The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
Rating the Candidates
Who wants war?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show 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, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Everyone sees what they want to see in the candidates for president. A recent survey on their foreign policies rated them with letter grades, but “foreign policy” is itself a bit of an elusive concept and the results tended to favor what the authors considered to be important. In my opinion the issue is actually much simpler: who among the candidates would be the most likely to lead the United States into another war or wars? Who would be least likely to do so?

The sovereign ability to go to war is the dark side of a nation’s foreign policy. It means in practice that the government has been unable or unwilling to use non-violent means of suasion to deflect perceived threats coming from a foreign nation or group of nations. The Nuremberg Tribunal established the principle that initiating a war is the ultimate crime against humanity as it brings with it every other imaginable evil. Those like America’s own neocons who consider war as politics by other means fail to understand that war is a breakdown of civilized norms and is in a sense a type of anarchy in which the weak and helpless are inevitably the principal victims.

I have written before that the problem with Americans in general is that they have never experienced close up the full horror of modern warfare. The images of ruined buildings and the shattered lives in today’s Gaza or Aleppo bear witness to what war means on the ground for those on the receiving end. That American presidential candidates can promote carpet bombing, annihilation of families and going to war to remove an undesirable government tells one that they are willfully ignorant of the consequences of their words.

I am assuming that our next president will be either a Republican or a Democrat. Casting a ballot for a Green, Libertarian or Conservative might provide some personal satisfaction but it would be a wasted vote in a year when the consequences of who assumes office might be very grave indeed. Whom I will be voting for in November comes down to only one issue – who is less likely to start a new war.

Given today’s geopolitical realities, a new war would mean either substantially increasing involvement in an ongoing conflict or a completely fresh initiative either with a current adversary or with an over-the-horizon competitor. The expansion of an ongoing conflict might derive from the “war on terror” and/or regime change in Syria/Iraq, though it would also have to include Iran as all the candidates but Bernie Sanders have specifically targeted that country on behalf of Israel. The current adversary with whom war might become a distinct possibility would be nuclear armed Russia and the over the horizon threat would be China.

Bernie Sanders does not speak much about foreign policy as his primary focus is domestic but it is clear that his instincts are to avoid war, particularly any conflict in which the United States has to take the lead. He believes that ISIS presents a serious threat but also thinks that local countries most affected by it should do the heavy lifting in opposing it. He supports the nuclear agreement with Iran. He opposed both the first and second Iraq Wars but he did vote for what he perceived as the “humanitarian intervention” in Libya. He approves of the use of sanctions against Russia over Ukraine but opposes lethal assistance to the government in Kiev and would not escalate U.S. involvement. He opposes further expansion of NATO. He has taken no position on China. One assumes based on his track record and inclinations that he would instinctively resort to diplomacy in a crisis rather than saber rattling and war itself would be a last option only when vital American interests are at stake.

Bernie is admittedly unlikely to become the Democratic Party nominee. That honor, unless she is derailed by emailgate, will go to Hillary Clinton. Hillary is an unreconstructed hawk, her inclinations invariably tending towards using military force whenever in doubt. Whether this derives from her desire to assert herself as a woman in a male dominated government or a paternalistic view of the U.S. global role really doesn’t matter as the result is consistently to favor the military option in support of perceived interests. Hillary supported toppling Saddam Hussein and as Secretary of State she played a major role in the disastrous occupation and democracy building that effectively destroyed Iraq, a series of missteps that have produced many of the ills being experienced in the region to this day. She reportedly convinced a reluctant President Barack Obama to intervene in Libya, another foreign policy disaster.

Hillary would provide lethal aid to Ukraine and would expand NATO to include Ukraine and Georgia, a direct challenge to Russian national security. Her protégé at the State Department for dealing with Russia was and still is leading neocon hawk Victoria Nuland, who would likely show up in a senior position in a Clinton administration. Hillary has endorsed no fly zones in Syria, which would increase U.S. involvement and risk of conflict with Russia and other participants in the fighting. She demands regime change to eliminate President Bashar al-Assad as a precondition for a peace settlement. Hillary accepts the nuclear agreement with Iran but she talks of strict enforcement of it, coupled by threats to reinstate sanctions. She calls Iran a threat to the entire region. Of all the candidates, she is genuinely closest to Israel and has repeatedly pledged taking the bilateral relationship to a “new level” while also deferring to Benjamin Netanyahu on issues claimed to be related to Israel’s security.

Hillary would heighten tension with Russia and increase involvement in Syria and Iraq. She would rebuff any attempted normalization with Iran and would endorse and directly support any and all moves made by Israel in the region, to include attacks on neighbors to include Lebanon that would inevitably involve Washington. She would continue the “longest war” occupation of Afghanistan.

Donald Trump is the joker in the deck. He has spoken about waste and mistaken priorities in military spending and has pledged to cut the Pentagon budget. He has consistently criticized military interventions in Asia, to include condemning the Iraq War and Libya, based on their cost and failure as policies. He has rejected direct American boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq for the same reason but sees ISIS as a threat and has pledged to bomb them mercilessly, heedless of civilian casualties.

Trump believes he can get along with Vladimir Putin and does not see Ukraine as a vital interest for Washington. He is the only candidate willing to attempt détente with Moscow and even speaks of disbanding NATO, which he says has outlived its usefulness. He also believes he can work with the Chinese leadership. In the war on terror, Trump would reinstate torture against suspects and has even advocated killing the families of terrorists as an acceptable collateral cost. He clearly believes in taking the gloves off in terrorism cases where the target is well defined and is less willing to get engaged in a conflict that is more amorphous. Regarding Iran, Trump would accept the nuclear agreement but he would police it rigorously and he has raised concerns with the Israel Lobby because he has said that he would be even handed in peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. Trump has told the Republican Jewish Committee that he doesn’t need their money to run his campaign, suggesting to many that his commitment to Israel is not based on anything tangible. He might even be pragmatic, which would place U.S. interests ahead of those of Israel.

So The Donald would not be aggravating tensions with Russia or China and would not expand U.S. involvement in the Middle East. He might even be inclined to pull the plug on Afghanistan, which he has disparaged. He is not an ethical non-interventionist. His opposition is based on the fact that the wars cost too much and are unsuccessful. The fact that neo-conservatives hate him should be noted as a backhanded endorsement of what he stands for.

Ted Cruz wants to increase the Pentagon budget dramatically, wants to carpet bomb Syria to destroy ISIS, establish no-fly zones, arm Ukraine and directly support Kiev against Moscow. He does oppose the interventions in Iraq and Libya in hindsight because they were not successful and based on false intelligence. He would tear up the nuclear agreement with Iran and demand that the Iranians eliminate all their existing nuclear facilities. His zeal in “having Israel’s back” is unmatched by any other candidate with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton and he models his own foreign policy on that of Netanyahu, whom he describes as “Churchillian.”

John Kasich would punch Vladimir Putin in the nose, metaphorically speaking, by arming Ukraine and he has opposed any Russian role in Syria. He would create a no-fly zone and if Russian planes violated it he would order that they be shot down. He has advocated the use of military force against Beijing in its dispute with South Korea and Japan in the South China Sea. He “strongly opposed” the Iran agreement but now says that he would try to work with it while remaining hawkish in how he regards the regime of the Ayatollahs. Like Cruz, he is now dismissive of the Iraq War and Libya, but only in retrospect.

Cruz is the most hawkish of the Republican candidates and Kasich is a blue collar tough guy who likes to show that he is willing to stand up to bullies. Neither has thought very much about the issue of war and peace because neither has ever had to do so and, like all the other candidates, neither of them has ever served in the military. They both admit in hindsight that Iraq and Libya were failures but they are willing to try again with the same hawkish policies in expectation that this time they will be successful.

Cruz’s foreign policy team of Islamophobes headed by the clinically insane Frank Gaffney is something to behold while Kasich is given to posturing over issues that he barely understands. But would either of them go to war? Kasich might blunder into war or get fooled into doing so by Netanyahu, but Cruz is a different breed of cat. Highly intelligent he could be a poseur, but his in your face Pentecostal religiosity and ties to Zionism suggest that he might be all too ready to jump into a war in the Middle East in fulfillment of prophecy. He has already been endorsed by Mormon stalwart Glenn Beck as prophet material, so why stop there? He is a man with a maniacal gleam in his eye that scares the shit out of me.

So how do I rank them? Bernie is best choice but unlikely to be on the ballot. I then would have to go with Trump in hopes that I can trust him to pay heed to the whispering of his better angels. That leaves Hillary, who is completely corrupted by interest groups and a reliable establishment warmonger. Or Cruz who comes across as a crazed zealot with little in the way of the Christian virtues that he so often cites. Kasich doesn’t seem to actually stand for anything but maybe he would prove to be a tough talking street guy too timid and insecure to be dangerous. It’s a hard choice, but I think that Hillary is capable of doing more damage than Cruz, who would be reined in somewhat by a Congress that truly hates him. I would go with Bernie, then Trump, then Kasich. I could never vote for Cruz or Hillary under any circumstances. God save America!

Hide 174 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    The fix is in, HRM Hillary will be the next POTUS and may Odin help us all.

    Hillary got that job by showing the bankers and Israel she’ll do a better job of protecting their illegal profits, land thefts and endless wars better than the rest.

    Voting in the USA is a joke rigged at every turn. I only vote to stay on the rolls to be called for jury service where I’ll bring along a monkey wrench if the defendant is being tried for a non-violent crime.

    • Agree: edNels
    • Replies: @edNels
    , @AmericaFirstNow
  2. Horses assery from a BS bernie supporter. Stopped reading after I saw the word ‘Islamophobe’. Bernie on foreign policy will be just as hawkish as Clinton. He’s taken a harder line on Assad than Hillary did. He doesn’t challenge the basic assumptions of the US deep state in the way Trump does. Diffident warmongers can be ‘run’. At least Clinton would keep US policy organized, however aggressive .

    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
  3. I think it is unfair to Uncle Al to compare him to that character from a Speedy Gonzales clip.

  4. If Bernie does increasingly well the rest of the way as appears likely, and it appears too obviously that he has been robbed of the nomination by the corrupt party machine, things may turn out differently than expected in the fall. Meanwhile, a new poll shows that Trump may not do as badly in Wisconsin as some are suggesting, and other scandals may be lurking for Cruz. Meanwhile, Trump seems to have stabilized his position in the east, making it certain that he will be fairly close to a pledged delegate majority (over the top if he can win California.
    I don’t think Hillary will wear well, since she is so obviously fraudulent, phony and dangerous. Also Trump, not burdened with political correctness, is likely to point out Hillary’s actual crimes, including Libya, where the Jihadis she supported into power, as part of their takeover effort, were guilty of a mass-murder of sub-Saharan Africans Khadaffi’s regime had settled in Libya. If this gets out, it eliminates the Afro-American “firewall”. It is unfortunate that Sanders has been too nice a guy to bring up this issue.
    Bottom line is that I agree with Giraldi’s view that Trump is distinctly less odious than Hillary. I also suspect that a campaign lasting many months will reveal that much of the media hot air is hot air in this instance, and that Trump, though a blowhard who shoots from the hip, will seem more likeable and less dangerous than the establishment candidate, who is sort of a cross between Thatcher and Blair and is perhaps even more odious than either of them.

  5. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:

    good one there Philip… But I really see a likeness to the late Senator Joe McCarthy… Maybe he is one of Joe’s Wood Colts.

  6. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:

    Annother one that strikes an image is… Or seems to be to a likeness of a TV star that is, is Paul Ryan, who like the talk show host a guy I really like too… from Queens NY… Norman Goldman…he said, what I also thought… that Paul Ryan looks exactly like ”Eddie Munster” from the TV show!

    • Replies: @edNels
  7. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:


    On a raft of other issues (TPP, banks), I arrive at the same conclusion (and a stupis war is high on my list)

  8. Even as a keen member of the “lose with Cruz” brigade I find that opening pic a little harsh. Cruz does have some positive traits. He screams provincial Canadians politics. He would make a great governor of Calgary, Manitoba, or maybe even Alberta.

    He just doesn’t have the charisma or dynamism to be a serious contender for President of the United States.

  9. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:

    I really like your posts, and I liked you on my favorite ‘tv program.. ”Cross Talk”, I just wish somegody would tell Lavell to can it with his commentary… but he’s the man….best programm too!

  10. Mark Green says: • Website

    Thank you, Philip. That was a very sold assessment. I still prefer Trump over Bernie but it’s close. Bernie is definitely the peace candidate. But let’s not forget that Sanders lived on a kibbutz. Those are his people over there. Sanders will therefore never get really tough on Israel. Yet that’s exactly what’s needed.

    Might Israeli espionage in Washington (and mischief elsewhere) increase during a Sanders Administration? Probably. This might not be the case with Trump since 1) he’s used to being the alpha male, and 2) he doesn’t have any relatives living in the Holy Land.

    I also worry that Bernie’s spread-the-wealth socialism will enlarge government without necessarily producing a higher standard of living. But he’s on the right track when it comes to addressing income inequality. Too bad Bernie’s nutty about AGW (anthropogenic global warming) and soft on illegal immigration. Therefore, for this angry, white male, Bernie’s NOT the one.

    Trump might in fact become a peace President based on his professed ideology of ‘saving money’. Trump can use this political value as a shield against the neocons. After all, those trillion-dollar wars of theirs do add up.

