat excessively idealistic at times” are 88s?

    The tag team of iffen and Shama think that 88 is our IQ (it's their little inside joke). Anyone who is idealistic has to be stupid - especially Christians.

    p.s. For all their brilliance – it takes them about a NY minute to run out of relatable current facts. Then they start name calling and snickering like two little Zionombie school boys. (Some day they MAY intellectually matriculate.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. iffen says:

    No, I suspect that you might be an 88, idealist type or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    I suspect...
     
    On what basis? I've posted almost 2,000 comments here at Unz. Look forward to seeing what you think is the strongest evidence that suggests I'm an 88.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. geokat62 says:
    @iffen
    No, I suspect that you might be an 88, idealist type or not.

    I suspect…

    On what basis? I’ve posted almost 2,000 comments here at Unz. Look forward to seeing what you think is the strongest evidence that suggests I’m an 88.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    needs to be revised with the Pax Judea saying of “All roads lead to Jerusalem.

    America is being bled dry by the Israel firsters

    people need to change the discourse. We have to be careful of the language we use. I reject the use of the terms “antisemite” and “antisemitism

    villa of the jungle? Again and again and again and again and again

    I’d like to assure you of is that a few of these foot soldiers are on their way to join in this important battle that you
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. iffen says:
    @geokat62

    I suspect...
     
    On what basis? I've posted almost 2,000 comments here at Unz. Look forward to seeing what you think is the strongest evidence that suggests I'm an 88.

    needs to be revised with the Pax Judea saying of “All roads lead to Jerusalem.

    America is being bled dry by the Israel firsters

    people need to change the discourse. We have to be careful of the language we use. I reject the use of the terms “antisemite” and “antisemitism

    villa of the jungle? Again and again and again and again and again

    I’d like to assure you of is that a few of these foot soldiers are on their way to join in this important battle that you

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    needs to be revised with the Pax Judea saying of “All roads lead to Jerusalem.

    America is being bled dry by the Israel firsters

    people need to change the discourse. We have to be careful of the language we use. I reject the use of the terms “antisemite” and “antisemitism

    villa of the jungle? Again and again and again and again and again

    I’d like to assure you of is that a few of these foot soldiers are on their way to join in this important battle that you
     
    So, according to you, these quotes demonstrate that I hate Jews?

    On the basis of these quotes, you would have me shipped off to Guantanamo, making me don an orange jump suit, and insert rectal suppositories?

    While it's true that I am constantly identify and bemoaning the power of The Lobby, this, according to you, is tantamount to hating Jews.

    Bottom line: for iffen, if someone is anti-Zionist, he is prima facie an anti-Semite.

    While I know you secretly aspire to be on the panel of the Grand Inquisitors, iffen when one gets constituted, for my sake, I hope you don't get selected.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Art says:
    @geokat62
    So, according to you, people "somewhat excessively idealistic at times" are 88s?

    So, according to you, people “somewhat excessively idealistic at times” are 88s?

    The tag team of iffen and Shama think that 88 is our IQ (it’s their little inside joke). Anyone who is idealistic has to be stupid – especially Christians.

    p.s. For all their brilliance – it takes them about a NY minute to run out of relatable current facts. Then they start name calling and snickering like two little Zionombie school boys. (Some day they MAY intellectually matriculate.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. geokat62 says:
    @iffen
    needs to be revised with the Pax Judea saying of “All roads lead to Jerusalem.

    America is being bled dry by the Israel firsters

    people need to change the discourse. We have to be careful of the language we use. I reject the use of the terms “antisemite” and “antisemitism

    villa of the jungle? Again and again and again and again and again

    I’d like to assure you of is that a few of these foot soldiers are on their way to join in this important battle that you

    needs to be revised with the Pax Judea saying of “All roads lead to Jerusalem.

    America is being bled dry by the Israel firsters

    people need to change the discourse. We have to be careful of the language we use. I reject the use of the terms “antisemite” and “antisemitism

    villa of the jungle? Again and again and again and again and again

    I’d like to assure you of is that a few of these foot soldiers are on their way to join in this important battle that you

    So, according to you, these quotes demonstrate that I hate Jews?

