The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Margolis Archive
Republicans Can't Face the Truth About Iraq
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Gov. Jeb Bush repeated one of the biggest falsehoods of our time during the recent presidential candidate debate: “we were misled (into the Iraq War) by faulty intelligence.”

US intelligence was not “misled.” It was ordered by the real, de facto president, Dick Cheney, to provide excuses for a war of aggression against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

PM Tony Blair, forced British intelligence services to “sex up” reports that Iraq had nuclear weapons; he purged the government and the venerable broadcaster BBC of journalists who failed to amplify Blair’s lies. Bush and Blair reportedly discussed painting a US Air Force plane in UN colors and getting it to buzz Iraqi anti-aircraft sites in hope the Iraqis would fire on it. Bush told Blair that after conquering Iraq, he intended to invade Iran, Syria, Libya and Pakistan.

In fact, Iraq had no “weapons of mass destruction,” save some rusty barrels of mustard and nerve gas that had been supplied by the US and Britain for use against Iran. I broke this story from Baghdad back in late 1990.

Tyler Drumheller, who died last week, was the former chief of CIA’s European division. He was the highest-ranking intelligence officer to go public and accuse the Bush administration of hyping fabricated evidence to justify invading Iraq.

Drumheller was particularly forceful in denouncing the Iraqi defector codenamed “Curveball,” whose ludicrous claims about mobile Iraqi germ laboratories were trumpeted before the UN by former Secretary of State Colin Powell. “Curveball’s” claims were outright lies and Powell, whose career was ruined by parroting these absurd allegations, should have known better.

“Curveball” was an ‘agent provocateur’ clearly sent by a neighbor of Iraq to help promote a US attack on that nation. Whether it was Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Israel that sent Curveball,” we still don’t know. All three fabricated “evidence” against Iraq and passed it to Washington. That is where US intelligence was indeed misled. But that’s only a minor part of the story.

A Washington cabal of pro-Israel neocons, oil men, and old-fashioned imperialists joined to promote a grossly illegal invasion of oil-rich Iraq. One of its senior members, former Pentagon official Paul Wolfowitz, admitted that weapons of mass destruction was chosen as the most convenient and emotive pretext for war. Orders went out to CIA and NSA to find information linking Iraq to 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction.

Some of the worst torture inflicted on suspects kidnapped by CIA’s action teams was designed to make them admit to a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. There was, of course, none. But administration officials, like the odious Condoleeza Rice, kept broadly hinting at a nuclear threat to America.

Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, polls showed a majority of Americans believed Iraq was threatening the US with nuclear attack and was behind 9/11. Amazingly, a poll taken of self-professed evangelical Christians just before the US attacked Iraq showed that over 80% supported war against Iraq. So much for turning the other cheek.


Most of the US media, notably the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, amplified the lies of the Bush administration. TV networks were ordered never to show American military casualties or civilian dead. Those, like this writer, who questioned the rational for war, or who wouldn’t go along with the party line, were blanked out from print and TV.

For example, I was immediately dropped from a major TV network after daring mention that Israel supported the 2003 Iraq war and would benefit from it. I was blacklisted by another major US TV network at the direct demand of the Bush White House for repeatedly insisting that Iraq had no nuclear capability.

Very few analysts, journalists, or politicians took time to ask: even if Iraq had nuclear weapons, how could they be delivered to North America? Iraq had no long-range bombers and no missiles with range greater than 100kms. Perhaps by FedEx? No one asked, why would Iraq invite national suicide by trying to hit the US with a nuclear weapon?

The most original answer came from George W. Bush: nefarious Iraqi freighters were lurking in the North Atlantic carrying “drones of death” that would attack sleeping America. This hallucination was based on a single report that the bumbling Iraqis were working a children’s model airplane that, in the end, broke and never flew. What inspired such a phantasmagoria? Pot, too much bourbon, LSD, or thundering orders from Dick Cheney to find a damned good excuse for invading Iraq.

For Cheney and his oil pals, conquering Iraq would secure the Arab world’s biggest oil reserves for Uncle Sam and offer a central military base in the region. For Washington’s bloodthirsty neocons, pulverizing Iraq would remove one of Israel’s most determined enemies, crush the only Arab nation that might challenge Israel’s nuclear monopoly, and cost Israel nothing. Invading Iraq produced the slow disintegration of the Mideast so long sought by militant Zionists.

It all worked brilliantly, at least from Israel’s viewpoint. Not, however for the US. Bush’s invasion shattered Iraq, led to al-Qaida and ISIS, and left Washington saddled with a $1 trillion-dollar bill instead of the $60 million cost estimated by Wolfowitz. The Mideast is in a tailspin, Palestinians are totally isolated, and Egypt, the region’s key nation, run by an Arab-fascist military dictatorship.

Tyler Drumheller was the only senior CIA officer to stand up and tell Americans they were lied into an unnecessary, illegal war. Today, we have Iraqi déjà vu anew as the lie factories and fear mongers work overtime to promote war with Iran.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Iraq, Republicans 
Hide 74 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Tom_R says:


    Thanks for the great article, Sir. You are so right.

    Our only connection to the Middle East is because of the Jewish lobby (and the Zionist Christians who support it). The Jewish lobby wants the US in the middle east—to keep the Middle East under its control and safe for Israel.

    Iraq was invaded to get rid of Saddam Hussein as he was paying suicide bombers to attack Israel. And giving the Gazans scud missiles.

    The Israel lobby achieved its objective. There are no more suicide bombers on buses and no more scuds, at a cost of 1 trillion dollars and thousands of lost American lives.

    The Jewish lobby’s war inside USA is flooding the nation with millions of black and brown aliens to keep the white goyim under control using the divide and conquer strategy. See:

    Biden: Judaists behind immigration:

    and also gay marriage:,7340,L-4382986,00.html

    But like the Talmud says, the life of a goyim is worth less than a Jewish fingernail.