    As for those who claim that Zio-Washington’s wars-of-choice are driven by the MIC (military industrial complex), evidence suggests otherwise. After all, you can still have enormous defense expenditures without actually dropping bombs or invading Arab states. Boeing and Raytheon get paid either way. The arms manufacturers don’t need hot wars to rake in a ton of dough.

    Indeed, consider the vast defense spending, for instance, during the cold war era. This military spending (preparedness against the USSR) was huge (as measured by its percentage of our national GDP) but there was no actual conflict most of the time (Viet Nam excepted). The MIC did just fine even during Washington’s years of relative tranquility.

    Yet today, we are in an era where the US enjoys unrivaled military power; but we are beset by uninterrupted, serial, first-strike attacks upon small, puny and distant countries. This is a criminal enterprise. And it’s very much tied to the political efforts of a lobby not directly tied to US weapons manufacturers.

    Based on this fact alone, all the pro-war cheerleaders seeking the presidency should be disqualified from even running. They are ideological enablers of war crimes. At the very least, they are accessories after the fact.

    Might a little jail time for these war birds set the right example?


    Another reason to like Trump is that–unlike Bernie–he isn’t promising ‘free’ college for students who are hopelessly below-average. What a racket. What a waste. Let’s hope that the higher education bubble pops soon. Why not learn online? It’s far more efficient (cheaper) and (potentially) more flexible for each individual student.

    As for me, my real education began after I earned my college degree. ‘Big Education’ has become a colossal scam.

    In any event, the US needs a massive disruption to our political (and educational) establishments. This time around, let’s hope that it’s either Trump or Bernie that gets the nod.

    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
  11. LondonBob says:

    Trump’s AIPAC speech was written by his son in law and someone called Ken Kurson. Not surprising as it contradicted many of his oft stated positions. He didn’t fool his critics. I have often thought Kasich would make a good VP pick for Trump but sometimes Kasich’s opinions alarm me, then again how do I know he isn’t just saying these things because he has to.

    • Replies: @Art
    , @Dieter Heymann
  12. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:
    @Greg Bacon

    Hey Bacon don’t sound like a Norse name! me, I’m a mere anglosised Nelson… but my father’s line goes through to the North Norge FisherVolk…of yor…

    God and Odin too,help us if thatlesbian gets hermits on the power…

    Imean… let’s us go figure for a minut…the issue is really… that the world has become small… has become little, and small.. and dimiinished aa to the ……. bla bla… the typs that are in control are small… they are diminutive… dwarfish!

  13. geokat62 says:

    Whom I will be voting for in November comes down to only one issue – who is less likely to start a new war.

    Before I decided, in 2014, to spoil my ballot in all future elections, this used to be my guiding principle for choosing between the main parties and their leaders.

    Since I live in a purported democracy, I did not want my government to kill innocents in my name.

    To my disappointment, I discovered that very few of my compatriots felt this way.

    • Replies: @Talha
  14. I’m in general agreement with this article. For me, the question of war or peace is the most important issue in any presidential election. But I was surprised to see one of my favorite writers state that “casting a ballot for a Green, Libertarian or Conservative might provide some personal satisfaction but it would be a wasted vote.” The only rational grounds for voting is to register one’s personal satisfaction or, much more likely, dissatisfaction with the candidates. The chances of my vote making a difference in a national election are considerably less than the chances of my getting killed in an accident on the way to the polling place. I’m sorry to find Phil of all people falling for the rah-rah democracy hogwash we’re fed every election season.

    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    , @Anonymous
  15. I’d say “Dittos” Phil, except that might not leave quite the right impression!
    Let me put it this way concerning your cogent depiction of the angst the sane among us must all experience:


  16. @Ralph Raico

    Ralph normally I would agree with you – I wrote in Ron Paul last time around – but this time I am convinced that allowing Hillary (and maybe Cruz) to become president is ipso facto a road to war. I did not have that feeling in the last election with Romney a consensus driven pea counter versus an essentially cautious Obama. This time could be different.

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @Anonymous
  17. tbraton says:

    “He [i.e., Cruz] is a man with a maniacal gleam in his eye that scares the shit out of me . . .Or Cruz who comes across as a crazed zealot with little in the way of the Christian virtues that he so often cites. ”

    Same here, PG. The one image I can’t get out of my mind when it comes to Cruz is that goofy little smile he exhibited when he talked a few months back about making the “sand glow” in Syria. The clear implication was that he was prepared to use nuclear weapons as a means of combatting ISIS. Real creepy.

  18. RobinG says:
    @Philip Giraldi

    Whereupon you hit on the depressing possibility of a Clinton v. Cruz (lack of) choice. Comparing Cruz to Grandpa Munster is funny, but too good for that pasty-faced lunatic. (I mean Ted.) With the frightening glint in his eye and the self-righteous curl of his lip, he’s a caricature of sick creepiness.

    Since I live in DC, which will go Dem. regardless, I’ll have no trouble registering my normal protest vote.

  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ralph Raico

    The chances of my vote making a difference in a national election are considerably less than the chances of my getting killed in an accident on the way to the polling place. I’m sorry to find Phil of all people falling for the rah-rah democracy hogwash we’re fed every election season.

    In order to subvert Trump the RNC has come out and said that they, the leadership, ultimately chooses the candidate, not the voters.

  20. Pretty good assessment and I agree, but what I say is WHY VOTE at all? And I’ll say again that a Hillary Klintoon presidency might be entertaining, if you could stomach the stink and accept the damage.

  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Clueless clown Philip Giraldi supports the guy (Sanders) who advocates regime change in Syria by arming Syrian jihadi rebels over the guy (Trump) who is against arming the Syrian jihadi rebels. You’ve lost all credibility.

    • Replies: @Moi
  22. annamaria says:

    “The question of war and peace” is actually no question at all but a slam-dank deal on more weaponry and more provocations around the globe. Since the corporate brain has no place for conscience and for such non-commodifiable thing as morals, the base line of the US war profiteers is steadily getting into collision with the survival of mankind.

    “Following a meeting with US President Obama, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg lauded the block’s “biggest reinforcement since Cold War,” promising European members will step up defense spending, while listing an “assertive Russia” among the alliance’s chief threats… Obama described NATO as “a linchpin, a cornerstone of US security policy”… The US and NATO have been increasingly active in pushing for a stronger military presence in Europe, particularly in regions close to Russia’s border. They argue that this deployment is necessary to deter Moscow from making aggressive military moves.”

    In short, the neocons are pushing for a preventive war against Russian federation.

  23. Rehmat says:

    Dr. Richard Falk in his latest article claims that American presidential candidates are only debate 1) Wall Street (1%), 2) the Pentagon (war), and 3) their obedience to Israel.

    I left a comment on his blog saying that there is one candidate, Jill Stein (Green Party) who doesn’t give a damn to all three of them. Why? Because she is ‘Self-Hating Israel-Threatening (S.H.I.T)’ Jewish lady. So I agree with Mr. Giraldi that voting for her wouldn’t help Americans to free themselves from the 1% slave masters.

    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
  24. Kiza says:

    As a non-American, I strongly disagree with Giraldi on Sanders. That character has never seen a war he did not like – which one did he vote against, could Giraldi enlighten us? The rest of this article is depressingly true, especially the ending – (only) God can save America. Cruz is a Rapturist and probably even more dangerous than the mad war bitch Clinton.

    A couple of years ago I wrote that if Hilary wins (which is most likely), the US will continue on its current path. Her warmongering is not the most dangerous for US, then the fact that she will finish ruining the economy by maintaining its current horrible state of “deregulation”. After two of her mandates, the US will never recover, even if it does not get destroyed in a nuclear war which she starts.

    Simply depressing.

  25. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:


    You are way to charitable to Bernie Sanders. The fact that he supported the bombing of the Serbian Civilian population of Belgrade which almost started nuclear WW3 is reason enough to label Sanders a War Criminal. And when you throw in the sanctions against Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia+the mass murder of three thousand Conservative Orthodox Christian Russians in the Eastern Ukraine…MEGA WAR CRIMIANL!!!!

    I want to alert everyone here to this:Professor Emeritus MIT Noam Chomsky…just a few days ago…gave is hyper-ethnic Jewish support to the Black revenge murder and rape of Native Born White Americans. Why did Native Born White Christian Men…mostly teenagers…make the sacrifice they did during WW2? I think we now can legitimately ask this question in light of Professor Chomsky’s comments a few days ago…..

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  26. Parsifal says:

    This text and the comments below boil down to one sentence: hold your nose and vote for Trump.

  27. @Kiza

    Kiza you and others here definitely have a point about Sanders being a typical Democrat democracy promotion advocate – I was also fooled by what I thought to be an antiwar candidate back in 2008 – Barack Obama. But he still was a better choice than John McCain and Sarah Palin!

    • Agree: edNels
    • Replies: @Greg Bacon
    , @Kiza
  28. Jim Bovard says: • Website

    Excellent analysis, Phil! Thanks for your bellicosity ratings on the candidates.

  29. Greg Bacon says: • Website
    @Philip Giraldi

    Wait until the Democratic Convention where HRM Hillary will be anointed and announces Bernie as her VP.

  30. Giuseppe says:

    Excellent. War is also the number one issue for me. This article fleshed out my inchoate impulses and gave a logical explanation for my poorly formed preference for Sanders then Trump then Kasich but never Hillary and never ever Cruz.

  31. Patrick Armstrong is a participant on Pat Lang’s blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis.

    In a front-page article, Armstrong, a military man, traced military planning by the Russians from the WWII era to Cold War to the post-Cold War era to the present.

    Armstrong linked a video in which David Glantz, a scholar of Russian military activity, told an audience at the US Army War College that “Russians do not wage war emotionally, they plan methodically and scientifically, and they learn from their mistakes.”

    Thus, Armstrong says that Russia’s expectations — whether a “small war” or a “big war” are signaled by the men and materiel it positions.

    In short, if you stop at independent brigades, you are telling the world that you expect, and are planning for, relatively small wars. If you go to divisions you are expecting something larger and if you construct a corps (or army in Russian terminology) you are telling the world that you are preparing for a big war.

    And so, an observer who knows how armies are put together, can tell a lot about what kind of war a country expects by understanding how it has put its “tent groups” together.


    In short, by the turn of the century, in their published doctrine, in everything they told us in meetings, in deployments and in their formation structures the Russians were showing us they had no offensive designs against NATO and they expected no attacks from NATO. The south was where they saw danger. . . .

    All this time the Russians told us that that NATO’s relentless expansion, ever closer, was a danger (опасность) although they stopped short of calling it, as they did terrorism, a threat (угроза); “dangers” you watch; “threats” you must respond to. NATO of course didn’t listen, arrogantly assuming NATO expansion was doing Russia a favour and was an entitlement of the “exceptional nation” and its allies.

    In an exceptionalist dance in which NATO reserved to itself the right to step on its partner’s toes and refused to recognize the incremental signals of distress:

    [Russia] planned for small wars, but NATO kept expanding; they argued, but NATO kept expanding; they protested, but NATO kept expanding. They took no action for years.

    Well, they have now: the 1st Guards Tank Army is being re-created. . . .

    The 1st Guards Tank Army will be stationed in the Western Military District to defend Russia against NATO. . . .

    In short, Russia has finally come to the conclusion that NATO’s aggression means it has to prepare for a big war.

    Russia is preparing for a big war.

    In other words, while Giraldi’s keen and concise assessment of the most hawkish of war hawks among US candidates is on-target and appreciated; and his determination and counsel to vote for the candidate least likely to go to war are endorsed; the reality is, in the USA/Anglo zionist sphere, war is a system, a spiral already set in motion. The new president, whoever he or (quod absit) she may be, will be little more than the final button-pusher.

    Does Trump have what it takes to refuse to allow his hand to be forced? Even Obama was able to summon some resistance, when he walked back from the Syria red line.

    But Obama had support from Lavrov and Putin, and the British Parliament, on that courageous act.

    As Armstrong noted, Russia is in a dramatically different posture today: Russia is not the intermediary, it is the target of the war spiral.

  32. I will vote Trump or I wont vote. By the way – aren’t the Cruz voters the same people who gave us Dubya? I don’t mean the Supreme Court. I mean the Dubya voters.

  33. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    A person never knows what they’re really going to get when they vote. The Nobel Peace Prize winner seemed unenthusiastic about war yet has presided over the criminal war in Syria. It’s depressing to go over the irresponsible rhetoric of some of the candidates. One just keeps their fingers crossed that we don’t get dragged into some disaster that escalates unexpectedly out of control. Clinton is for some reason a war lover who also has the inverse talent of trashing everything she touches; she’s a sadist who cackles about death and ruin. Cruz is a weird and strange man, a religious crackpot who likes to hire high priced prostitutes. Both he and Clinton seem to be perverted people, neither one psychologically normal. Sanders and Trump both, on the other hand, appear to be easier to size up and don’t have darker tunnels within their personalities. Of the two Trump seems to be the more skeptical of war as an answer whereas Sanders clings to so-called ‘humanitarian war’ as an option.
    We don’t get to create our own fantasy candidates. The bottom line is what are our choices?

    • Replies: @5371
    , @Carroll Price
  34. The author writes “I am assuming that our next president will be either a Republican or a Democrat. Casting a ballot for a Green, Libertarian or Conservative might provide some personal satisfaction but it would be a wasted vote in a year when the consequences of who assumes office might be very grave indeed.” He further writes that he cannot cast a vote for either Clinton or Cruz (nor can I) .