    On the basis of these quotes, you would have me shipped off to Guantanamo, making me don an orange jump suit, and insert rectal suppositories?

    While it’s true that I am constantly identify and bemoaning the power of The Lobby, this, according to you, is tantamount to hating Jews.

    Bottom line: for iffen, if someone is anti-Zionist, he is prima facie an anti-Semite.

    While I know you secretly aspire to be on the panel of the Grand Inquisitors, iffen when one gets constituted, for my sake, I hope you don’t get selected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I only got my Nazi hunter license a few months ago, I didn’t even get my certificate in the mail yet, and now you want me to re-qualify?

    So, according to you, these quotes demonstrate that I hate Jews?

    Hating Jews does not encapsulate Nazism.

    Also, please note the qualification of suspicion that I used.

    While it’s true that I am constantly identify and bemoaning the power of The Lobby, this, according to you, is tantamount to hating Jews.

    No, identifying or bemoaning is not, but the constantly part is questionable. I am conflicted on the significance of the use of Lobby/lobby.

    Bottom line: for iffen, if someone is anti-Zionist, he is prima facie an anti-Semite.

    Is the opposition to the existence of Israel anti-Semitism per se? Conflicted here as well.

    While I know you secretly aspire to be on the panel of the Grand Inquisitors, iffen when one gets constituted, for my sake, I hope you don’t get selected.

    Well, just in case I do get selected, don’t you owe it to yourself and your fellow countrymen to make sure that I get my Nazi recognition ability as accurate as possible?

    I will take your qualifying tests, but you have to take mine in return. Below I have pasted some comments from Giraldi’s last article. I didn’t get any good answers to my initial question, see if you can help.

    Randal says:
    October 18, 2016 at 9:43 am GMT • 400 Words
    All good stuff.

    Whatever credibility BLM has is wasted when they embrace the cause of thugs like Michael Brown, a six-foot-four 265-pound monster who robbed a convenience store and beat up a clerk before trying to wrestle a gun away from a cop. If the loudmouths really cared about black lives they would work to convince their buddies to stop shooting each other, since that is overwhelmingly where most blacks are killed and they might also think a bit about reducing the horrific levels of violent crime that seems to be part and parcel of their manhood ritual, which is why cops target them in the first place.
    BLM is, of course, in part a creation of a heavily Jewish national media which rushes to promote causes that are acceptably progressive.
     
    These points clearly are racist and anti-Semitic, though the terms operate in slightly different ways. The point is, though, that they are also perfectly reasonably points reflecting reasonable judgements about the world that are evidence based (and open to rebuttal, if you could find people willing to bother to try to do so rather than just shout them down as “hate speech”, try to censor them, and if possible get you rendered unemployable or even imprisoned merely for writing them).

    iffen says:
    October 18, 2016 at 12:44 pm GMT
    @Randal
    These points clearly are racist and anti-Semitic

    Can facts be racist or anti-Semitic?

    iffen says:

    October 18, 2016 at 3:13 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Joe Wong
    I don’t follow your reasoning.
    In the US, people of Jewish descent are greatly over-represented in media in relation to their % of total US population.
    Stating that fact is not anti-Semitic.
    Of course anti-Semites will present this fact as many times as you will listen and they do it in order to propagate their Jew-hatred.
    Knowledge of the fact and stating the fact is not per se anti-Semitic.

    iffen says:
    October 19, 2016 at 3:27 pm GMT • 200 Words
    @Randal
    The first part is racist in the sense that it implicitly recognises racial differences

    So we can’t offer as a defense to the BLM and MSM narrative the fact that this particular incident does not conform to “racism.” Take into account that the litany of supposed current racist assaults includes (even in speeches by Clinton) the suicide of an emotionally distraught young woman. If people who are accused of racism are denied the defense by factual information that said event or action is not “in fact” racist, what defense remains?