    And the gullible suckers in the military fight these wars and risk their lives for Israel.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Divine Right
  2. Tom_R says:


    Here are the references to support the fact that some Judaists believe that goyim life is worth less:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  3. FWIW says:

    The new ‘sex slavery’ angle is the rage. It isn’t exactly a lie … but the notion of atrocities during war is hardly news. And whether sex crimes are part of a religious fueled ideology or just men at war, like the Eastern Front in WW 2, it is a great story but not a great reason for more US military involvement in the Middle East.

    And now: “Washington (CNN)The U.S. is investigating what it believes are “credible” reports that ISIS fighters used mustard agent in an attack against Kurdish Peshmerga this week, causing several of them to fall ill, U.S. officials working in at least three separate parts of the Obama administration said Thursday.”

    Several of them fell ill ????? What about dozens of them falling DEAD in suicide bombings?

    And it took 3 separate parts of the Obama administration to investigate this????

    I’ve had poison ivy attacks that looked much worse.

    Is there no limit to the extensive use of emotional appeals to further warfare?

    Just say no.

  4. […] Republicans Can’t Face the Truth About Iraq by Eric Margolis via Unz Review.  [Added 8/16/2015] […]

  5. Realist says:

    “Amazingly, a poll taken of self-professed evangelical Christians just before the US attacked Iraq showed that over 80% supported war against Iraq.”

    Evangelicals are strident supporters of the Republicans party, the base. Evangelicals have done a yeoman’s job validating the title, stupid party for the Republicans.

    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
  6. Realist says:

    “And the gullible suckers in the military fight these wars and risk their lives for Israel.”

    Well said.

    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
  7. In fact, Iraq had no “weapons of mass destruction,”

    Neither did Germany in 1945. When will FDR get the Cheney treatment from the Left?

    Germany lacked the one of the most critical factors in the development of nuclear arms: Jewish scientists. Of all the nuclear powers, only China and India, with a billion between them (fifty years ago), managed a workaround.

    It was ordered by the real, de facto president, Dick Cheney, to provide excuses for a war of aggression against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

    That’s quite a feat for a Secretary of Defense. How did Cheney know in 1990 that Saddam would attempt to impose women’s suffrage on Kuwait?

    “we were misled (into the Iraq War) by faulty intelligence.”

    Yeah, what was that colored guy’s name on the fledgling CNN claiming Iraq’s wogs were raping Kuwait’s woggesses? Bernard Shaw, right?

    Anyway, “Islam is a religion of peace” is the worst intelligence fail ever. Thomas Jefferson got much closer to the truth:

    The ambassador answered us that [their right to commit piracy] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

    Teddy Roosevelt and Winston Churchill worked with similarly precise descriptions of Middle Easterners.

    They don’t make diplomats like they used to.

  8. tsotha says:

    US intelligence was not “misled.” It was ordered by the real, de facto president, Dick Cheney, to provide excuses for a war of aggression against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

    Hahahaha. Nobody who writes a sentence like that should include “truth” in the title.

    • Replies: @Divine Right
  9. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Oh bunk. Judaism does not ever say this. Pure hate fiction on part. You are just another pathetic hater.

    • Replies: @John Smith
  10. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    “Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.”

    -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820

    Looks like Jefferson didn’t think much of Christians either! In fact, Jefferson detested religion in general.

    T. Roosevelt and Churchill were blatant and crude racists. Their beliefs on the culture and nature of non-white peoples are worthless.

    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
  11. As usual, Margolis speaks truth, including the blacklisting of those who opposed war like Phil Donahue.

    But let’s not forget that this is a bipartisan foreign policy, and Obama’s policies in Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria and now Yemen have followed seamlessly those of the Republican administration. He tried to keep troops in Iraq but couldn’t get Iraq to agree to extra-territoriality for US servicemen.

    None of this will change as long as Americans continue to vote for Republicans and Democrats who go along with these policies. By all means, continue to vote for people like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul, or even for former war-mongers who now recognize their mistakes like Walter “Freedom Fries” Jones, but if the R and D candidates are your typical go along to get along types, vote the 3rd party of your choice.

  12. @Anonymous

    “T. Roosevelt and Churchill were blatant and crude racists. Their beliefs on the culture and nature of non-white peoples are worthless.”

    T.R. and Churchill were also warmongering imperialists. (I believe that Mark Twain, who knew Roosevelt, once called him certifiably insane.)

    • Agree: fnn
  13. @Anonymous

    There is what people say and how they act, and Israel acts like Gentile life is worth less than Jewish life.

  14. masmanz says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    German lacked WMD but had a very strong military and was ready to challenge the rest of the Europe and UK. Why compare it to hapless Iraq? By this flawed logic an attack on any nation can be justified by comparing to the Germany of 1937 even when they are much weaker and can possibly have no such ambition.

    The followers of Daniel Pipes always quote the Muslim ambassador of Barbary pirates. Such piracy (or tariffs in modern term) was a common practice of Europeans as well as North Africans of those days. Jefferson decided that establishing a strong navy was better than paying the ‘tariff’ and it worked. Islam spans 14 centuries with billion of followers over the years. Finding a quote of an unknown ambassador (known to the world only because Jefferson quoted him) and projecting it on the entire religion is amazing. How does it relate to Iraq? That guy was not an Iraqi ambassador and said those things more than 2 centuries ago. At the time of attack Iraq even had a Christian vice president.

    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
  15. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Nothing says Truthfulness like being banned from the Main Stream Media.

    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
  16. Biff says:

    It stuns the mind how easy the media can clamor together, and wipe out both truth and history. Washington has a long history of taking them in and spitting them out. Buyer Beware!..

    American intelligence operatives used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former US intelligence officials and diplomats.

    The pentagon knows exactly who has what weapons on a global scale, and there are war colleges from coast to coast that study the information, so when they look surprised you know they are lying.

  17. The truth is that jews have transformed the US into a larger version of Israel.

    The jewish diversity scheme began in Israel, and migrated to the US.

    The jewish diversity scheme is a national victim class supremacy cult.

    The scheme divides an entire nation into only 2 classes, victim or oppressor.

    In Israel, only flavors of jewish people are victim class; reformed, conservative, orthodox.

    In the US, the diversity scheme includes all these subclasses of people as a victim class:

    native americans

    The diversity scheme designates the so-called white supremacist as the universal enemy of all victim class people. Alternatively, jewish people refer to a white supremacist as a nazi.