    Well if Clinton is the Democrat nominee and Cruz is the Republican nominee, then obviously his only two options are either cast a “wasted vote” or bail out entirely and not show up on November 2. A sad commentary on the present state of affairs.

  35. 5371 says:

    I suspect Cruz is a complete cynic and manipulator who doesn’t actually believe what he claims. Only two children in a fifteen-year marriage makes him remarkably unphiloprogenitive for a supposed evangelical fanatic, add the covert sex to that.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    , @anonymous
  36. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    In real life, Al Lewis was a filthy degenerate pornographer who openly called for the mass murder of The Historical Native Born White Christian Majority.

    Grandpa Munster had 0 redeeming values-virtues…he was a cockroach. Al Lewis was definitely a member of the same lowly insect species as Ted Cruz:blattaria gigantus…..

  37. annamaria says:

    “…Russia has finally come to the conclusion that NATO’s aggression means it has to prepare for a big war.”
    Which means a high probability of a nuclear conflict: first of all, because the mindlessly arrogant aggression by the US/NATO/Lobby has created a climate of mistrust (as a result, some stupid fluke could be followed by a nuclear strike with much greater certain) and secondly, the US deciders have been totally removed from the horrors of real wars because none of their children (and they themselves) ever took part in combat. The pronouncements of the figureheads leave no illusions about their bloodthirstiness, whether it is a “humanitarian” Mrs. Clinton (see Libya) or a Christian Bush (see Iraq) or a “never again” AIPAC (see the balkanized Middle East). Plus the US Army has been suffering from both the unaccountability (Rumsfeld) and weeding out the competent and independent-minded specialists, among them the honorable military men like General Shinseki (slandered by a half-wit Wolfowitz), Colonel Lang (removed by an idiot and ziocon Douglas Feith), Officer John Kiriakou and others. What could one expect from the bunch of ambitious and incompetent opportunists playing with the world’ fate?

  38. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Philip Giraldi

    While I contributed to and voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary election last time, I did not write in his name for the general election. In California, write-in votes will not be counted or reported unless a candidate has satisfied the requirements to be a write-in candidate. In California, the viable option is to vote for the Libertarian Party candidate in the general election.

  39. Agent76 says:

    Mar 25, 2015 Ted Cruz: First President of the North American Union?

    Monday marked the start of the Next News Network’s Selection 2016 coverage as Senator Ted Cruz made it official with these colorful words captured by ABC News while speaking at Liberty University. Ted Cruz says he believes in you… that is why he’s running… but should we believe in him? Just who is Ted Cruz?

    Timeline of the Progress Toward a North American Union

    Canadian, U.S., and Mexican elites, including CEOS and politicians, have a plan to create common North American policies and further integrate our economies.

    Managing Director Mrs. Heidi Nelson Cruz Company Description: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Goldman Sachs) is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide

  40. Agent76 says:

    Feb 22, 2016 Guess What Americans Are Most Afraid Of?

    Out of 88 things this batch of 1,500+ Americans were asked to rank in regard to their personal level of fear, you’ll never guess what the number one thing people are most afraid of in this country.

  41. Sam Shama says:

    By far the most thoughtful, ethical and pragmatic analysis of choices facing Americans in November.

  42. Art says:

    “Trump’s AIPAC speech was written by his son in law and someone called Ken Kurson.”

    Most of Trump’s speech was about Iran nukes and bad bad Obama – red meat for the terrorist Jew AIPAC throng. Although Trump had the Little Jews on their feet cheering, he really said nothing new in favor of Israel.

    At the end of the speech he used the words “country of Palestine” – this is a big no-no in Jew world. This means a two country solution – something the hard line Zionists hate.

    Trump’s son in-law is of a rich US Jew family stock. It looks like he is NOT a hard line Zionist. There are many rich US Jews who want Israel to settle. The truth of Israel’s evil doings, is getting to hard to cover up. They are being selfish. They think that Israel is going to upset their happy powerful money making situation in America.

    p.s. The real political battles in America are being fought between Jews, for Jews, because of Jews.

    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
  43. Sam Shama says:

    [I suspect Cruz is a complete cynic and manipulator who doesn’t actually believe what he claims.]

    Entirely possible, although I hear quite reliably, that he was the very same person – wandering all over the dormitory in pyjamas at Princeton, spouting biblical fantasies [with a pseudo-modernist twist] in that loud-and-slow diction and batshit crazy gleam in his eyes.

    [Only two children in a fifteen-year marriage makes him remarkably unphiloprogenitive for a supposed evangelical fanatic, add the covert sex to that]

    Infertility may have set in, for both. Covert sex with french tarts – well that is gallette des rois for our evangelicals.

  44. woodNfish says:

    Sanders is out because western commies don’t understand economics and none of his policies can be paid for. Trump is the only sane choice.

    And in contrast to what Giraldy (the author) thinks, killing the families of terrorists is a good policy. Giraldy is just another leftist pussy who doesn’t understand that the way to stop terrorism is to make the personal cost too high. Killing a terrorist’s family will put an end to most of it. In Iran, terrorists and their families are honored in society. Palstinians parade their children through the streets in child-sized bomb vests while chanting “Death to Israel!”, and “Death to America!”. Terrorists are supported by their families. The mother of the man in the San Bernadino terrorist couple knew here son and daughter-in-law were going to die in a terrorist act and was caring for their orphaned children. (The LSM won’t acknowledge that fact.) When terrorism is a celebrated family affair the only way to stop it is to eliminate the families.

  45. Talha says:

    I did not want my government to kill innocents in my name.

    Solid priorities, my friend. This was my reason for supporting Ron Paul.

    In peace.

  46. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:

    The candidates on offer are all lackluster, where is there a one… I Mean A Real F’n Candidate…

    Well that’s really the problem don’t you think?

    Your going to vote… you’re going… in mass… as a group… the lowest common denominater…

    to ”Pick” your ”Leader”…

    what a f’n joke!

    If you would really get a LEADER ever ever… you won’t be asked, you will love it when a real man steps up to the platform some day… I dunnoh if it will be the Second Coming… or what ever, but what you have now is not real… these fake poseurs are a laugh, as we near extinction… I could also say… that this little experiment here on Earth, hasn’t been going too well, and we should think about the concept of Life LIFE, vs anti Life… and a universe of materials, with no consciousness as leavening as it were.

    Certainly what these devils contrive to do is to kill life, that perhaps they may experience some pay off… (Faustian Bargain), some wonderful high, or ego enhancement? To work for the Devil to kill life. To Destroy the Biosphere, and etc….

    There is no LEader available. Your Christian Religeon gauruntees that no good man will step forward to a mocking execution on a Cross… the Message is clear!

  47. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    She demands regime change to eliminate President Bashar al-Assad as a precondition for a peace settlement.

    And let’s not forget that not only does she demand regime change, she was actively seeking it by sending arms with Petraeus and the CIA from Libya to Turkey and on into Syria to arm the Syrian “Rebels”, aka ISIS.

    Below is a video of Ms. Plausible Deniability, herself, being grilled by Rand Paul on the issue at the Benghazi Hearings. THE most important part of those hearings that you NEVER hear about in the “media”. And above the video is an article from Reuters about the Hillary and Petraeus plan to arm Syrians through neighboring countries like Turkey, about which Hillary is SO confused in the video and claims to have never heard about.

    • Replies: @edNels
  48. Hbm says:

    I agree mostly, Phil, but think Sanders would prove more interested in fighting Israel’s conflicts than you do.

  49. mtn cur says:

    I don’t like the non logic where Trump supporters stupidly blame Mexico and China for our troubles but anyone who causes the left to go slack jawed in disbelief and leaves the republicans carrying clean fruit of the looms in their “brief case” can’t be all bad. In Bernies’ favor is his remarks on the rigged game. What’s this on the Panama papers floating up?

  50. annamaria says:

    “…killing the families of terrorists is a good policy.”
    What if the most prolific mass murderers occupy high level positions in your government or enjoy a very comfortable retirement?
    The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is known for its sponsorship of terrorists (including those involved in 9/11), but the Kingdom is still a bosom buddy of the US. Turkey and Israel have been making sweet deals with ISIS and thus supporting the head-choppers via oil-trading – and the US looked away.
    The European Union has become flooded with both the desperate refugees from the US-initiated illegal war (Iraq) and regime changes (Libya & Syria) and with “freedom fighters” (some of them trained by the US/EU) that could strike Europe anytime and anywhere (see Brussels).
    What about using the US citizens’ treasury & limb for realizing the Oded Yinon Plan, namely for balkanizing the Middle East to ensure Israel’s expansion and the US/EU grab of oil reserves there? Iran has not attacked any country in more than 200 years. It is also a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why then the loudest accuser of Iran has been so reluctant to sign the same treaty? And how do you like Israel’s minister of justice’ incitement of Israeli citizens to kill Palestinian babies so that they would not become terrorists? – Like Irgun and other “freedom fighters” that were at the foundation of the modern state of Israel.
    The State Dept has orchestrated the “most blatant coup d’etat” in Kiev, which brought to power not only the hand-picked oligarchs but the well-known neo-Nazi. The neo-Nazi-infested battalion Azov (actually, the terrorist battalion Azov) was involved in burning the dozens of civilians alive in Odessa. – Nobody was punished. Moreover, the US have sent “advisors” and weaponry to Ukraine.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
    , @Anonymous
  51. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    WTF? Please translate for those of us who don’t speak crypto-English.

  52. Agent76 says:

    This is the most accurate poll I have seen done in my many years!

    September 29th, 2015 Gallup: 60% of Americans Want a New Political Party. But, Why? A Crisis of Legitimacy!

    When Gallup started polling on this matter in 2003, only 40% wanted a different major party from the two existing major parties. A Gallup poll issued on September 25th is headlined “Majority in U.S. Maintain Need for Third Major Party,” and it opens: “A majority of Americans, 60%, say a third major political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic parties ‘do such a poor job’ of representing the American people.” The only other time when as high as 60% wanted a new major party was in October 2013, when the government shut down — something that now threatens to repeat. No other period had a percentage this high. 78% of independents want there to be another “major” party; 47% of Democrats do; 45% of Republicans do.

  53. @woodNfish

    Over the last 20 years or so, it hasn’t been the Iranians or Palestinians attacking the West, it has been the Israeli and Saudi backed Sunnis.

    Bring all American troops home and let the Middle East burn, Israel isn’t the responsibility of the American people.

    • Agree: woodNfish
    • Replies: @woodNfish
  54. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:

    If Rand Paul would get his head shaved… maybe get some tats…. I would consider voting his way… Shave that horrible pubic stuff ofn yer head!

    Idon’t really like his politics too much, too f’n conservative… at least his dad did have some pluck… to go against the system a little… speak truth to power and etc. I learned abou Ron Paul from the Jhon Bierch society book store….

    I was so surprised to see the old ladies and their old guys… at the JBS meetings… they looked just like the communists that I knew too… same hair stiles etc.

  55. “Even Obama was able to summon some resistance, when he walked back from the Syria red line.”

    As even the NYT has recently published, he then authorized a covert war in Syria behind the public’s back.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  56. @Lemurmaniac

    Suckered in by mild mannered Sanders who has voted to fund every war.

    Including Iraq

    And Sanders called Mearsheimer Israel Lobby book ‘conspiracy theory’ when I mentioned it to him when he was on Thom Hartmann’s radio show when it was simulcast on C-SPAN:

    Thom Hartmann’s Hypocrisy for Israel Part 1

    Thom Hartmann’s Hypocrisy for Israel Part 2:

    Retired CIA Analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison on the phone about Thom Hartmann’s hypocrisy!

    • Replies: @edNels
  57. woodNfish says:

    I have made no secret of the fact that I consider the amerikan government is a criminal organization. I call it the federal mafia for a reason. i would love to see the “leaders” be tried and executed for their crimes. Bill Clinton, his administration and especially Janet Reno were responsible for the mass torture and murder of about 83 men, women, and children in Waco Texas – the Branch Davidians. Why they haven’t been tried for crimes against humanity in the Hague shows you that the Hague and other organizations like it are just as corrupt as most of the West.

    All the wars since WWII that the USA has been in have been illegal, and none of the leadership has ever paid a price for it. They should, but it will probably never happen.

    If terrorists only killed the leadership, I wouldn’t complain. Scum murdering other scum. Looks like justice to me. The leaders create the problems so they can line their pockets off the blood of the citizenry. They are the cause of the problems let them endure the consequences. Instead terrorists murder ordinary citizens. So yes, kill the terrorist’s entire families. Do you think they would hesitate to kill your family?

  58. woodNfish says:
    @Chris Mallory

    Israel isn’t the responsibility of the American people.

    Neither is the rest of the world. Bring all our troops home and defend our country alone. No others. Let them handle their own battles so we can raise our families and live our lives in peace.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  59. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:

    thom was raised a Republican… Now I know a lot of us and ya’ll were raised R…… But so what… do you think I as a Democrat raised….forget about it… it is all bull shit…

    I regard Thom Hartman as a sort of small type of mentality…

    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
  60. Kiza says:
    @Philip Giraldi

    Therefore, the actors change between elections, but fundamentals never do.

    Regarding Hilary, someone quipped: only God created real money, gold and silver, then (Jewish) banksters created a paper, counterfeit copy of it. Under Hilary, the current “printing” of money to transfer the wealth from ordinary people to the pockets of the selected, under all kinds of excuses (to save TBTF, to improve the “economy”, etc) will continue until the comatose horse that is US public either kicks back or dies. Sanders will gladly be Hilary’s vice, a source of occasional feel-good statements.