    The second is anti-Semitic in the real sense of the term as it is used in practice in political discussion – that it expresses an opinion that jewish people and related powerful groups see as being against their interests to be allowed to be expressed.

    If we try to ascertain what criteria are in use when the MSM “decides” what is important and what should be covered and how extensively, is that media to remain a “black box” and no questions concerning its content can be entertained?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. iffen says:
    @geokat62

    needs to be revised with the Pax Judea saying of “All roads lead to Jerusalem.

    America is being bled dry by the Israel firsters

    people need to change the discourse. We have to be careful of the language we use. I reject the use of the terms “antisemite” and “antisemitism

    villa of the jungle? Again and again and again and again and again

    I’d like to assure you of is that a few of these foot soldiers are on their way to join in this important battle that you
     
    So, according to you, these quotes demonstrate that I hate Jews?

    On the basis of these quotes, you would have me shipped off to Guantanamo, making me don an orange jump suit, and insert rectal suppositories?

    While it's true that I am constantly identify and bemoaning the power of The Lobby, this, according to you, is tantamount to hating Jews.

    Bottom line: for iffen, if someone is anti-Zionist, he is prima facie an anti-Semite.

    While I know you secretly aspire to be on the panel of the Grand Inquisitors, iffen when one gets constituted, for my sake, I hope you don't get selected.

    I only got my Nazi hunter license a few months ago, I didn’t even get my certificate in the mail yet, and now you want me to re-qualify?

    So, according to you, these quotes demonstrate that I hate Jews?

    Hating Jews does not encapsulate Nazism.

    Also, please note the qualification of suspicion that I used.

    While it’s true that I am constantly identify and bemoaning the power of The Lobby, this, according to you, is tantamount to hating Jews.

    No, identifying or bemoaning is not, but the constantly part is questionable. I am conflicted on the significance of the use of Lobby/lobby.

    Bottom line: for iffen, if someone is anti-Zionist, he is prima facie an anti-Semite.

    Is the opposition to the existence of Israel anti-Semitism per se? Conflicted here as well.

    While I know you secretly aspire to be on the panel of the Grand Inquisitors, iffen when one gets constituted, for my sake, I hope you don’t get selected.

    Well, just in case I do get selected, don’t you owe it to yourself and your fellow countrymen to make sure that I get my Nazi recognition ability as accurate as possible?

    I will take your qualifying tests, but you have to take mine in return. Below I have pasted some comments from Giraldi’s last article. I didn’t get any good answers to my initial question, see if you can help.

    Randal says:
    October 18, 2016 at 9:43 am GMT • 400 Words
    All good stuff.

    Whatever credibility BLM has is wasted when they embrace the cause of thugs like Michael Brown, a six-foot-four 265-pound monster who robbed a convenience store and beat up a clerk before trying to wrestle a gun away from a cop. If the loudmouths really cared about black lives they would work to convince their buddies to stop shooting each other, since that is overwhelmingly where most blacks are killed and they might also think a bit about reducing the horrific levels of violent crime that seems to be part and parcel of their manhood ritual, which is why cops target them in the first place.
    BLM is, of course, in part a creation of a heavily Jewish national media which rushes to promote causes that are acceptably progressive.

    These points clearly are racist and anti-Semitic, though the terms operate in slightly different ways. The point is, though, that they are also perfectly reasonably points reflecting reasonable judgements about the world that are evidence based (and open to rebuttal, if you could find people willing to bother to try to do so rather than just shout them down as “hate speech”, try to censor them, and if possible get you rendered unemployable or even imprisoned merely for writing them).

    iffen says:
    October 18, 2016 at 12:44 pm GMT

    These points clearly are racist and anti-Semitic

    Can facts be racist or anti-Semitic?

    iffen says:

    October 18, 2016 at 3:13 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Joe Wong
    I don’t follow your reasoning.
    In the US, people of Jewish descent are greatly over-represented in media in relation to their % of total US population.
    Stating that fact is not anti-Semitic.
    Of course anti-Semites will present this fact as many times as you will listen and they do it in order to propagate their Jew-hatred.
    Knowledge of the fact and stating the fact is not per se anti-Semitic.