    Victim class people are conditioned to trade votes for undue privileges offerd by a totalitarian democratic government.

    Using biased immigration policies, diversity schemers insure that victim class people are always a super-majority of voters.

    For example, Israel has its Law of Return for jewish only, and the US has amnesty for illegal latinos, blacks, and asians.

  18. tbraton says:

    “Drumheller was particularly forceful in denouncing the Iraqi defector codenamed “Curveball,” whose ludicrous claims about mobile Iraqi germ laboratories were trumpeted before the UN by former Secretary of State Colin Powell. “Curveball’s” claims were outright lies and Powell, whose career was ruined by parroting these absurd allegations, should have known better.”

    Excellent piece, Mr. Margolis. Two points with regard to “Curveball.” First, he was a German agent, and the Germans would not allow Americans, such as the CIA, to interview him, allegedly at his insistence. According to Wikipedia (which accords with accounts I was reading at the time), “Although the Americans did not have “direct access” to Curveball,[12][13] information collected by the BND debriefing team was later passed on in part to the Defense Intelligence Agency in the United States.[14] . . Despite CIA technicians and weapon experts finding major flaws and inconsistencies with the designs and systems he asserted the military was developing, this information made it to the American government and although there were wide doubts and questions about the claimed informant’s reliability and background, assertions attributed to Curveball claiming that Iraq was creating biological agents in mobile weapons laboratories to elude inspectors appeared in more than 112 United States government reports between January 2000 and September 2001.[16] His assertions eventually made it into United States Secretary of State Colin Powell’s famous address the February 5, 2003 to the United Nations detailing Iraq’s weapons programs..” In those footnotes, Wikipedia amplifies as follows: “12. Drogin, Bob, Curveball, Random House, 2007, p.31: “senior BND officials decided to bar the CIA from talking to their new source”, p.36: “Curveball hates Americans, they told the visiting DIA team. He absolutely refuses to meet any Americans. … Sorry, they said, he’s completely off limits.” I guess we can surmise that the Bush/Cheney team was not especially anxious to accept the CIA’s doubts about “Curveball” since they refused to pressure our German “allies” to allow us access to their star “informant.” (We also learned later that even the German intelligence agency had serious doubts about Curveball’s “intelligence,” although it is not clear whether the Germans’ doubts were conveyed to the Americans when they provided the vital “intelligence” or later when the Iraq War turned into a fiasco.)

    Secondly, I can distinctly remember Colin Powell assuring us that he and his close aide Richard Armitage would go to the CIA and review all the intelligence “with a fine tooth comb” pertaining to the impending Iraq War. That Powell would airily dismiss CIA reservations about “Curveball’s” information and blindly accept Curveball’s “intelligence” without insisting that our German “allies” permit our people to interrogate Curveball speak volumes about Powell’s integrity and intelligence. And that Powell inserted a reference to Curveball’s intelligence into his UN speech completely discredits Powell in my eyes. I find it absurd that we went to war with Iraq basically using intelligence provided by another country without taking any steps to assure that the intelligence was valid. In fact, six months after the beginning of the Iraq war, the Associated Press ran a piece which concluded that every claim made by Colin Powell in his famous speech to the UN justifying the impending war turned out to be false.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    , @KA
  19. tbraton says:

    After I posted, I decided to do a little more digging and came across this half-forgotten piece from Der Spiegel in 2008 re “Curveball”:

    The relevant paragraphs from the Der Spiegel article re whether the Germans expressed their doubts about “Curveball” at the same time they forwarded his “intelligence” are as follows:

    “Even today, that letter remains exhibit “A” for then BND and German government leaders when it comes to discussions about Germany’s responsibility for the pre-Iraq intelligence debacle. Gunter Pleuger, for example, Germany’s UN Ambassador at the time, says: “For me it was a perfectly clear warning, and I assumed that the information provided by ‘Curveball’ would no longer be used by the Americans.”

    Today, though, the BND apparently no longer sees the letter as an adequate exculpation. The secret service now points to a Washington meeting in the autumn of 2002, shortly before Hanning’s letter, whereby the then-BND agent in Washington met with Tyler Drumheller, CIA operations leader for Europe, for a lunch meeting in a restaurant called Sea Catch. Drumheller recalls that the BND agent warned that “Curveball” was psychologically unstable and likely a fraud. The BND has now, for the first time, officially confirmed this account.

    According to Tenet, the CIA even specifically asked the BND contact what he thought of “Curveball” after the war began. In response, though, the BND agent didn’t specifically call “Curveball” a “fabricator,” Tenets says. Rather, he spoke of a “single source” whose information couldn’t be independently confirmed — the same watered-down formulation that found its way into the Hanning letter. Former highly-placed BND agents confirm this account.

    In any case, the CIA and the White House interpreted Hanning’s response as carte blanche. Five weeks after receiving Hanning’s letter, the US president announced in his State of the Union address that Saddam possessed “several mobile biological weapons labs” and further that “he has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.” ”

    It looks to me that the Germans were in a CYA mode before the Iraq War began, issuing a watered down ambiguous letter and separately orally conveying their reservations to a high CIA official. You would think that two “savvy” operators like Powell and his close aide Armitage would have seen through this obvious ploy.

    • Replies: @KA
  20. @Tom_R

    “Our only connection to the Middle East is because of the Jewish lobby (and the Zionist Christians who support it).”

    There’s also a lot of oil there.

  21. @Reg Cæsar

    “In fact, Iraq had no “weapons of mass destruction,”

    “Neither did Germany in 1945. When will FDR get the Cheney treatment from the Left?”

    Iraq didn’t declare war on the United States; Germany did.

    “Germany lacked the one of the most critical factors in the development of nuclear arms: Jewish scientists. Of all the nuclear powers, only China and India, with a billion between them (fifty years ago), managed a workaround.”

    Your observation is pretty flawed. Many nations have the infrastructure to build nuclear weapons but purposely choose not to. It’s not as if every nation is scrambling to get them and failing to do so. Also, Pakistan and North Korea acquired nuclear weapons without too much Jewish help – most of their scientists were not Jewish. Iran was also doing quite well before this nuclear deal. Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, and a host of other nations could easily acquire nuclear arms if they chose to do so. Japan could have a nuclear weapon in approximately six months.