    Right now, the US could still be saved by its people by not voting for anyone, that is by not participating in this mad reality show called elections. After the next two mandates of any of the “candidates” on offer, it will be too late. Therefore, do not debate here which candidate will be the least bad, then make voter participation 10% and de-legitimise the whole system of lies. That is the only way to real CHANGE.

  61. Mulegino1 says:

    Comparing oily, lyin’ Ted to Grandpa Munster is an insult to the Count. Cruz would do whatever his neocon advisers tell him to do. But he cannot win the general election.

    Trump is a builder. People who build things do not generally like to see their creations destroyed. Although an egotist and somewhat of a blowhard, he is definitely sane and would not hazard a major war to prove a point or advance an ulterior interest.

    Hillary “We came, we saw, he died” Clinton, on the other hand, is a bloodthirsty psychopath who would provoke a war – even a major one – in a heartbeat if it served her political interests to do so. It is easy to imagine Hillary, faced with a major legal battle or deteriorating health condition to want to go out in a blaze of glory and take the world down with her. She is really that evil.

    I go with the egotist and blowhard hands down!

    • Agree: Sam Shama
  62. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Israel isn’t the responsibility of the American people.

    Neither is the rest of the world. Bring all our troops home and defend our country alone. No others. Let them handle their own battles so we can raise our families and live our lives in peace.

    John Lenczowski, president of The Institute of World Politics, a Conservative think tank:

    There is the realist reaction to the recent policies, as well as that of the school of restraint. And I think both of these are very healthy correctives and there’s much to be commended about these approaches.

    But I would caution however that there are elements within each of these schools that suffer, ironically, from a lack of realism.

    How realistic is it to believe that we can permanently banish the moral and humanitarian impulses of the American heart and how they are manifested in our foreign policy? These are facts of life; they are as American as apple pie, and they cannot be banished or ignored as if they did not exist; they have to be managed. That is the task of leadership, and leadership has to explain how the concerns that arise from these impulses fit into the overall strategic context.

  63. David Evans says: • Website

    Until voters understand that America is Israel’s bludgeon that is being used to balkanize the Middle East for Israel’s Oded Yinon Plan, and the complimentary neocon Jew’s A Clean Break agenda, they will suffer the consequences of their ignorance.

    Multi-trillion-dollar US wars for Israel have bankrupted us and repeadedly gotten US citizens and facilities attacked at home and abroad in retaliatory terror strikes. But voters stand little chance of understanding this as long as media and Congress are Israeli-controlled, and they allow themselves to be distracted by lesser issues provided for them by their controllers.

    This is the plan that has bankrupted America and gotten us attacked:

    These traitors and AIPAC-owned Congress are pushing this plan (and their globalist PNAC plan which was behind the putsche in Ukraine – but I digress…)

    This is how politics in America works:

    and this is a result of continuing to support Israel:

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @AmericaFirstNow
  64. “My number-one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.” –Donald Trump

  65. @anonymous

    John Lenczowski isn’t an American and doesn’t understand what being an American means.

  66. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “… He (Sanders),opposed both the first and second Iraq Wars …” If that is so, why did he vote to continue funding them? Sanders doesn’t always vote for wars, but he very often votes to fund them once they’ve begun. This is public record.

  67. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Bernie Sanders is a warmonger and liar who has people duped worst than Obama did in 08

    Ryan Dawson Ryan Dawson
    Bernie Sanders a Warmonger and Economically Illiterate 9
    Bernie Sanders a Warmonger and Economically illiterate

    Bernie Sander’s Foreign Policy of warmongering
    He wanted military intervention in Yugoslavia. He voted yes on Bombing Kosovo.
    (One of his staff members resigned over it)
    He voted to finance the Iraq War multiple times. Supports the war in Afghanistan and voted for it.
    Supported the coup in Ukraine and voted to give 1 billion dollars towards it.
    Supports aiding Al Qaeda in Syria and calls them “moderate rebels”
    Voted to invade Libya. Clinton said “With all due respect, senator, you voted for regime change with respect to Libya. You joined the Senate in voting to get rid of Gaddafi, and you asked that there be a Security Council validation of that with a resolution.” About the only truthful thing that’s ever come out of her mouth. Bernie was a cosponsor of the war propaganda resolution.
    Voted for sanctions on Iran and Libya
    Pro Drone Strike
    He’s an imperialist
    He supported US intervention in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Liberia, Zaire (Congo), Albania, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia
    He Supports Saudi Arabia bombing Yemen and he is in total denial that Saudi Arabia is backing ISIS not fighting them.

    His only vote against a war was Iraq however many Democrats did that and as a vote against Bush not the War. Bernie voted to fund the war and had no problem with it once Obama was in charge of it. He also supported the sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of children.
    He also was against impeaching George Bush and called it impractical.
    He gutted the audit the fed bill (the night before it was being voted on)
    He voted for several NDAAs
    Calls Assad a dictator.
    Totally supports Israel. He told people in a town hall meeting to shut up about it.

    Of all the corporate welfare which Bernie likes to droll on and on about, there is none larger than all of the military interventions he supports. He also supported the F35 program which of course was jointly built with the Israelis and cost 1.5 trillion dollars so far to build an aircraft that doesn’t even really work. With a 18 trillion dollar debt 8.3% of it is the F35 project alone. For you millennials who can’t do math, that’s 1.5/18. Of course parts of the F35 are built in Vermont. Bernie like everyone he criticizes fights for his slice of the pork projects and helps waste trillions.

    But forget about the waste that Bernie will not cut. Look at all the taxes and spending increases that he wants.
    Bernie’s Economic illiteracy

    Sanders wants to increase the payroll tax. Basically punish people who work to give free shit to people who don’t. They never look at the underlying problem of why colleges are so expensive in the first place: Government guaranteed student loans!

    Listen up millennials if the colleges know your loan is guaranteed then they increase the cost of tuition to match it. Colleges are investment vehicles for defense industries. Your tuition isn’t spent on education it’s spent on wall street.

    Under the cloak of education the government is laundering money through the banks to students as a means of increasing the investment capital of universities into the war industries. They don’t care about you and furthermore they aren’t even educating you or preparing you for the real world. They are indoctrinating you and saddling you with debt.

    Sanders is part of the problem. If you really want affordable college then get rid of the government involvement. Prior to guaranteed loans, colleges were affordable. Ron Paul and Austrian economics are correct. Peter Schiff and I explained.

    Healthcare same problem, instead of trying to meet the price by giving the government more control and raising taxes to do it, why not ask why the prices for procedures and drugs are so high? Overly protective patents, medicare and medicaid abuse, regional protections to prevent competitive pressure on the price of insurance etc. It’s a complicate topic but for more Dr. Philip Caper and I discussed what is wrong with US healthcare here for 50 mins.

    Bernie talks real big about going after the 1% and taxing people more. Well 47% of congress are millionaires compared to 1% of the rest of the country. When you tax someone that money does not go to the poor, it goes to the government and as we have seen the government wastes it on militarism which as shown above, Sanders supports. He wont cut any of the spending, instead he wants to spend more by taxing more, aka a typical tax and spend Democrat. He voted with the Democrats 96% of the time. That’s not an independent or a maverick. The US already has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Bernie wants to raises taxes above 50%! Tax money goes to the government. That is basically like taking your money and throwing it into a fire and then expecting ice cream to pop out. Businesses will pack up and leave if you tax them 50% or in some cases even higher. The more money a business has the better. The more money they give to the government the less money there is to pay workers and thus the fewer jobs that are available. There is a huge difference between “the wealthy” and “wealthy business owners”. Businesses, provide jobs, goods and services. We need them making money. Instead of raising taxes, why not cut the bloated military budget starting with the F35. Why not get rid of excessive Departments, the DHS and TSA, the Department of Commerce, Education and the EPA. But wouldn’t that lead to a regressive disaster? No, I explained why to this Sanders supporter here. As for raising the minimum wage, it sounds good, but it isn’t. Ian Daily explains.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  68. woodNfish says:

    You want to save the world? Do it yourself. Spend your own money, go yourself, send your own children to fight, get maimed, and die in some third world shithole, leave me and my family and our money out of it.

  69. Stephen Cohen on Trump vis-à-vis Putin-Russia:

    In my lifetime, in such moments of dire international crisis, I do not ever remember a presidential campaign or season where the candidates, on their own or because they were forced to by moderators or by the public or the media, won’t tell us what they think other than a bumper sticker like “I hate Putin and I won’t talk to him,” things like that, tell us what they would do if they were president today or tomorrow.

    Of the Republicans, since Rand Paul left the race, all of them simply say “we’ll punch Putin in the nose and that will solve the problem.”

    Only Donald Trump, also in bumper stickers, has said something different.
    He said:
    1) He doesn’t accept all of these criminal allegations against Putin because there’s no proof, they’re just allegations, and in America we have due process.
    2) He keeps saying that he’s a man who knows how to make a deal with Putin.

    So I interpret this for Donald Trump, who never uses the word, to mean “diplomacy.” That he would do diplomacy.

    Now what there’s been since the beginning of the New Cold War is a complete collapse of American diplomacy, or the militarization of American diplomacy towards Russia.

    Kerry is struggling, as we have already spoken, to demilitarize American diplomacy and to restore real negotiations.

    Trump in his odd way — “I’m the greatest deal maker in the world, I can make a deal with anybody, Putin doesn’t bother me, I’ll sit down and make him an offer he can’t refuse, and will make a deal and things will be okay.”

    Alright, he probably doesn’t know exactly what he means. But I would prefer a president who tells me not that “I’m going to send more troops to Russia’s borders in order to provoke them into a war,” but a president who tell me “I’m going to sit down and discuss this with you and see if we can work it out.” (h/t Dr. David Duke )

  70. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:

    i had that wrong… Norman Goldman was from Brooklyn NY.. His personal history is pretty great.. poor guy was an ohphan… similar to my own grand father…

  71. Kiza says:

    Ok, according to Madeleine Albright all US women who do not vote for Hillary Clinton have a special place reserved in Hell. Now, let us have a look at a special place that the Libyan and Syrian women, especially the underage girls, have got in Hell which Obama and Hilary Clinton created. It is the Hell of brisk trade in under-age girls by resourceful Turkish entrepreneurs.

    Some excerpts:
    1) “Girls between the ages of twelve and sixteen are referred to as pistachios, those between seventeen and twenty are called cherries, twenty to twenty-two are apples, and anyone older is a watermelon.” — From a report on Turkey, by End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT).
    2) Although the desperate victims are their Muslim sisters and brothers, wealthy Arab states do not take in refugees. The people in this area know too well that asylum seekers would bring with them problems, both social and economic. For many Muslim men such as wealthy, aging Saudis, it is easier to buy Syrian children from Turkey, Syria or Jordan as cheap sex slaves.
    3) Evidence, both witnessed and forensic, indicates that in every city where Syrian refugees have settled, prostitution has drastically increased. Young women between the ages of 15 and 20 are most commonly prostituted, but girls as young as thirteen are also exploited.
    4) “Many men in Turkey practice polygamy with Syrian girls or women, even though polygamy is illegal in Turkey,” the lawyer Abdulhalim Yilmaz, head of Mazlumder’s Refugee Commission, told Gatestone Institute. The horror is that Turkey is the country that the EU is entrusting to “solve” the serious problem of refugees and migrants.
    5) “There are markets of prostitution in Antep. Those are all state-controlled places. Hundreds of refugees — women and children — are sold to men much older than they are,” said Keskin. “We found that women are forced into prostitution because they want to buy bread for their children.”

    The full report:

    If this Hell on Earth is for women who cannot vote for Hillary, I cannot even imagine the Hell that Madeleine Albright & Co. prepared for those US women who can vote for Hilary but do not.

    No need to ask Albright if it was worth it smashing up Libya and Syria.

    Who is now distributing the Viagra pills to the old Saudis to rape 12 years old Syrian girls Hilary? Did you get this business?

    • Agree: Rurik
  72. kiismerh says:

    If it was really 100% war vs. 0% war than I would agree. Since that is not the case I consider the second most important issue which is immigration also. Trump is against it so that decides for me. He is no Ron Paul but way above the recent candidates.

  73. RobinG says:
    @David Evans

    Great post David, and good selection of what all Americans should know about Israel. And nice photo of USS Liberty on your FB page.

    On June 8 this year Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, and many others of us will be at Arlington Cemetery for the commemoration of the Israeli attack on the Liberty. There will also be a press conference to announce the Year of Liberty from the Israel Lobby, an educational outreach campaign leading up to June 8, 2017, the 50th anniversary of the Israeli attack.

    For those not familiar with this treacherous event, here are two of a series of articles by Ray —
    Still Waiting for USS Liberty’s Truth
    A USS Liberty’s Hero’s Passing

    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
  74. @woodNfish

    What if the individuals that we are led to believe are the terrorists were actually in the main just patsies a la Lee Harvey and so the real instigators of the terrorist acts would welcome you going after the families? I got the inclination that was annamarina’s point, did you miss that or am I wrong?

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  75. skyblaze says:

    the author has cherry picked Trumps contradictory statements about the military and war – there are lots to indicate he’s not anti war or anti military at all

  76. @David Evans

    Per Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan for Iraq & beyond in Mideast:

    The Unfolding of Yinon’s “Zionist Plan for the Middle East”: The Crisis in Iraq and the Centrality of the National Interest of Israel:

  77. I could never vote for Cruz or Hillary under any circumstances.

    My sentiments exactly.