    iffen says:
    October 19, 2016 at 3:27 pm GMT • 200 Words

    The first part is racist in the sense that it implicitly recognises racial differences

    So we can’t offer as a defense to the BLM and MSM narrative the fact that this particular incident does not conform to “racism.” Take into account that the litany of supposed current racist assaults includes (even in speeches by Clinton) the suicide of an emotionally distraught young woman. If people who are accused of racism are denied the defense by factual information that said event or action is not “in fact” racist, what defense remains?

    The second is anti-Semitic in the real sense of the term as it is used in practice in political discussion – that it expresses an opinion that jewish people and related powerful groups see as being against their interests to be allowed to be expressed.

    If we try to ascertain what criteria are in use when the MSM “decides” what is important and what should be covered and how extensively, is that media to remain a “black box” and no questions concerning its content can be entertained?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Well, just in case I do get selected, don’t you owe it to yourself and your fellow countrymen to make sure that I get my Nazi recognition ability as accurate as possible?
     
    Isn't this analogous to the Nazis telling the Jew that he owes it to himself and his fellow Jews to make sure he helps the SS get their Jew recognition ability as accurate as possible?

    I think I'll pass.
    , @Art
    No, identifying or bemoaning is not, but the constantly part is questionable. I am conflicted on the significance of the use of Lobby/lobby.

    Oh my – iffen of the ZZ (Zion Zombie or Zionombie) tag team Shama/iffen is admitting that to say anything twice against a Jew makes one worthy of condemnation.

    Using any word (i.e., Lobby) more than once regarding Jew behavior - is tantamount to a race crime.

    The actions of a Jew must never ever be questioned by a Gentile. Can you believe it – the Jews will put people in jail for questioning one of their big lies (The Six Million Lie).

    p.s. What do they fear? Apparently the Jew do so many bad things, that to mention just one will start an avalanche of condemnation. What a way to live – how sad! ):
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. geokat62 says:
    @iffen
    I only got my Nazi hunter license a few months ago, I didn’t even get my certificate in the mail yet, and now you want me to re-qualify?

    So, according to you, these quotes demonstrate that I hate Jews?

    Hating Jews does not encapsulate Nazism.

    Also, please note the qualification of suspicion that I used.

    While it’s true that I am constantly identify and bemoaning the power of The Lobby, this, according to you, is tantamount to hating Jews.

    No, identifying or bemoaning is not, but the constantly part is questionable. I am conflicted on the significance of the use of Lobby/lobby.

    Bottom line: for iffen, if someone is anti-Zionist, he is prima facie an anti-Semite.

    Is the opposition to the existence of Israel anti-Semitism per se? Conflicted here as well.

    While I know you secretly aspire to be on the panel of the Grand Inquisitors, iffen when one gets constituted, for my sake, I hope you don’t get selected.

    Well, just in case I do get selected, don’t you owe it to yourself and your fellow countrymen to make sure that I get my Nazi recognition ability as accurate as possible?

    I will take your qualifying tests, but you have to take mine in return. Below I have pasted some comments from Giraldi’s last article. I didn’t get any good answers to my initial question, see if you can help.

    Randal says:
    October 18, 2016 at 9:43 am GMT • 400 Words
    All good stuff.

    Whatever credibility BLM has is wasted when they embrace the cause of thugs like Michael Brown, a six-foot-four 265-pound monster who robbed a convenience store and beat up a clerk before trying to wrestle a gun away from a cop. If the loudmouths really cared about black lives they would work to convince their buddies to stop shooting each other, since that is overwhelmingly where most blacks are killed and they might also think a bit about reducing the horrific levels of violent crime that seems to be part and parcel of their manhood ritual, which is why cops target them in the first place.
    BLM is, of course, in part a creation of a heavily Jewish national media which rushes to promote causes that are acceptably progressive.
     