  22. @tsotha

    “Hahahaha. Nobody who writes a sentence like that should include “truth” in the title.”

    It might be surprising to Free Republic types, but that’s not actually an unreasonable conclusion given the evidence. Cheney knowingly leaked previously debunked evidence connecting Iraq with an effort to acquire WMD to NYTs reporter Judith Miller. He then used his planted story as just one more excuse – in a long line of excuses – to attack Iraq. Rumsfeld was also desperate to find a connection between Iraq and 9/11; he sent out memos within hours of 9/11 trying to take advantage of the situation by conflating the two issues. The entire Bush administration was desperate to find any justification they could to invade Iraq.

    Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11

    “CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.”

    “With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.” – meaning Saddam Hussein – “at same time. Not only UBL” – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.”

    “Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn’t matter to Rumsfeld.”

    “Go massive,” the notes quote him as saying. “Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”

  23. So, is there any actual evidence the war was a ZOG conspiracy beyond saying it was a ZOG conspiracy? I’m serious, what’s some good references here? Usually when I pose this to 9/11 truthers, all I get is “jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams” type stuff.

  24. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website

    thank you for your good work on all this…I am sorry your career suffered because of it.

    The media has of course tried to whitewash the bush presidency…I guess they figure people will forget about it.

  25. geokat62 says:

    Not sure why people feel there is a need to discuss the veracity of pre-war intelligence. I thought any and all doubts were put to rest by the Downing Street Memo:

    The memo recorded the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) as expressing the view following his recent visit to Washington that “[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” (emphasis added)

    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
  26. KA says:

    But in 02/04/2003 ,e- mail -written a day before Powell’sUN appearance- the senior CIA official sharply rebuked one of those skeptical analysts,” Keep in mind the fact that this war is going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn’t say and that the Powers That Be probably aten”t terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he’s talking about,” the CIA official

    A Wicked Curveball

    Michael Isikoff
    April 2005

    How did 911 commisson address the intelligence issues?
    It blamed the intelligence analystsc and freed the Bush government from any charge of bringing pressure down the intelligence community.

    And why they were not included? Judge Silverman was angry when asked why the e mail was not included . Another paid and bought or simply terrified explained that it was not included because everybody were aware of it.

  27. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s a blatant lie that they were “misled”. All these smart people who’ve gone to the best schools and have held responsible jobs getting conned by some slick con-artist? They had their plans and shopped around for someone who would say what they wanted. Ordinary people could tell at the time that it was bs. They were lying then and they’re lying now.

  28. No one remembers two key events:

    1. The head of Iraq’s WMD program defected in 1995 and told the CIA all the WMDs had been destroyed, so they killed him.

    2. Iraq allowed the UN to inspect all suspect sites weeks before the invasion began, and the UN’s Hans Blix told the world there were no WMDs in Iraq.

    From this:

    “Invading Iraq had nothing to do with “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs). One of President Bush’s more outrageous lies is that he did not deceive the American people to justify the invasion of Iraq. “We were fooled by bad intelligence” is the excuse accepted by most Americans. They cannot recall that in 2003, as U.S. forces prepared to invade Iraq, President Bush demanded that Saddam Hussein permit UN inspectors “free and unfettered access” to search Iraq for WMDs. Saddam Hussein surprised everyone by agreeing, and UN inspectors were allowed to roam Iraq at will and check all the locations that Colin Powell had recently told the UN Assembly were actively producing illegal weapons.

    After several weeks, the dozens of UN inspector teams had found nothing, and the dirty, rusty conditions of the suspect sites showed nothing had been made there for years. The Bush administration insisted they had other proof that WMDs were in Iraq. Chief UN inspector Hans Blix publicly stated that if they would send him a clue, he would have UN teams inspect the next day. Iraq even proposed that U.S. military officers join the UN inspectors. As a result, President Bush had perfect intelligence that Iraq had no WMDs. The US military had complete freedom to fly anywhere in Iraq to observe activity. UN inspectors were on the ground to check any suspect site, and were permitted to stay in Iraq as long as they liked to pursue new leads.

    This confirmed what General Hussein Kamel, Iraq’s weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995, told UN inspectors and the CIA, that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles.”

    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
  29. KA says:

    Republicans won’t face and won’t be able to face the realities on Iran as well down the line . Same folks that brought them AIPAC,FDD,AEI,JINSA,and PNAC inspired purveyed divined knowledge and excluded facts and expert opinions are now bringing to them the same lies,same spin,same stories,and same blindness combined with selective hearing aids .

    Wait for moment and picture what is going on now ,hold that picture in the mind,and fast forward the audiovisual memories to the day after Iran attack. You will hear Menendez,Cotton,Mirk Kirk ,Hoyer,MCcallis,Sherman,McCain,Graham,Carlson,Huckabee,Bush ,Perry and the beneficiaries of smaller sum from AIPAC,and Israeli analyst claiming the followings
    – Saudi supported, Gulf supported the anti deal stances. [ they didnt not. They support the deal]
    2 -What do you think ISIS is.? They are Sunni ,they supported ,Sunni supported attack on Iran.
    [majority of Sunni from Aljeria to Pakistan support nuclearized Iran,support the deal,supports no war against Iran]
    3Our intelligence were worried of Iran . Nobody from UK or France or our ally Israel said anything otherwise. Olli Hoeinlien from IAEA ,David Albright ,and Pentagon officials ,ex defense,Kissinger a liberal onetime Sadat friend and anti Begin anti Isreal supported the war and blamed the deal.
    4 American public didn’t believe the deal would prevent Iran from getting bombs.
    To protect Israel and hide the Israeli juggernaut against the deal and for the war those liars and thugs will say-

    5″ Israeli intelligence did not support the views of the US or of UK . Israeli intelligence didnot believe Iran was pursuing weaponization program and actually supported the deal. ”

    [ It is the government who makes the decision. Israeli government is making the decision and getting overwhelming support from its citizen. No one has come on the street against Netanyu]

    And Wikipedia will jot the claims down for future refernce.!