    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
  78. @woodNfish

    You wouldn’t happen to be a Zionist Jew would you? Just asking.

  79. @anonymous

    A person never knows what they’re really going to get when they vote.

    I do. Simple observation should be enough to convince anyone that their vote will get exactly what it has gotten for the past 40 years , which is more of the same. Do what I’ve done for the past 30 years. Stay home on election day and laugh your ass off at the fools who waste their time voting for “changes” that never happen.

    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
  80. I’m still waiting for that candidate who says he she opposes the current wars because they are unjust and immoral, not because they cost too much.

    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
  81. @LondonBob

    If Kasich became our next president his administration would rule as if it had borrowed one trillion dollars from the World Bank with all of the economic and social punishments described in “The Shock Doctrine”. Cuts, cuts, cuts, and then some more cuts except for the military.

  82. @Fran Macadam

    You’re giving Obama credit where no credit is due. Vladimir Putin walked him back from his red line in Syria.

    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
  83. @woodNfish

    Practically all of the “terrorism” you’re overly concerned about is being committed by the Washington regime you correctly identify as the federal mafia.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  84. woodNfish says:
    @Carroll Price

    Don’t be an idiot Carroll. DC didn’t bomb the Paris theater, or Brussels. Didn’t murder the Charlie Hebdo staff or the people in San Bernadino, Ft. Hood, etc. Islam is a death cult and incompatible with Western culture. It needs to be destroyed.

    Your own government is no better than what we have here. The entire West has gone insane.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  85. woodNfish says:

    What? Am I I supposed to feel sympathy for murderous barbarians? Not happening. Take out the leadership to. You can’t kill the hydra if you don’t cut off its heads.

  86. Moi says:

    I hardly think PG is clueless, but agree with you in choosing Trump over Zio Bernie.

  87. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    How realistic is it to believe that we can permanently banish the moral and humanitarian impulses of the American heart and how they are manifested in our foreign policy? These are facts of life; they are as American as apple pie, and they cannot be banished or ignored as if they did not exist;

    What sort of incoherent babble is this? Is English this person’s first language?

  88. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    You trust Bernie to be evenhanded on Israel?

  89. @woodNfish

    You appear to be well intentioned but incredibly naïve. Either that or you’re just another misinformation agent posing as an American patriot. Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio, and the role it plays in carrying out false-flag terrorist attacks all over Europe and other Western nations, which in turn, are never adequately investigated and immediately blamed on Muslim terrorist? The Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, the mass shootings at Sandy Hook, Paris (2 shootings) and Sacramento, and the Boston Marathon bombing, all serve as classic examples of Gladio-type operations designed to terrorize civilian populations into accepting full-blown police states where the mere questioning of government authority and activities are considered tantamount to aiding and abetting terrorism. I would only add that your mention of a Washington based mafia would have been more accurately described as an international mafia operating out of Tel Aviv, with branch offices in London, Paris, Berlin, and Washington.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  90. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I suspect Cruz is a complete cynic and manipulator who doesn’t actually believe what he claims.

    Wife Heidi Cruz was born to Seventh Day Adventist parents and they actually spent some time in Africa as missionaries. Yet today she works for Goldman-Sacks, a nice change of allegiance to a different paymaster, now worshipping Mammon. Having a Senator as husband must certainly have increased her value to her employer and in this are an ambitious power couple like Bill&Hillary who have amassed a fortune through politics and subsequent ‘speaking fees’ and their ‘foundation’. Religion and avaricious greed, a great combination.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  91. woodNfish says:
    @Carroll Price

    You need to step away from the conspiracy websites Carroll. The oklahoma city bombing was revenge for the mass torture and murder of 84 men women and children in Waco, TX by the federal mafia. Sandy Hook, just like the Denver theater shootings and many other mass shootings, were done by a person on psychotropic medications, and the Boston bombings were done by muslim terrorists. And yes, I know “muslim terrorist” is redundant.

    The CIA, just like the NSA, is just another part of the federal mafia. Would they commit domestic terrorism? It wouldn’t surprise me. And I am not defending them, but you can’t prove they have and you can’t produce any evidence.

  92. @anonymous

    they actually spent some time in Africa as missionaries. Yet today she works for Goldman-Sacks, a nice change of allegiance to a different paymaster,

    Missionaries and predatory capitalists/warmongers & war profiteers are two (or three or four) peas in the same pod.

    Henry Luce was the son of missionary parents and, together with Jewish zionists, Wall Street and London financiers, and of course FDR and Churchill who were the Cruzes of their day, were ardent cheerleaders for US involvement in wars in Europe in 1917 and, even more vociferously, in the run-up to WWII. Luce lost sight of Jesus in his commitment to the gospel of wealth and used his media empire to demonize and ultimately destroy the last remaining bastion of Christian Europe — France having been secularized as the calculated outcome of the Dreyfuss debacle.

    The Dulles brothers were raised by bible-thumping parents and grandparents who indoctrinated them with the gospel of wealth for breakfast and the quest for empire at lunch and dinner (see Kinzer’s The Brothers).

    “Christian” missionaries hold the belief that they are commissioned to “baptize all nations”– and do a little commerce on the side, like good Calvinists; they are internationalists of the first order, with a faux religious bent.

    Mormons also send their young out to missionize — and create trade networks — all over the world. The affinity between Benji Netanyahu and Mitt Romney is not as weird as it appears at first glance.

    • Agree: Carroll Price
  93. @Kiza

    Sanders voted and spoke out vehemently against both wars on Iraq, in 1991 and in 2003. A rarity among US politicians…

    It is also important to bear in mind what nearly no one appears to acknowledge: the current quagmire in the Middle East began with the 1991, not the 2003 war on Iraq. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were carried out in retaliation to the Gulf War and its aftermath.

  94. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    The CIA, just like the NSA, is just another part of the federal mafia. Would they commit domestic terrorism? It wouldn’t surprise me. And I am not defending them, but you can’t prove they have and you can’t produce any evidence.

    While there is no proof of domestic terrorism by the CIA, mainly because they aren’t a bunch of ham-handed idiots like the State Department which has apparently taken over espionage by using diplomats to carry it out and leaving evidence all over the place, I think that it is important to note that there IS however proof that the CIA carries out domestic operations in the US like Operation CHAOS.

    Operation Chaos was developed in 1967, under CIA director Richard Helms and Richard Ober, head of the Special Operations Group (CI/SOG) in the CIA’s counterintelligence branch. One motivating factor for the development of Chaos was the revelations of CIA funding and control of the National Student Association (NSA) that appeared in Ramparts magazine in 1967, and a 1966 Ramparts story about how the CIA used the University of Michigan as a cover to train Vietnamese police. Stanley K. Sheinbaum, who had unwittingly worked for the CIA as a University of Michigan professor, coauthored the 1966 Ramparts article with Robert Scheer. This sent the CIA on the warpath against Ramparts. Leaks were becoming a huge problem and MH Chaos was organized to prevent any future leaks about CIA operations. The other purpose of Chaos was to coordinate counterintelligence and covert action projects of the FBI, IRS, all branches of the US Armed Forces, and major metropolitan police departments’ intelligence units into one clearinghouse for data on the political activity of Americans.

    Just as the Phoenix program was deemed necessary because of the failure to “neutralize” civilian support for the Vietcong, Chaos grew out of the failure of the FBI’s Cointelpro and the CIA’s other domestic programs run out of their Office of Security, Project Merrimac and Resistance to neutralize growing domestic dissent. Prior to Chaos, the CIA’s Merrimac and Resistance programs had infiltrated groups such as Women Strike for Peace (WSP), Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Congress on Racial Equality (CORE), and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), among others, ostensibly to prevent attacks on CIA personnel or installations.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  95. RobinG says:
    @Laurie Calhoun


    It is also important to bear in mind what nearly no one appears to acknowledge: the current quagmire in the Middle East began with the 1991, not the 2003 war on Iraq. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were carried out in retaliation to the Gulf War and its aftermath.

    The Gulf War of 1991 was also an orchestrated job, with legitimate complaint of Iraq against Kuwait over disputed oil reserves – ignored by the UN. Then duplicitous enticement of Saddam into Kuwait by US, and fabricated “incubator babies” false flag, etc., to incite US public to support war.

    Next, Clinton’s murderous sanctions, enshrined by Madeleine Albright’s evil callousness. September 11, 2001, followed a decade of overt US aggression, plus the thorns of US bases in the Saudis’ side.

    Even writers who must surely know better begin their Iraq narratives in 2003, just like they start the Israel/Palestine clock in 1967. What gives?

    • Replies: @Laurie Calhoun
  96. @Laurie Calhoun

    Wrong. Look at the evidence. The four attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the anthrax attacks that soon followed, were obvious false-flag attacks carried out for the purpose of justifying permanent wars financed by American tax payers and fought by American soldiers against Israel’s perceived enemies in the middle east.

  97. @RobinG

    I find the nearly total amnesia about the Gulf War and the insistence on blaming only the George W Bush administration for the current situation in the Middle East very baffling. Had there been no war on Iraq in 1991, there would never have been a 9/11.

    It all started with George H. W. Bush, who refused to negotiate or seek a diplomatic solution to the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait for the simple reason that he wanted to wage a war. After Operation Desert Storm, Bush Sr even bragged about having “kicked Vietnam syndrome”, as though it were somehow shameful to be hesitant to fight disastrous wars! The rest is history.

    Ours is a seriously truth-challenged culture, which explains the weak slate of US candidates, among other things:

    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
  98. @Laurie Calhoun

    I think both you and Robin are correct – even at the time there was a sense that Desert Storm had been set up under somewhat mysterious circumstances, to include the April Glaspie missteps with Saddam and the Kuwait directed false narrative but I think you are closer to the real objective in your citation of “Vietnam syndrome.” I was in CIA at the time and there was a palpable sense within the national security/defense community that a large scale, successful war was needed to close the book on Vietnam. It turned out to be Saddam but it could just as easily been Iran or some other designated victim. One might say that we are now experiencing the “Iraq syndrome” as an inhibitor on starting a new war. If so, long may it prevail!

  99. Sean2007 says:

    There is a certain perverted logic to lesser evilism: it is better to get raped than to get raped and beaten up. But this kind of thinking is what keeps us trapped in the corrupt two-party system voting for candidates who are sure to screw us, rather than finding someone who won’t.

    Anyone who supports Israel or serves its fifth column in the West is a traitor to his country and humanity. You should not under any circumstances vote for someone who openly expresses support for Israel, “lesser-evilism” be damned. At the end of the day trying to guess which one of the candidates we are handed is the least dangerous is an exercise in futility; they all serve the same interests. If you select from a group of traitors you will get a traitor every time. The correct response is to never vote for a traitor. Either don’t vote at all or write in the name of someone you think is worthy. If everyone did this, we would not end up with warmongering ziofascists running and ruining our country.

    • Agree: Carroll Price
  100. @Carroll Price

    Not only Putin & Russia but also the UK Parliament vote against joining US in striking Syria as Obama was pushing Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Syria and basically still is in supporting ‘moderate rebels’ (some of whom joined Al Nusra and ISIS too) to oust Assad for Israel:

    Israel Lobby pushing for US action against Syrian government:

    ISIS result of Israeli Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Iraq & Syria


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

    ISIS trains 600 terrorists to attack Europe (and US) b/c of Israel

    Hatred of Israel as San Bernardino terrorism motivation as well

    Petraeus & CENTCOM also warned of Israel threat to US:

    High Cost of Subservience to Israel
    (by Paul Findley):

    CIA’s Mike Scheuer told Congress to Dump Israel

    Pandering Congress listens to Israel 1st AIPAC & Neocons instead:

    Scroll to Founding Father George Washington’s ‘Farewell Address’ warning at bottom of if interested further!

    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
  101. @Philip Giraldi

    Let us hope so! Unfortunately, being “war weary and wary” has not prevented Obama from launching countless missile strikes and spreading weapons all over the globe. Not to mention his nonstop covert ops, all of which appear to be self-sabotaging. (Arming ISIS?)

    I largely agree with your above analysis, and I am also a war voter. (What could be more important than preventing mass homicide?) Both Sanders & Trump have big economic agendas, which push war way down on the list, even if they are not doves. I do think that voters should seriously ponder whether the candidates are dreaming about new wars to wage. If they would be too busy with an ambitious domestic agenda, so much the better for everyone–both at home and abroad.

    Hillary Clinton seems pretty happy with the status quo, which suggests that, as president, she might have enough time on her hands to come up with her own version of Thatcher’s Falkland Islands adventure. In any case, the very fact that she could characterize the Libya fiasco as “smart power at its best” disqualifies her in my mind. Sure, I’d love to see a female US president, but I also could and would never vote for Condoleezza Rice–or Madeleine Albright!

    • Replies: @RobinG
  102. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    I also think that it is important to note that there IS also proof that it is not above certain elements in our government to have the CIA carry out false-flags operations on American Citizens by committing acts of domestic terrorism, such as the proposed Operation Northwoods which was a policy that was approved by the highest levels of the Pentagon.

    “Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government, that originated within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other US government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The proposals were rejected by the Kennedy administration.”

    “Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.”

    And lest you think that these are some “ravings” from conspiracy websites, here is an article on it from ABC news on May 1, 2001.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  103. woodNfish says:

    As I wrote; I am not defending them. The CIA also overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in early 50’s and installed the Shah. It would not surprise me if the CIA intentionally gave Bush false information to get him to invade Afghanistan so they could take over control of the opium trade.