    These points clearly are racist and anti-Semitic, though the terms operate in slightly different ways. The point is, though, that they are also perfectly reasonably points reflecting reasonable judgements about the world that are evidence based (and open to rebuttal, if you could find people willing to bother to try to do so rather than just shout them down as “hate speech”, try to censor them, and if possible get you rendered unemployable or even imprisoned merely for writing them).

    iffen says:
    October 18, 2016 at 12:44 pm GMT
    @Randal
    These points clearly are racist and anti-Semitic

    Can facts be racist or anti-Semitic?

    iffen says:

    October 18, 2016 at 3:13 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Joe Wong
    I don’t follow your reasoning.
    In the US, people of Jewish descent are greatly over-represented in media in relation to their % of total US population.
    Stating that fact is not anti-Semitic.
    Of course anti-Semites will present this fact as many times as you will listen and they do it in order to propagate their Jew-hatred.
    Knowledge of the fact and stating the fact is not per se anti-Semitic.

    iffen says:
    October 19, 2016 at 3:27 pm GMT • 200 Words
    @Randal
    The first part is racist in the sense that it implicitly recognises racial differences

    So we can’t offer as a defense to the BLM and MSM narrative the fact that this particular incident does not conform to “racism.” Take into account that the litany of supposed current racist assaults includes (even in speeches by Clinton) the suicide of an emotionally distraught young woman. If people who are accused of racism are denied the defense by factual information that said event or action is not “in fact” racist, what defense remains?

    The second is anti-Semitic in the real sense of the term as it is used in practice in political discussion – that it expresses an opinion that jewish people and related powerful groups see as being against their interests to be allowed to be expressed.

    If we try to ascertain what criteria are in use when the MSM “decides” what is important and what should be covered and how extensively, is that media to remain a “black box” and no questions concerning its content can be entertained?

    Well, just in case I do get selected, don’t you owe it to yourself and your fellow countrymen to make sure that I get my Nazi recognition ability as accurate as possible?

    Isn’t this analogous to the Nazis telling the Jew that he owes it to himself and his fellow Jews to make sure he helps the SS get their Jew recognition ability as accurate as possible?

    I think I’ll pass.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Isn’t this analogous to the Nazis telling the Jew that he owes it to himself and his fellow Jews to make sure he helps the SS get their Jew recognition ability as accurate as possible?

    Only if you fear being identified.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. iffen says:
    @geokat62

    Well, just in case I do get selected, don’t you owe it to yourself and your fellow countrymen to make sure that I get my Nazi recognition ability as accurate as possible?
     
    Isn't this analogous to the Nazis telling the Jew that he owes it to himself and his fellow Jews to make sure he helps the SS get their Jew recognition ability as accurate as possible?

    I think I'll pass.

    Isn’t this analogous to the Nazis telling the Jew that he owes it to himself and his fellow Jews to make sure he helps the SS get their Jew recognition ability as accurate as possible?

    Only if you fear being identified.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Only if you fear being identified.
     
    Clearly, you and I follow a different moral compass.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. geokat62 says:
    @iffen
    Isn’t this analogous to the Nazis telling the Jew that he owes it to himself and his fellow Jews to make sure he helps the SS get their Jew recognition ability as accurate as possible?

    Only if you fear being identified.

    Only if you fear being identified.

    Clearly, you and I follow a different moral compass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Art says:
    @iffen
    I only got my Nazi hunter license a few months ago, I didn’t even get my certificate in the mail yet, and now you want me to re-qualify?

    So, according to you, these quotes demonstrate that I hate Jews?

    Hating Jews does not encapsulate Nazism.

    Also, please note the qualification of suspicion that I used.

    While it’s true that I am constantly identify and bemoaning the power of The Lobby, this, according to you, is tantamount to hating Jews.

    No, identifying or bemoaning is not, but the constantly part is questionable. I am conflicted on the significance of the use of Lobby/lobby.

    Bottom line: for iffen, if someone is anti-Zionist, he is prima facie an anti-Semite.