  30. KA says:

    Judy Warrick penning the article in WaPo ( June 25,2006;AO1)
    confirmed the fact the German intelligence official who refused Drumheller access to Curveball ” offered a startlingly candid assessment” I think the guy is a fabricator . We also think he has psychological problems. We could never validate his reports’ ”
    Drumheller was tasked by Bush administration to gain access to Curveball .

  31. neutral says:
    @Sean the Neon Caucasian

    I am not a 9/11 truther, but it does not take a lot of time to discover that most of the prominent neocons were jewish, and they supported the war against Iraq. Its also not a secret or conspiracy that they are 100% pro Israel.

    The war makes no sense for the usual arguments they used, democracy, oil, WND, revenge – but when it comes to argument that it benefits Israel it makes perfect sense. They removed an Israeli enemy and replaced it with a pro US puppet (at least that is what they hoped to achieve).

  32. @neutral

    Agreed. It does not take much of a leap of logic, considering the political power of AIPAC and the number of Jewish neocon policy makers and advisers in the Bush administration, to juxtapose the two facts: 1. the war in Iraq was perceived by Israeli state – if not the people of Israel – to be in their self-interest; 2. other than the Wolfowitz doctrine of world domination there was no plausible way to explain how the war in Iraq served the interests of the U.S.A.

    • Replies: @Biff
  33. MarkinLA says:

    replaced it with a pro US puppet

    replaced it with chaos and a broken state unable to coordinate any organized action against Israel.

    There fixed it for you – this was the plan all along. If we got a puppet out of it, so much the better. You see this all throughout the Arab Spring.

  34. @anti_republocrat

    I turn off whenever I hear the phrase, “there were no weapons of mass destruction”.
    Parroting the MSM/liberal lies.
    Propaganda thru repitition.
    60,000 Kurds were gassed to death by Iraq.
    Gas is a WMD. More wasn’t found because we had no more “surprise” visits to military installations than we will in Iran with this new “deal”.

  35. @neutral

    @ MarkinLA

    Fix THIS, too:

    most of the prominent neocons were jewish, and they supported the war against Iraq.

    slowly slowly it dawns —

    To be more precise, “most of the prominent neocons” are less jewish and more Bolshevik revolutionaries.

    German Jews, who are, incidentally leaving Israel to return to Berlin in droves, provided the initial organizational, social, institutional, cultural template and a major share of the wealth to create the the zionist project. Zionists seduced, tricked, blackmailed and otherwise enticed German Jews more-or-less against their will to leave Germany and take their wealth to Mandate Palestine. But from earliest days, Ukrainian, Polish, Russian, Lithuanian-origin “Jews” ran the show in Mandate Palestine – to – Israel, from 1917, the year of the Balfour declaration, to the present:


    Yaacov Thon (b. Ukraine) 1917–1920 – head of a provisional council which preceded the actual formation of the Vaad Leumi in 1920.
    David Yellin 1920–1929
    Pinhas Rutenberg (b. Ukraine) 1929–1931
    Yitzhak Ben Zvi (b. Ukraine) – elected as chairman in the 1931 elections, held the office until independence in 1948. In 1939, Pinhas Rutenberg was, once again, appointed chairman of the Va’ad while Ben Zvi became President. He held that position until his death in 1942. In the 1944 elections, *David Remez (b. Ukraine), was elected as chairman while ben Zvi continued with the title of President.

    List of Prime Ministers of Israel

    David Ben-Gurion (b. Poland) 1948–1953
    Moshe Sharett (b. Ukraine) 1953–1955
    David Ben-Gurion 1955–1963
    Levi Eshkol (b. Ukraine) 1963–1969
    Golda Meir who came from Ukraine via the United States 1969–1974
    Yitzhak Rabin 1974–1977
    Menachem Begin (b. Belarus) 1977–1983
    Yitzhak Shamir (b. Poland) 1983–1984
    Shimon Peres (b. Poland) 1984–1986
    Yitzhak Shamir 1986–1992 (b. Russia, now Belarus)
    Yitzhak Rabin 1992–1995 (b. Mandate Palestine of Ukrainian immigrant parents)
    Shimon Peres 1995–1996 (b. Poland)
    Benjamin Netanyahu 1996–1999 (b. Tel Aviv of Polish parents)
    Ehud Barak 1999–2001 (b. Mandate Palestine, Lithuanian immigrant parents)
    Ariel Sharon 2001–2006 (b. Mandate Palestine, Russian immigrant parents)
    Ehud Olmert 2006–2009 (b. Mandate Palestine, Ukrainian, Russian immigrant parents)
    Benjamin Netanyahu 2009–present

    German Jews have long regarded Eastern European Jews as second-class citizens. Vladimir Jabotinsky, himself born in Odessa, was “repulsed” by Slavic Jews when first he encountered them.

    There are as many fissures and fractures, and differences, among various Jewish groups as exist between Protestants and Catholics, Sunni and Shiite, etc.

    But East European zionists, very frequently atheistic or non-observant, are a breed apart. As study of the characteristics of the neoconservatives can reveal, they are zealots; they are militaristic; enamored of lying, stealing and killing to achieve their goals.

    The people of the United States led by their hero FDR believe that he used Stalin’s Bolsheviks to defeat Germany and liberate Europe. Churchill brayed that Britain saved Christianity when Germany was crushed. Churchill then called for a campaign to defeat Communism, which the American people believe they achieved.

    But in fact, zionist Bolsheviks used FDR — and Churchill — to destroy Germany; to eradicate the center of Christian Europe; and to plant zionist Bolshevism in the hinge of the Middle East as well as on the North American continent, in the seats of global financial power — Wall Street, and political power, Washington, DC.

    Let’s stop calling these criminals and genocidaires “Jews.”
    They are zionist Bolshevik revolutionaries — ZiBRAs — (the A stands for Antithetical to American interests and values).