    • Replies: @Junior
  104. @Laurie Calhoun

    the current quagmire in the Middle East began with the 1991, not the 2003 war on Iraq.

    RobinG highlighted the crucial passage that I agree with, but on further thought, the “current quagmire” did not begin with the 1991 war but with Israel’s attack on Osirik, Iraq’s nuclear facility, in 1981.
    Until that attack, Saddam’s nuclear program was largely a feint to ward off Iran, with whom Iraq was at war, a war incited by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his/US pursuit of a way to punish Iran for discontinuing its role as US buttress against Communism in the region consequent to the overthrow of Reza Shah Pahlavi.

    Pahlavi had been placed in power subsequent to US-British overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953.

    Mossadeq was overthrown because Eisenhower was made to fear that Iran would “go Communist.”

    But the real conundrum is why, in 1933, when Bolshevism was raging in numerous European states and Stalin and his henchmen were killing Russians and Ukrainians by the millions — why, in that context did Roosevelt go behind the backs of his own State Department, assigning Henry Morgenthau to negotiate and ally the USA with Stalin.

    And why did Roosevelt collude with his Treasury Secretary, that same Henry Morgenthau, to funnel US taxpayer dollars to support Stalin and Communism, with whom the US subsequently engaged in a 50-year long Cold War that cost another several million lives.

    It really does go back to the full-blown emergence of zionism and the Jewish state in Palestine.

    “Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can’t help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East.”– John Sheehan, SJ.

  105. @Philip Giraldi

    With respect, Phil and Laura Calhoun, Viet Nam syndrome surely played a large role, but George H W Bush’s biographer researched Bush’s archives to examine the decision-making process. Jeff Engel edited Into the Desert: Reflections on the Gulf War, , a collection of essays on that topic.

    Engel discussed his book at Texas A & M in 2013. He emphasized that Bush and his team were acting in the wake of the fall of the Berlin wall; USA was now the world’s sole superpower, unrestrained by a counterbalancing nuclear power.

    In that context, Bush fear the absence of an enemy, because the existence of an enemy — Communist Russia — had been the bond that united the US and its allies. Bush 41 feared that apathy would break that bond. As Lawrence Eagleburger, part of Bush’s decision-making team, told the National Security Council:

    “This is the first test of a post-war system. As a bipolar world is relaxed it permits this, perhaps giving more flexibility because people may not be worried about the involvement of the super powers. If Saddam Hussein succeeds others may try the same thing and it would be a bad lesson.” END QUOTE.

    This argument persuaded Bush, who endorsed the fateful decision from which Washington’ subsequent entanglements in the Middle East derived.

    Eagleburger amplified his comment:

    “We should be frank about what moved them to act. It was NOT the argument that Kuwaiti independence mattered much at all.

    Neither was it that Hussein’s particular brand of evil and tyranny required an American response.

    Nor was Bush persuaded that Iraq’s aggression carried immediate concerns, or that Iraq might someday turn its oil wealth into dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

    Each of these reasons, in time, influenced Bush’s thoughts, his actions and his statements in the months to come.
    None, however, not freedom, evil, human rights, democracy or WMDs affected his thinking in those first fateful days of August.
    Bush was instead, and this is important, Bush was instead persuaded by the growing realization that he stood at a pivot moment in the course of history. ”

    Brent Scowcroft mirrored Eagleburger’s thinking.

    Jeff Engel summed up the Bush team’s 1990-91 decision to invade Iraq in this way:

    The key question I think is WHY? Why did Bush go against decades of American policy, injecting force into a region like never done before? . . .

    Bush recognized that the end of the Cold War eliminated the most stable aspects of the international system [that had been in place since] 1945 . . .

    I argue that Bush took the dramatic step into the Gulf Crisis because he saw it as a bridge to a better world. His New World Order, a phrase unveiled in response to Hussein’s invasion. . .

    Bush above all else was a man enamored by international stability.

    During the Spring and Summer of 1990 Bush told Global leaders that their alliance required an enemy to survive. . . .

    Bush even lost his temper when pushed by reporters to declare the Cold War over because he simply did not know the answer to the next obvious and fundamental question: What Came Next?

    He said, and I quote: “Is the Cold War the same? I mean is it raging like before in the times of the Berlin Blockade? Absolutely not. Things have moved dramatically. But If I signal to you that there’s no Cold War then it’s What are you doing with those troops in Europe? I mean, come on!” END QUOTE

    Bush saw in the Gulf War an opportunity as well as in invasion, a point that I will make by way of conclusion. .. He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II. . . .

    [Bush said], Quote: “The prospect of a global peace continues to depend on an American forward presence.” End quote. ”

    This reference of George H W Bush’s to the “promise to His generation as their reward for service in World War II” is one of the major reasons I bang away at deconstructing holocaustism and examining the full context of US involvement — and war crimes — in World War II. I believe Bush 41 relied upon a romanticized and highly propagandized version of that catastrophic war.

    Because if the USA fought that war under false premises, as it did; and with far less than noble means, as it did; then the foundation of G H W Bush’s construct of an international system and a New World Order, in 1945 as in 1991 and until today, is cracked and fatally flawed.

    The USA cannot be fixed, not by Trump or anyone else, unless and until it trues up its foundation.

    Denying Deconstructing the holocaust is a moral imperative.

  106. @Laurie Calhoun

    Not correct! The primary motivation for 9/11 and the earlier attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was US support for Israel as one can simply read page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report and look up ‘Israel as a terrorists’ motivation’ in the index of James Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War’ book as I mentioned to CIA’s Mike Scheuer in following youtube:

    9/11 Motive & Media Betrayal

    Can also view see my exchange with Lee Hamilton in following youtube (with over half a million views) which was used in ‘valentino’s Ghost’ film:

    What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers? See testimony most didn’t!:

    Latest on ‘Valentino’s Ghost’ film which screened to standing ovations at Venice Film Festival (world’s oldest and most prestigious) and on PBS as well can be found in comments at bottom of following URL if interested further:

    ‘Valentino’s Ghost’ makes theatrical debut in Los Angeles and New York

    Scroll to email exchange between ‘Valentino’s Ghost’ director Michael Singh and PBS ‘Frontline’ executive producer David Fanning about Jewish donors at following URL if interested further:

    ‘Valentino’s Ghost’ makes comeback after 4 years of suppression:

    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
  107. @AmericaFirstNow

    The link about ‘Valentino’s Ghost’ in prior post doesn’t go through but following one should:

    ‘Valentino’s Ghost’ makes comeback after 4 years of suppression:

    Latest about ‘Valentino’s Ghost’ film in comments at bottom of following URL if interested further:

  108. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    Yes, you are not defending them against the charge of carrying out operations abroad, but you ARE defending them against the charge of carrying out operations domestically by painting the possibility of such as coming from conspiracy websites which I see as a “conspiracy nut” smear job. It seems as if you think that the CIA would only carry out false-flag operations in other countries and that they would never do it domestically.

    It was what I interpreted to be your cavalier dismissal of the possibility of those events being domestic false-flag operations which was the reason for my posts about Operations CHAOS and Northwoods. I do agree with your sentiment that it is important to have proof of claims, but it seemed that Carroll’s post said that they were Gladio-TYPE operations, not DEFINITELY Gladio operations. I wasn’t sure if you were aware of the CIA domestic operations so I wanted to show you that although there may not be proof that the CIA carries out domestic terrorism, there is definitive proof that it is WELL within the realm of possibility and is something to seriously consider.

  109. geokat62 says:

    Hey, Jr. Have you had a chance to check your new email inbox, yet?

  110. geokat62 says:

    As Pat Buchanan points out in his recent article here at Unz, the Trump campaign has demonstrated that the neoconservative policies – open borders, free trade, and nation building – have been discredited. Conversely, it has also shown that more and more Americans are eager to re-embrace putting America First – i.e., “patriotism (preserving and protecting the unique character of the nation and people), economic nationalism, staying out of other nation’s wars.”

  111. @AmericaFirstNow

    John McCain’s charity at Arizona State University received 1 million from government of Saudi Arabia (assume Saudis happy with McCain pushing Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan in support of Syrian rebels vs Assad in Syria):

    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
  112. @Rehmat

    Jill Stein is still Jewish at the end of the day and like Chomsky says that the Mideast wars are all about oil when they are in fact all about israel in accord with the following Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan mentioned prior:

    The Unfolding of Yinon’s “Zionist Plan for the Middle East”: The Crisis in Iraq and the Centrality of the National Interest of Israel:

    To all those ‘No Blood for Oil’ lefties out there who listened to the likes of Chomsky and Jill Stein take a look at following NY Times article as China got most of the Iraq oil contracts (Not US):

    China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom:

    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
  113. @Junior

    Zionism, Marxism and Communism are essentially the same thing. Zionism is simply Marxism/Communism operating under a different name. Marxism, Communism/Zionism have always been international in scope, meaning that they pledge no allegiances to any nation or state and loyal to none. All have historically employed terrorism as a weapon with which to achieve regional political goals. With Zionism now in the process of using international terrorism to achieve final world domination. When it comes to terrorist attacks disguised as false flag attacks blamed on Muslim terrorist, it would be a huge mistake for anyone to assume that attacks of this nature would be banned from the US or any other country.

  114. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    here’s a “respected” Republican voice with a totally unsurprising endorsement of Clinton!!!

    Nikkei Asian Review – Richard Armitage: I’d choose Clinton over Trump
    Richard Armitage, a respected Republican voice in foreign policy who served as deputy secretary of state under former U.S. President George W. Bush, said he would vote for Democratic contender Hillary Clinton for president if the choice were between the former secretary of state and the GOP front-runner, real estate mogul Donald Trump.
    “I have nothing but disdain for Mr. Trump and what he says and the way he acts,” Armitage told The Nikkei in a recent interview……

  115. RobinG says:

    Where are you, Jr.? Close enough to DC to join us (Phil, Geo, Ray McG., etc.) at Arlington Cemetery on June 8 for the annual remembrance of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty? Check your Jr.2 email and let Geo know.

    Here’s Phil’s report from last year —

    • Replies: @Junior
  116. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    If war is the only consideration on which to decide whom to vote for:
    Trump may be less inclined than Clinton to initiate military adventures. However, imagine him as President sitting in the situation room with the heads of the military, intelligence, and so forth.
    Then, think about how Donald’s brain melted down in the Chris Mathews interview. The people surrounding him on a daily basis will turn his mind inside out, toast it, and give it to him for breakfast.

    Will Donald have chosen a smart pit bull for Vice President, to keep his back? Because, left on his own, Trump is a confirmed blunderer. Not a good prospect for the human race, him in charge.
    So here’s the other choices.
    Bernie can think strategically and opportunistically. Will he choose competent lieutenants, to keep the generals and spies under control? Possibly, he could.
    With Hillary, just this to consider: which is worse, catastrophic blunders, or heinous crimes?

  117. RobinG says:
    @Laurie Calhoun

    The irony of Albright speaking at GU today on “the role of religion in international relations”…

    She’s the keynote of their “Rethinking Religion and World Affairs…Symposium”

  118. @woodNfish

    Israel associated with Boston Bombing motive as well:

    Israel as terrorism motivation for San Bernardino as well

    CIA’s Mike Scheuer validated yet again with terrorism motivation in following youtube:

    ISIS trains 600 terrorists to attack Europe (and US) because of Israel

  119. Marxism/Zionism at work. This is what happen when Marxist/Zionist gain full control over a country’s governmental structure. The only reason similar laws relating to holocaust denial are not already in force here in the US is due to the Bill Of Rights (1st amendment) which guarantees freedom of speech free of government interference, and a freedom that Marxist/Zionist are laboring night and day to effectively dismantle through the implementation of speech codes, referred to as Politically Correct Speech (PC)).

    • Replies: @geokat62
  120. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:

    Hey Robin! I’m not certain yet that I can, but I’m certain that I will try!

  121. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Giraldi, with his support for Sanders, has outed himself as green badger at the CIA. Funny that his liaison at Langley won’t even allow him to support the best foreign policy candidate (the loud mouth real estate developer). A sure tip off that that guy is legit. Sanders has supported neocon wars in the past and now is for arming Syrian “rebels” and regime change in Syria. Beware of all these former CIA blue badgers who somehow, after decades in the agency, have some road to Damascus epiphany (how convenient) and have become realists. Yeah, sure. I hope the money is worth it green badger (aka, greedy bastards).

    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
  122. Is there a type-o in the above article, @Philip Giraldi?

    Sanders supported the 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo, which was marketed by the Clinton administration as a “humanitarian intervention”. But was there a vote on the Libya intervention in 2011? Wasn’t that an executive action by Obama? He claimed that it wasn’t a war, since he wasn’t sending soldiers and therefore did not require the assent of Congress.

    Afterwards, a group of Republican legislators wrote a letter criticizing Obama for abuse of executive power…

    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
  123. Rurik says:

    Very good points on Bernie Mr. Dawson,

    But I wanted to respond to you for another reason all together.

    I’ve enjoyed your work for a while now, especially over at WRH. And I say Kudos to you for an amazing job at spreading the truth.


    There was one moment when I was dumbstruck at a comment of yours regarding a truther who wrote a book about it all, but she also mentioned that it wasn’t the same passenger jet that took off from Boston that hit the Pentagon. And for this you dismissed her as a kind of crack pot.