    Is the opposition to the existence of Israel anti-Semitism per se? Conflicted here as well.

    While I know you secretly aspire to be on the panel of the Grand Inquisitors, iffen when one gets constituted, for my sake, I hope you don’t get selected.

    Well, just in case I do get selected, don’t you owe it to yourself and your fellow countrymen to make sure that I get my Nazi recognition ability as accurate as possible?

    I will take your qualifying tests, but you have to take mine in return. Below I have pasted some comments from Giraldi’s last article. I didn’t get any good answers to my initial question, see if you can help.

    Randal says:
    October 18, 2016 at 9:43 am GMT • 400 Words
    All good stuff.

    Whatever credibility BLM has is wasted when they embrace the cause of thugs like Michael Brown, a six-foot-four 265-pound monster who robbed a convenience store and beat up a clerk before trying to wrestle a gun away from a cop. If the loudmouths really cared about black lives they would work to convince their buddies to stop shooting each other, since that is overwhelmingly where most blacks are killed and they might also think a bit about reducing the horrific levels of violent crime that seems to be part and parcel of their manhood ritual, which is why cops target them in the first place.
    BLM is, of course, in part a creation of a heavily Jewish national media which rushes to promote causes that are acceptably progressive.
     
    These points clearly are racist and anti-Semitic, though the terms operate in slightly different ways. The point is, though, that they are also perfectly reasonably points reflecting reasonable judgements about the world that are evidence based (and open to rebuttal, if you could find people willing to bother to try to do so rather than just shout them down as “hate speech”, try to censor them, and if possible get you rendered unemployable or even imprisoned merely for writing them).

    iffen says:
    October 18, 2016 at 12:44 pm GMT
    @Randal
    These points clearly are racist and anti-Semitic

    Can facts be racist or anti-Semitic?

    iffen says:

    October 18, 2016 at 3:13 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Joe Wong
    I don’t follow your reasoning.
    In the US, people of Jewish descent are greatly over-represented in media in relation to their % of total US population.
    Stating that fact is not anti-Semitic.
    Of course anti-Semites will present this fact as many times as you will listen and they do it in order to propagate their Jew-hatred.
    Knowledge of the fact and stating the fact is not per se anti-Semitic.

    iffen says:
    October 19, 2016 at 3:27 pm GMT • 200 Words
    @Randal
    The first part is racist in the sense that it implicitly recognises racial differences

    So we can’t offer as a defense to the BLM and MSM narrative the fact that this particular incident does not conform to “racism.” Take into account that the litany of supposed current racist assaults includes (even in speeches by Clinton) the suicide of an emotionally distraught young woman. If people who are accused of racism are denied the defense by factual information that said event or action is not “in fact” racist, what defense remains?

    The second is anti-Semitic in the real sense of the term as it is used in practice in political discussion – that it expresses an opinion that jewish people and related powerful groups see as being against their interests to be allowed to be expressed.

    If we try to ascertain what criteria are in use when the MSM “decides” what is important and what should be covered and how extensively, is that media to remain a “black box” and no questions concerning its content can be entertained?

    No, identifying or bemoaning is not, but the constantly part is questionable. I am conflicted on the significance of the use of Lobby/lobby.

    Oh my – iffen of the ZZ (Zion Zombie or Zionombie) tag team Shama/iffen is admitting that to say anything twice against a Jew makes one worthy of condemnation.

    Using any word (i.e., Lobby) more than once regarding Jew behavior – is tantamount to a race crime.

    The actions of a Jew must never ever be questioned by a Gentile. Can you believe it – the Jews will put people in jail for questioning one of their big lies (The Six Million Lie).

    p.s. What do they fear? Apparently the Jew do so many bad things, that to mention just one will start an avalanche of condemnation. What a way to live – how sad! ):

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @SolontoCroesus
    http://thescalpel.net/underpantsl.html

    brilliant
    thank you and congratulations

    Thanks! I appreciate all your insightful comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.
Pay no mind to the Mossad agent on the line.