    Their closest linkage to Judaism is through the tribe of Levi: Levites volunteered to be Moses’s “willing executioners” who slaughtered fellow-Jews who resisted the call to invade and destroy the land and people of Canaan.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  36. annamaria says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    “In fact, Iraq had no “weapons of mass destruction,”
    Neither did Germany in 1945. When will FDR get the Cheney treatment from the Left?”

    Why don’t you state it clearly that you firmly believe that Iraq was a menace for the US and this is why the US needed to spend several trillions US dollars, to kill some million Iraqi civilians of all ages, including children, and to provoke a creation of a volunteer army of militant islamists (whose families were killed out as a collateral damage and whose villages were destroyed by the US “liberating” army under the command of Mr. Codpiece).
    Did the people of Islam came to take the US mineral resources and establish military bases on the territory of the US and in Europe? The problem for Western civilization (that owes so much to the brilliant minds of Arab civilizations) that Zionists want to use other nations’ dime and limbs to ensure the supremacy and safety of “chosen people.” Of course there are obvious shortcomings in the nations that profess Islam. But there is another and bitter truth that the Zionists have become the pests of humanity, the parasites longing for power and using the past achievements of great Jewish minds as a cover for the Zionists’ pernicious agenda.
    By the way, there is no much difference between the elevation of righteous Islamists in Koran and the elevation of righteous Jews in the Old Testament. The holy books are filled both with wisdom and bloody supremacism.

  37. I find it funny that gwb can make his underlings/puppetmasters immune to prosecution.

    How the bloody fuck does that work in a country that supposedly champions rules of law etc?

    Isn’t that more akin to a king or emperor doing whatever he wants?

    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
  38. Biff says:
    @Existential Confusion

    other than the Wolfowitz doctrine of world domination there was no plausible way to explain how the war in Iraq served the interests of the U.S.A.

    American oil companies are back on Iraqi oil fields.

    • Replies: @Art
    , @geokat62
    , @KA
  39. annamaria says:

    You are absolutely correct that Israel is a creature of bolshevism. Add to this picture an arch of aliyah made of the former Soviets, many of them of Central Asian origin (so-called Bukhara Jews), which are to East European Jews what East European Jews are to German Jews.
    It is highly naive to think that the individuals like Bibi and Avigdor Lieberman are burdened by any high ideas beyond their personal power. They are neither statesmen nor thinkers but the ordinary cynical politicians. Westerners at large have a poor understanding of the Russian History and the role of Jews in the Bolshevik (October) Revolution. Otherwise, the wholesale destruction of Russian culture (and the murder of Tsar Nikolaj and his family) would be perceived very differently. After the revolution, rhere was a disproportionate presence of Jews in the Soviet government and secret police (CheKa, NKVD, KGB). Granted, there were great Jewish doctors, inventors, scientists, artists, and musicians in the Soviet Union; at the same time, there were too many Jewish men and women occupying the commanding posts in government and secret police during the 20-s and 30-s when some of the most unbelievable atrocities were committed against the best and brightest in Russia.

  40. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Bush’s War?? Here’s what Democrats were saying about Iraq BEFORE President GW Bush even took office:

    “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
    –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
    –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
    –Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
    –Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
    — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
    -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
    — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
    — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

    “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
    — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
    — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
    — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
    — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
    — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
    — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
    — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
    — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    All of this talk of war in Iraq happened while President Bush was still the Governor of Texas!

    • Replies: @Biff
    , @MarkinLA
    , @tbraton
  41. Art says:

    “Bush told Blair that after conquering Iraq, he intended to invade Iran, Syria, Libya and Pakistan.”

    That is straight out of The Project for a New American Century – a Jew/Zionist neocon screed for the advancement of fascist Israel.

    Cheney and Rumsfeld were signatories – when Bush brought Cheney in too form his administration – PNAC became the blue print for America’s foreign policy.

    History will forever condemn Bush because of what Cheney put in play.

    Someday push will come to shove, and all will know the truth – there will be hell to pay.

  42. They can’t face the truth about 9/11. Neither can the Democrats. Dick Cheney it would appear will never be completely dead. Do you suppose he made a deal with the devil?

  43. Biff says:

    Democrats = Republicans

    Yes it is Bush’s war – he initiated it, and if Al Gore had won the presidency it would have been his war.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Joe Franklin
  44. Art says:

    “American oil companies are back on Iraqi oil fields.”

    Hey Biff – that is a false narrative – the Iraq war was about “The Project for a New American Century”.

    Rumsfeld’s Pentagon was stacked with fascist Jew/Zionists who were working for Israel.

    Cheney said that Iraq oil would pay for the war – it did not happen, did it?

    Where are YOU coming from Biff — why the lie??

    • Replies: @Biff
  45. @boogerbently

    The phrase, “there were no weapons of mass destruction,” is in reference to the immediate prelude to Bush’s war of aggression. Nobody denies that Iraq had possession of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War, which is when the Kurds were gassed, or during Gulf War I. After all, the US provided the precursor chemicals for those weapons.

    Between 1991 and 2003, Iraq destroyed any usable chemical weapons it possessed and was under a strict inspection protocol until inspectors were ordered out (by the US/UN) in preparation for Clinton’s bombing campaign. Prior to Bush’s war of aggression, UN inspectors were again given access and found no evidence that Iraq had reconstituted any WMD program, but they were forced to leave before completing their work so Bush could start his war. It has never been alleged that Iraq used chemical weapons against US troops in Bush’s war, and after the war US experts could find no evidence of any usable chemical weapons. They did find a few shells that had been buried in the desert for many years and were not usable.

    • Replies: @uradork
  46. Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.

  47. Biff says:

    There is certainly more than one reason Iraq was atomized.

  48. MarkinLA says:

    I have seen that garbage a thousand times and nothing there changes the fact that we had every opportunity to avoid a war with Iraq and verify that there were no WMDs. We intentionally and purposely went to war based on nothing but GWBs desire to go to war. There is nothing in those statements that forced our government to manufacture phony intelligence and commit to destroying a country that did not threaten us.

  49. geokat62 says:

    This myth was debunked by Mearsheimer and Walt in The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy

  50. tbraton says:

    “All of this talk of war in Iraq happened while President Bush was still the Governor of Texas!”