    I would just suggest that there are quite a few of us who have no idea what hit the Pentagon, (we’d love to see the videos!), but we doubt it was the same passenger jet that took off from Boston. Did I misinterpret something you said?

    Any thoughts sir?

    • Replies: @alexander
  124. @Anonymous

    Sorry to disillusion you Tony but I have had no CIA badge of any kind since 2002!

  125. @Laurie Calhoun

    You’re right Laurie – there was no vote but Sanders said he supported it on humanitarian grounds.

  126. joe webb says:

    a sidebar here, but…War, what is it Good For? Undoing big mistakes sometimes at least. Blaming Policy, Not Islam, for Belgium’s Radicalized Youth ( policy without a plan) War like never seen before.

    Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 11:54 AM
    Subject: Fw: Blaming Policy, Not Islam, for Belgium’s Radicalized Youth ( policy without a plan ) War like never seen before.

    with regard to Isis….

    ““How is it that people who were born here in Brussels, in Paris, can call heroes the people who commit violence and terror? That is the real question we’re facing.”
    Friends who teach the equivalent of high school seniors in the predominantly Muslim districts of Molenbeek and Schaerbeek told him that “90 percent of their students, 17, 18 years old, called them heroes,” he said.”

    then, the liberal jew pol says.

    “…Mr. Goldstein said. “In Brussels, everyone lives in the city, and we chose a model of diversity through mixing of populations in the same neighborhoods.”
    But “we failed,” he said. “We failed in Molenbeek” and Schaerbeek, too, to ensure the mixing of populations.”

    First, as a detail on how stupid these liberals are, or better, blinded by their ideological obsessions, the “model of diversity through mixing populations” was not a ‘mixing’ model.
    It is impossible to bureaucratically mix the ‘populations’ unless of course you are Obongo and his merry band of apparatchiks who are now going to disperse negroes in the white folks’ neighborhoods by building “affordable housing’” in the white suburbs of the US, or so they think despite the sound of Trumpbeats.

    “90 percent of their students…called them [the Isis terrorists ] heroes”

    So the liberals say it ( the failure to integrate muzzies ) is just a matter of not mixing the ‘populations’. In other words, it is a Culture problem. This is the standard Ideological or Religious answer to all questions for liberals. ‘Populations’ is the coward/apparatchik euphemism for Race. Just mix the races together and presto…we get a world citizen, which incidentally is actually a white person, This too drives the coloreds crazy because 1, they don’t want to be white, and 2, they don’t have what it takes to be white, and 3, the reason they do not have what it takes to be white is that their genes are very different, starting with the genes for intelligence….what with Arabs trailing Whites by 15 points of IQ.

    So, 90 percent of the muzzie youth see the Isis terrorists as heroes. This is great. Europe will have a war like no other war ever experienced in history. Ten percent and more of Europe is now muslim.

    How do you fight what used to be called the Enemy Within from the 50s communist-scare of the US? In the US it was just a few thousand communists, jewish and otherwise.

    Get ready for the Show of Shows, the Mother of all Civil Wars, The Greatest Story Ever Told, the I told you so War of Wars.

    Like Enoch Powell said back in 1968 in London, in his Rivers of Blood speech. There was one prescient guy, like Jean Raspail and his Camp of the Saints…1971. (while leftie fools like me were dreaming the Impossible Dream…Humanity, One World, kumbaiyah, black and white together we shall overcome, been to the mountain top. Now I have been to the Other mountain top and I see oceans of blood rising.

    Joe Webb

  127. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It occurs to me that no matter how reticent about war the occupant of the White House might be, their hand could be forced by the occurrence of a major false flag event. Also, information fed to them could be selective and distorted in order to gain some desired results. JFK was deliberately lied to about the impending Bay of Pigs invasion, making him think it would lead to popular revolts against Castro; once committed and losing they tried to manipulate him into believing he had no choice but to come in with planes and then troops to salvage the operation. He saw that it had no popular support and cut it off right there, earning the enmity of many. He realized the CIA tried to fool him and stated he was going to take the CIA apart, which he never lived to do. Although LBJ was right on board with using the Gulf of Tonkin faked incident as a pretext for war, it’s also been said he wasn’t totally aware of how fake and concocted it actually was. Presidents seem to be isolated and dependent upon others for news and views which could be subject to distortion.

  128. Bernie Sanders bobbled foreign policy in that Daily News interview
    Wed, Apr 6

    Bernie Sanders doesn’t know whether President Obama’s signature counterterrorism strategy, drone strikes, is the right approach to the problem.

    Fifteen years into a bitter national debate about Guantanamo Bay, he hasn’t thought much about where he would imprison and interrogate a captured terrorist leader.

    He can’t explain his call for Israel to pull back from some settlements on Palestinian land because he doesn’t have “some paper” in front of him.

    He also can’t say why he doesn’t support Palestinians taking action against Israel before the International Criminal Court.

    Those are all takeaways from a New York Daily News interview with Sanders,

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  129. @Mark Green

    “In any event, the US needs a massive disruption to our political (and educational) establishments. . . .”

    Agreed. They’re both like an old Montgomery Ward catalog–big, fat, and full of shit.

  130. @Kiza

    “OK, according to Madeleine Albright all US women who do not vote for Hillary Clinton have a special place reserved in Hell. . . .”

    I hope there’s a reservation in Hell for Albright, that degenerate hag.

  131. @Carroll Price

    ” . . . Stay home on election day and laugh your ass off at the fools who waste their time voting for ‘changes’ that never happen.”

    I read you five-by-five, Mr. Price. Voting in America is an exercise in futility.

    This year, though, if it’s Trump vs. Our Lady of the Pantsuits, I’m emerging from hibernation to vote for the former.

    • Agree: Rurik, Kiza
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    , @Kiza
  132. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Consider too that Trump, as a WASP Republican, would not so easily be given a pass by the people on war-mongering as would a liberal Democratic women …or even, though to a lesser degree, an Hispanic Cruz.

    Going back 7+ years, say Bush II could have been elected to a third term; his handlers would be unlikely to have been as successful in getting folks to go along with expanding war into Syria and Libya (and a coup in Ukraine) as they were able to do under a black Democrat.

    The last thing the neocons want is a white European Republican …at least not when they can have as their spokesmodel the first woman president.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  133. geokat62 says:
    @Carroll Price

    Hey, CP. Just following-up on my previous comment:

    Is the email address you use here on Unz real or fictitious? If it is real, you’ll be hearing from me.

    Let me know.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  134. @Orville H. Larson

    Since Israel is directly responsible for most of America’s problems, and since both candidates(Trump and Hillary) have already pledged fealty to the Chosen, any other minor differences on issues would have little if no effect anyway. The bottom line is that if Hillary and Trump end up as the two presidential candidates, it would likely make little, if any difference which one ends up taking orders from Bibi and AIPAC.

  135. @geokat62

    It’s real – just like me.

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @geokat62
  136. @Anonymous

    George W. Bush was of European origin and as white as they normally come, yet the neocons did pretty well under him. Most White Europeans I know here in the bible-belt deep South are far more devoted to alien Jews than they are to their own race – including their own kith and kin. So explain that one to me.

    • Replies: @L.K
  137. Kiza says:
    @Orville H. Larson

    The following is my very personal view. Trump has stepped to the other side. His:

    “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” Trump said at a campaign rally in Iowa.

    Well, sucking up to AIPAC has been much, much worse than shooting someone in the middle of the 5th avenue. This is because many more US citizens get shot or blown up because of AIPAC initiated wars than a single murder on the 5th. I am absolutely sure that this attempt at pacification of the Lobby has not worked terribly well (they do not trust him and will continue to sabotage him), whilst it has created a huge black mark on his reputation among his voters.

    Besides, it is not likely than the AIPAC controllers (neocons) will let Trump through to nomination even if he wins the Primaries.

    If I were a US voter and Trump somehow got through, I would feel very unsure whether I should stay at home or vote Hilary out (rather than vote Trump in). If they do get rid of Trump, since he cannot be an independent any more in a few states, I would definitely stay at home rather than have to choose between the End-of-the-World Rapturist Lying Ted and the Mad War Cow Hitlary. It is like a choice between: would you prefer to be fried or to be roasted alive?

    As mentioned, just my personal view.

  138. geokat62 says:
    @Carroll Price

    Great, you should check your inbox.

  139. At least Trump (and Kasich) are skipping Adelson’s RJC event in Las Vegas but pandering Cruz will be there according to following article:

    Cruz builds support among GOP Jews as Trump skips event

  140. alexander says:

    Hey Rurik,

    You know I watched the video footage of the alleged airliner striking “our” pentagon, quite a few times….and, in all honesty, not once was I ever convinced in watching it, that it was struck by an airliner…..I just saw no evidence indicating this was the case….

    Did you ?

    Was there lots of crumpled, charred, fuselage at the impact sight…..I never saw any….did you ?

    As a matter of fact…I never saw the airliner flying into it…..just a split second explosion when what looked like a projectile, hit the wall…..That is all I can recall… you know more about it?

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    , @Rurik
  141. L.K says:
    @Carroll Price

    Carroll Price:

    Most White Europeans I know here in the bible-belt deep South are far more devoted to alien Jews than they are to their own race – including their own kith and kin

    Yep, and ain’t that just a little sad…

    You might want to show these gullible idiots the following vid, from israeli tv:
    Mocking Jesus(Yeshu) on Israeli Zionist TV – The Crucifixion of Yeshu.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  142. @L.K

    L. K,
    Thanks for the suggestion to share the video but it would be a wasted effort since most of my fellow Southerners avoid knowledge like Middle Agers avoided the Plague. Religious nuts in particular are endemic to the area and routinely display their ignorance as badges of honor. How I managed to escape the trap remains a mystery.

  143. @alexander

    The only definitive “proof” is that several dozen motorist stuck in a traffic jam adjacent to the Pentagon publicly stated that they observed an airliner approach the building at high speed and at ground level altitude, with one wing actually striking and knocking over a street lamp post adjacent to the building. Why numerous security camera videos that would have recorded the entire episode for all to see were immediately seized and deep-sixed by Secret Service and FBI agents defies all logical explanations. With the a possible explanation being that the videos might show an entirely different type plane from an airliner actually hitting the building. Or it could be that the secrecy involving the event is for the purpose of simply aiding in the over-all cover-up by adding an additional layer of questions and confusion. There’s also major questions of a similar nature associated with the supposed crash of flight #93 near Shanksville, PA. It could be that Flight #93 and the planes hitting the Twin Towers were not the same commercial airliners that were supposedly hi-jacked. But if not, what happened to those planes? For what it’s worth my own personal theory about Flight 93 is that, like flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, it was supposed to made a U-turn over Maryland or eastern PA and return to fly into building #7, but that the pilot or flight engineer on that particular flight may have figured out what was going on an managed to regain control of the plane, thus necessitating the order from Dick Cheney to have it shot down to prevent it from landing and allowing access to the programs stored inside the digitally programmed flight controller and other control electronics (radios etc) on the plane.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    , @Rurik
  144. @Carroll Price

    Notice the startled reaction of the two individuals standing behind Rummy when he slips-up and admits Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania.

  145. alexander says:
    @Philip Giraldi

    Good points, Phil,

    and also to Laurie and Robin.

    I think one can make an argument that Saddam may have been mouse trapped into invading Kuwait in 1990. That is fair enough.

    But lets be clear about this…….he did, in fact, make the choice to invade Kuwait.

    Which is REAL history…..not fraud.

    Like the anthrax scare, eleven years later…which was a true defrauding of the American people.

    There is a difference, and in my book, its a big one.

    I think everyone should also recognize that Saddam was given an opportunity to withdraw his forces and leave in 1991.

    As a matter of fact, Ambassador Joe Wilson, the self same individual who pulled back the curtain on the Neocon Niger “yellow cake” forgery in 2002, was also credited with delivering the message to Saddam, personally, in 1991.

    There is a huge difference in my mind between engaging a state that has initiated war of aggression in invaded another, which Iraq did in fact do, in 1990, and the US initiating war of aggression in invading another, which we did, tragically, in 2003.

    In the first instance, 1991, we were acting as the worlds policeman, upholding the law AGAINST transgressions.

    In 2003, we BROKE the law, and became the transgressor.

    We became the very “evil” we should all be standing against.

    I kinda disagree with you folks,on the thread that it was all one large continuum, of the same belligerence behavior.

    As a matter of fact, Bush I made the argument NOT to continue in 1991, and take out Saddam,(beyond the mission of removing him from Kuwait and degrading his military), because it would destabilize the entire region and lead to a civil war.

    Which is precisely what happened when we launched OUR illegal invasion ten years later.

    I believe 1991 Operation Desert Storm, has much more in common with Putin’s recent incursions in Syria, against ISIS, in terms of initiating a principled and legal response to aggression, than the catastrophic 2003 invasion, which was all Neocon fraud and aggression from the get go.

    Our government has been transformed , by the 9-11 Neocon “coup”, into a sinister, malevolent entity…. a tragic and criminal enterprise…that has utter disdain for the truth… and no respect for the rule of law or the justice it is supposed to serve.

    How very sad this is the case…… but it is.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  146. Rurik says:

    Hey Alexander,

    I never saw the airliner flying into it…..just a split second explosion when what looked like a projectile, hit the wall…..That is all I can recall… you know more about it?

    not too much more, only that, as Carroll mentioned below, there were witnesses who said they saw a plane, and that the FBI went around to every convenience store and gas station and every were else they thought a video recording might exist and confiscated them all.