    Except for the last nine quotations from 2001 and 2002 when President Bush was President of the U.S. and his former lieutenant governor, Rick Perry, was then Governor of Texas.

  51. uradork says:

    Yep, no WMD’s in Iraq, except for maybe that 550 tons of Yellowcake uranium shipped out of the country in 2008, enough to make around 100 nuclear weapons.

  52. uradork says:

    And that’s why the UN left 550 tons of Yellowcake uranium in Iraq until 2008, enough to build over 100 nuclear weapons. Yep, as long as you ignore the facts, there were no WMDs in Iraq. Now maybe you should go keep your imaginary friend company.

  53. The US invaded Iraq to complete the encirclement of Iran.

    Look at a map.

    Iran is bordered on the west by Iraq and on the east by Afghanistan.

    Iran has always been the main target of these neocon mideast meddlings.

    To shoot down missiles in the boost phase, the most vulnerable phase of a rocket, the proximity of anti-missile batteries is crucial to achieve success.

    Hence, US anti-missile batteries are installed in Iraq and Afghanistan to quickly shoot down Iranian rockets aimed at Israel.

    • Replies: @guest
  54. MarkinLA says:

    Yeah, I heard that one too. Except it was yellowcake that was already accounted for prior to the war.

  55. @Astuteobservor II

    Yeah, well, that’s the kind of government we have in Washington, District of Corruption. . . .

  56. @boogerbently

    I see the old neocon myth that evil Saddam gassed the Kurds persists, despite this Stephen C. Pelletiere commentary that appeared in the January 31, 2003 New York Times. Here is part of what he wrote about frequent statements that Saddam Hussein gassed 5000 Kurds at Halabja in 1988:

    “…as the Central Intelligence Agency’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

    This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq’s main target.

    And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

    The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds’ bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

    These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

    I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war.”


    And note all this occurred long before 1995 when the last of Iraq’s WMDs were destroyed. Winston Churchill okayed the use airplanes to drop poison gas on Iraqis, maybe we should invade England.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  57. Hbm says:

    They’re Neocon Zionist ideologues. They lack free minds to discern truth or falsehood.

    They act on compulsion, and they will never quit or apologize no matter how poorly their adventures go or how costly they are for the rest of us. They’ll only stop when they are in the grave. We just have to hope they all end up there before we do.

  58. tbraton says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    “And note all this occurred long before 1995 when the last of Iraq’s WMDs were destroyed. Winston Churchill okayed the use airplanes to drop poison gas on Iraqis, maybe we should invade England.”

    I have long argued over on TAC that we never paid the British back for burning the White House in 1814. Now you cite one more good reason why we should invade England. Let’s do it, and not peacefully as we did in WWII when we were fighting a common enemy. And not peacefully the way the Beatles and Rolling Stones and other British rock bands invaded the U.S. starting in the 60’s. We would probably have half the world on our side if we were to declare war against England—the former colonies of the British Empire.

    tish Empire.

    • Replies: @guest
  59. guest says:
    @Joe Franklin

    “The US invaded Iraq to complete the encirclement of Iran.”

    If so, they knocked down our (or, more appropriately Israel’s) biggest bulwark against Iran in the person of Hussein. I have a hard time imagining the toppling of Iran’s biggest enemy as weakening Iran. Our foreign policy makes no sense as they explain it to us, obviously, but I think the answer may not be that they’re playing your strategy but that they’re idiots. They were idiots when they spared no expense taking out Hitler and punishing Germany without bothering to think of where that’d leave Stalin, except insofar as Churchill and FDR thought they’d win him over with their sparkling personalities.

    Face it, they don’t know what they’re doing.

    • Replies: @KA
  60. guest says:

    “we never paid the British back for burning the White House in 1814”

    Andy Jackson paid them back. Besides, their sacking of our capitol was partly in response to our acts of arson in the battle of York.

  61. @Sean the Neon Caucasian

    Here’s a good primer on the subject, Sean. It’s long, but it covers pretty much all the key points linking the neo-cons and the Zionists to ‘our’ various wars of choice in the middle east:

    To make a long story short, the original strategy to break up the Arab nations was first advanced by an Israeli Foreign Ministry official name Oded Yinon back in 1982. Using the then war in Lebanon as a template, he advocated breaking up the existing Arab states into small, warring, sectarian fiefdoms that would spend all their time fighting each other rather than Israel, as the secular-nationalist Arab states had been doing up until then. The neo-cons took their cue from him, and needed only a ‘Pear Harbor type event’ to move the US into position to execute the plan, as Israel was incapable of doing this by itself.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  62. @uradork

    Much confirmation bias? Yellowcake is not a weapon. Not even enriched uranium is a weapon unless enriched to over 90% and packaged within a bomb.

    Once again, any nuclear materials found in Iraq had earlier been secured and were under the supervision of the IAEA until it was ordered out just prior to the invasion. The US was so concerned about such matters that after the invasion, it left unguarded nuclear facilities that had previously been under the supervision of the IAEA. It did, however, guard the oil ministry and oil fields.

  63. KA says:

    Nadler’s statement includes an essay on the “poisonous rhetoric” on both sides of the debate. And he says that he was under pressure on the Iraq war vote of 2002 to vote for Israel by voting for war. Here’s a portion of that essay: – See more at:

    His vote for Iran deal ,he is afraid will be seen as anti Israel. Some even predicts that he will face a primary

  64. KA says:

    Were the Nazi intelligent ? Were Hitler? Look at what happened to them. Once you study the aftermath Nuremberg,and the reparations and the Naxi hunting you come to see the suptidities .No other explanation

    Neocons have read part of the same cookbook . They have pauperized Ameruca and have cost 5000 soldiers and produced 100000 damaged veterans .
    The Nuremberg part and the Naxi hunting are waiting to be recast and retold in a theater near to you.

    But neither they nor the Nazi are stupid by any standard . They just didn’t succeed the way they wanted . Neocons got exposed ,Chalibi didn’t build the pipeline to Haifa . Even Bangladesh didn’t recognize as Powell wanted that little country to recognize Israel.Iran didn’t shake from the rousing Shia’s embrace of Americn in Iraq. Egypt. Jordan,and Iran were not attacked .
    But Syria,Libya,Somalia were . Sudan was divided . Chaos as cauldron of the dream of Michael Ledeen spread throughout . Beyond the chaos,neocons couldn’t achieve anything . America lost the persuasive power . China surged ahead . Russia saw the futility of compromise and adjustment to US shenanigans .
    Humpty Dumpty can’t be put back on the back of the horse ,on the saddle again.
    All the neocon coud say : they didn’t send enough horses [ over the cliff] .

  65. @Biff

    Democrats = reformed Judaism

    Republicans = conservative Judaism

    There is a difference, but the differences are over Jewish tactics to achieve group survival.

    The Jewish diversity political scheme is the common thread between left and right.

  66. tbraton says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    “Here’s a good primer on the subject, Sean. It’s long, but it covers pretty much all the key points linking the neo-cons and the Zionists to ‘our’ various wars of choice in the middle east:”

    I wholeheartedly endorse your recommendation of the linked article (which I hadn’t read before), since it provides an up-to-date, thorough review and analysis of the neoconservative movement.

    During my four years posting comments on The American Conservative, I ran across some current and past blogs dealing with the neoconservative movement that are certainly worth reading as an introduction to the subject. I would cite the following particularly:

    1. A blog by Pat Buchanan back in 2003 (many years before I even heard of TAC, of which PB was one of the three original founders): “Whose War?: The Loudest Clique Behind the President’s Policy,” by Pat Buchanan, March 24, 2003,

    2. A blog by David Gordon back in 2010: “Neoconservatism Defined,” by David Gordon, October 28, 2010, (actually a review of two books on neoconservatism in which the reviewer adds his own thoughts)

    3. A blog by Jack Hunter back in 2011: “What’s a Neoconservative?,” by Jack Hunter, June 23, 2011,

    For a Cliff’s Notes version of neoconservatism, I would offer my comments to Jack Hunter’s piece above (actually there are many informative comments posted under Jack Hunter’s piece):

    “tbraton says:

    June 23, 2011 at 11:13 am

    “My father suggested to me recently that it might be helpful to better explain what the term “neoconservative” means. “A lot of people don’t know,” he said. As usual, Dad was right.”

    One of those people who didn’t know what a “neoconservative” was is our former President, George W. Bush. I remember reading somewhere that, when he was running for President in the late 90’s, George W. asked his father what a neoconservative was, and George H. W. replied that he had only to remember one word to understand what a neoconservative was: Israel.

    Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First, the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called “father of the neoconservative movement” was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard. Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary. Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, etc., etc.

    Secondly, the roots of neoconservatism traces back to very liberal political leanings, bordering on socialism and even communism. The elder Kristol was a Trotskyite into his 20’s. That would explain their tendency to favor a strong central government, which, of course, allows them to exert their influence more effectively despite their small numbers. It is also consistent with the views of Leo Strauss, one of the great intellectual shapers of neoconservatism. According to an account by a former neoconservative:
    ” For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it.”

    Thirdly, as evidenced by the George H.W. Bush comment above, a strong underlying belief that seems to unite the neoconservatives is in the perceived need, above all, to make the world safe for Israel.”

    “tbraton says:

    June 24, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC this past October, entitled “Neoconservatism Defined.” Actually, it is a combined review of two books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism. In the course of the review, Gordon makes the following observation:

    “Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel is central to their political concerns.”

    One of the books concentrates on the intellectual founder of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, and the review makes some concise observations about him.

    tbraton says:

    June 24, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    David Gordon’s book review also contains the following observations:

    “No one who absorbs Vaïsse’s discussion of this second age can harbor any illusions about whether the neocons count as genuine conservatives. [Senator Henry] Jackson made no secret of his statist views of domestic policy, but this did not in the least impede his neocons allies from enlisting in his behalf. Vaïsse by the way understates Jackson’s commitment to socialism, which dated from his youth. Contrary to what our author suggests, the League for Industrial Democracy, which Jackson joined while in college, was not “a moderate organization that backed unions and democratic principles.” It was a socialist youth movement that aimed to propagate socialism to the public.

    It was not Jackson’s domestic policy, though, that principally drew the necons to him. They had an elective affinity for the pursuit of the Cold War. Vaïsse stresses in particular that they collaborated with Paul Nitze and other Cold War hawks. In a notorious incident, “Team B,” under the control of the hawks, claimed that CIA estimates of Russian armaments were radically understated. It transpired that the alarms of Team B were baseless; they nevertheless served their purpose in promoting a bellicose foreign policy.

    The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle, they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly, many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless, some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. “In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president’s desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters as a ‘man of peace,’ ready to negotiate with the Soviets.”

    The “national greatness” neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action ends at the doors to the Pentagon.” “

  67. annamaria says:

    Whether intentionally or not, your post conforms to other descriptions of neocons as the worrisome scandal seekers carrying on the legacy of their predecessors’ provincial past. Obnoxious, vulgar, and pretending on possession of ultimate truth, they are difficult to pacify by the civilized methods. It is truly unfortunate that the same ethnic group that generated some of the greatest minds, has also produced this noisy, intriguing, deeply dishonest, and murderous lot that treats the US as a host for Zionists’ parasitic plans.
    The dual Israeli-US citizenship (a correction to the US constitution) was masterminded by Fortas, a Zionist that was forced to resign for unethical behavior:
    One of the most illustrious product of the “correction” was Jonathan Jay Pollard, the most harmful spy:—but-not-mexican—american-dual-nationals.html

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
  68. Zionist Neocon inspired Iraq war for Israel:

    Whose War?

    A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.

    ‘A Clean Break’ (War for Israel) agenda of the Likudnik JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons:

    US neocons, Zionists destroying Israel’s enemies by creating divisions: Journalist:

    China got most of Iraq’s oil:

Current Commenter

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 Eric Margolis Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Bin Laden is dead, but his strategy still bleeds the United States.
Egyptians revolted against American rule as well as Mubarak’s.
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in...
A menace grows from Bush’s Korean blind spot.
Far from being a model for a “liberated” Iraq, Afghanistan shows how the U.S. can get bogged down Soviet-style.