    Also that from what I understand the Pentagon is some of the most surveilled real estate on the planet. That there must have been scores or more of cameras watching from virtually every angle of that plane’s approach and even its impact with the Pentagon. And that’s not to mention all the radar and even satellite surveillance that’s probably trained on the Pentagon, especially during the kind of “drill” they were running that day.

    I watched a video once of a pilot explaining that if people did see a plane, that it doesn’t mean that the plane simply headed toward the Pentagon and then diverted at the final moment.

    I don’t know. But the crash site doesn’t look to me like it was hit by a huge Boeing, and the only video they show is of the explosion. WHY?

    Also where’s the missing trillions from the Pentagon budget that Rumsfeld had said they found was missing only a few days earlier?

    No one cares?!

    A trillion is a lot of money. Seems to me someone ought to care.

    Perhaps Michael Hastings cared

  147. Rurik says:
    @Carroll Price

    It could be that Flight #93 and the planes hitting the Twin Towers were not the same commercial airliners that were supposedly hi-jacked. But if not, what happened to those planes?

    or the passengers

  148. @alexander

    Several facts are omitted from your analysis, Alexander, that if duly considered would, indeed, support the proposition that “it was all one large continuum, of the same belligerence behavior.”

    First: It’s possible to locate the inception of this “large continuum,” at least wrt to the Middle East, in a conference hosted by Benzion and Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem in July 1979. I suggest that this conference laid the blueprint for the global war on terror. George H. W. Bush was among the key speakers at that conference. see International Terrorism: Challenge and Response

    2. Saddam was our guy, and it was doing the US’s dirty work that got Iraq into the situation it was in re Kuwait; namely, US egged Iraq into waging war against Iran 1980 – 1988. Iraq’s expenditures in that war drained Iraq’s economy. When Saddam asked the Arab states — who had also cheered Iraq in warring against Iran but had not helped finance it — to help Iraq dig out of its economic hole, Kuwait responded by refusing Saddam’s request and lowering oil prices. Oil was Iraq’s sole source of revenue, but Kuwait had massive investments in Western markets to sustain its economy. see Secret Dossier: The Hidden Agenda Behind the Gulf War, by Pierre Salinger

    3. Your assertion,
    “I think everyone should also recognize that Saddam was given an opportunity to withdraw his forces and leave in 1991.”
    is incorrect; that is, it is not “REAL history”, it is incomplete history.
    A negotiated settlement, to which Saddam was willing to agree, was in the works. The Bush I regime would not permit it.

    see: King’s Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East

    “the U.S. was doing Israel’s “dirty work” in opposing Saddam Hussein in 1990 and could have negotiated an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait without resorting to war.” [nb. recall also that Israel bombed Osirick in 1983, which induced Saddam to ramp up his pursuit of nuclear weapons]

    and Into the Desert: Reflections on the Gulf War
    by Jeffrey Engel (Editor)

    Engel, an historian, is director of the Bush Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist Univ.

    4. Your analysis claims that “In the first instance, 1991, we were acting as the worlds policeman, upholding the law AGAINST transgressions.”
    In a discussion of his book, Engel focused on the decision-making process leading up to Bush 41’s invasion of Iraq, and also of the reasoning behind not pursuing Saddam into Baghdad. Engel quoted Lawrence Eagleburger, a part of Bush I’s team, as to why Bush took the decision to invade Iraq:

    QUOTE: We should be frank about what moved them to act.
    It was NOT the argument that Kuwaiti independence mattered much at all.
    Neither was it that Hussein’s particular brand of evil and tyranny required an American response.
    Nor was Bush persuaded that Iraq’s aggression carried immediate concerns, or that Iraq might someday turn its oil wealth into dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
    Each of these reasons, in time, influenced Bush’s thoughts, his actions and his statements in the months to come.
    None, however, not freedom, evil, human rights, democracy or WMDs affected his thinking in those first fateful days of August.
    Bush was instead, and this is important, Bush was instead persuaded by the growing realization that he stood at a pivot moment in the course of history. . . .

    This is the first test of a post-war system. As a bipolar world is relaxed it permits this, perhaps giving more flexibility because people may not be worried about the involvement of the super powers. If Saddam Hussein succeeds others may try the same thing and it would be a bad lesson.” END QUOTE.

    Engel concluded,

    Bush saw in the Gulf War AN OPPORTUNITY as well as in invasion . . .a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II. . . .
    Ultimately this vision of a new world order based on sovereignty and stability is what drove his thinking when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In a similar vein he said, “The prospect of a global peace continues to depend on an American forward presence.” End quote.

    In other words, Bush’s goal in invading Iraq in 1991 was to establish USA (and zionist) hegemony, a vision that matches closely the vision of neoconservatives, with whom we must assume Bush I was closely aligned, given the REAL historical fact of the first point, above, with this caveat: by linking his actions against Iraq in 1991 with World War II, Bush expands the continuum to reveal that just as a US invasion of Iraq in 1991 (as well as 2003) was an unnecessary war but was joined to establish American-zionist hegemony, so too was World War II an unnecessary war, fought to establish American-zionist hegemony.

    5. You wrote:

    As a matter of fact, Bush I made the argument NOT to continue in 1991, and take out Saddam,(beyond the mission of removing him from Kuwait and degrading his military), because it would destabilize the entire region and lead to a civil war.

    Here’s what Engel had to say about that decision:

    a. Bush 41 was “constrained by the Arab-Israeli dynamic:” if the US coalition — of which Israel was NOT a part — stayed in the region too long, Israel might seek to retaliate against Iraq. As well, Engel echoed your sentiment:

    Harken back to what I said earlier about the DESIRE among many in the Middle East for an Arab solution. He was concerned if you went further towards Baghdad and in fact took over Baghdad and deposed Saddam Hussein by force that this would create greater Enmity within the coalition among his Arab members who would view that in some way as a re-establishment of western colonialism.

    I have a hard time understanding the distinction between Bush’s New World Order vision and neocolonialism, in light of the REAL history that US was imposing itself and its will against the wishes of the indigenous Arabs.

    But Engel’s third point is extremely important. Engel said:

    But there’s a very important distinction here which I would like to make which I think was a revelation to me within the archives and that a there has always been a question when the decision comes — when the study of the decision comes up about whether or not American forces should have continued on to Baghdad in 1991. This was not a discussion within the White House for a very important reason: The ultimate goal or one of the the ultimate goals beyond the liberation of Kuwait was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. There was a 100 percent certainty on the part of high level American officials that this was going to happen anyway.
    Saddam Hussain had been embarrassed; his own people rising up against him, his own army was out to get him. If he lived weeks it would have been a shock instead of days. 999 times out of 1,000 I think that is exactly how things would have played out, that Saddam would not have survived.
    Unfortunately from the Bush administration’s perspective, George H. W. Bush’s perspective, Saddam rolled the dice and made it. But I think that given the question and those odds again I suspect they would take the same bet again.

    That is,
    a. Bush’s team was “99% certain” that the Iraqi people and army would overthrow their own leader.
    b. They believe to this day that “Saddam got lucky.”
    c. They would — and have — made the same bet again.

    This expectation and bet is against all historic odds!

    The US and British bombed the hell out of Germany on the expectation that destroying the morale of German civilians would lead to the capitulation of the German government, but it did not.

    USA and others imposed sanctions that starved to death a million Iraqis — including 500,000 children, but sanctions did not bring about the capitulation of Saddam.

    US Congress imposed, and continues to impose, sanctions on Iran in the expectation that sanctions will cause the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow their government. California congressman Ed Royce enunciated this exact scheme in 2007. So far, it has not worked.

    REAL history has shown that Sanctions do. not. work.

    The people of a nation tend to rally around their leadership when it is under threat rather than ally with an invading force that seeks to overthrow their state.

    • Replies: @alexander
    , @Carroll Price
  149. @SolontoCroesus

    Sanders isn’t stupid. He’s weak on implementation because detailing plans would break his coalition with mainstream Democrats and force him to criticize Obama.

  150. alexander says:

    Hi S2C,

    I know about the argument you are making, but I don’t quite buy it.

    I don’t think Bush I was as much of a tool of “Zionist aggression” as you claim.

    Had the world ALLOWED Saddams’ invasion and annexation of Kuwait, in 1990, to pass ,unattended , it would have un-wound all the most meaningful , potent reforms of post WWII.

    Many argue that Bush I may have lost his second term bid because he sought to impose the same principle, on Israel, as he did with Iraq, and withhold all aid to Israel, if it continued building settlements in Palestine.

    I think that may be true.

    If its not OK for Saddam to do it, in Kuwait, why is acceptable for our ally, Israel, to do it in the West bank, in Palestine ?

    Its not.

    I don’t really think the arguments you pose, in your “quotations” hold much weight.

    Bush I made it clear that removing Saddam from Kuwait and degrading his military capability to do so in the future ,was the mission…..consistent with the U.N. resolutions..AND consistent with the law……….NOT ‘regime change”.

    Sorry S2C, but the facts are right in this case.

    There was no “debate” among the world powers, whether Saddams’ invasion of Kuwait, never really happened, that it was all just fabricated “Zionist Fraud”…suggesting he did., when he really didn’t !

    Sorry , S2C, he really DID invade Kuwait, no two ways about it.

    You can try to slice that cheesecake any way you want…but its still cheese in the middle.

    Iraq’s invasion and attempted annexation of Kuwait really did occur.

    Which is a SUPREME international crime.

    And its right, not to let it stand.

    This is good law, and good use of our military.

    On the other hand…

    The Bush II, 2003 invasion of Iraq was based entirely on the “fraudulent claim” he and his WMD ‘s were an imminent, impending threat to our Nation.

    This was a big fat lie…..

    so was the bogus claim it was “Saddams anthrax” in Senator Leahy’s office.

    These were “concocted pretexts”……Phony baloney !…to sell the American people on the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    (which was not only a supreme international crime but turned out to be” supremely expensive” to boot.)

    They are NOT the same thing , S2C, and any who suggest they are, are frauds too.

    You are no exception.

    Learn the difference.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  151. @SolontoCroesus

    I appreciate your input on what actually led up to the 1st Gulf War. I would add that anyone who’s tempted to think the Jew-run regime in Washington does anything to benefit the people of any country other than Israel, are sadly mistaken. They don’t give a damn about the American people, let alone those of Kuwait.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  152. @alexander

    Sorry , S2C, he really DID invade Kuwait, no two ways about it.

    No one said Saddam did not invade Kuwait, Alexander.

    There are three critical elements in the argument:
    1. The Arabs were eager to settle the conflict nonviolently; Saddam was involved in these negotiations (Not mentioned in my earlier comment, but Gorbachev was so persistent and intense in pressuring Bush to allow Arabs to settle the situation themselves that Bush exploded and yelled at Gorbachev on more than one occasion. )

    2. As the extended Eagleburger quote clearly spells out, the Bush team’s intentions in invading Iraq had nearly nothing to do with resolving the “supreme international crime” of Saddam having invaded Kuwait. Nada. Read the Eagelburger quote again, Alexander. Eagleburger was there, he was part of the decision-making team (also not said, but Brent Scowcroft mirrored and affirmed Eagelburger’s position: the GHW Bush administration did NOT invade Iraq out of motives of correcting the “international crime”; they did so to exert US hegemony.

    3. A goal of the US invasion was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. That is not a permissible action; it is considered an aggression.

    While your leveling charges of “fraud,” Alexander, riddle me this:

    a. Was Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 a legitimate action or an “international crime . . . of aggression”?

    b. What did the ‘international community’ and the Superpower, Enforcer of all that is good and noble do about Israel’s invasion of Lebanon?

    re this little bit of drivel:

    They are NOT the same thing , S2C, and any who suggest they are, are frauds too.
    You are no exception.
    Learn the difference.

    I tried very hard to be cool and objective and presented arguments and words from the horse’s mouth, with references.
    Nothing that you wrote was anything other than mental miasma.
    Your closing three lines reflected jackassitude.
    Learn the difference.

  153. @Carroll Price

    thank you.

    Are you aware of the Democracy Spring movement?

    MARCH: APRIL 2-11. SIT-INS: APRIL 11-18.

    It’s time to take mass nonviolent action on a historic scale to save our democracy. This April, in Washington, D.C., we will demand a Congress that will take immediate action to end the corruption of big money in our politics and ensure free and fair elections in which every American has an equal voice.

    The campaign will begin on April 2nd with a march from the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. where thousands will gather to reclaim the US Capitol in a powerful, peaceful, and massive sit-in that no one can ignore. Over 3,000 people have already pledged to risk arrest between April 11th-18th in what will be one of the largest civil disobedience actions in a generation. Together we can open the door to reforms previously considered impossible and reclaim our democracy. Join us!


    Sunday Night [Apr 10] 6:30-9:30 PM
    Impact Hub DC, 419 7th St NW, Washington, DC 20004, 3rd Floor

    Monday Morning 9:00-11:00 AM
    Sanctuary, Lutheran Church of the Reformation, 212 East Capitol St NE, Washington, DC 20003
    Trainings will continue twice a day throughout the week according to this schedule

    • Replies: @RobinG
    , @RobinG
  154. RobinG says:

    Democracy Spring is a response to the “Citizens United” decision. They talk about billionaires and corporations, but to my knowledge say nothing about agents of foreign governments.

    If you show up with a sign that says –

    make sure you get in front of a camera(s) because, as you know, if the press doesn’t cover it, you weren’t really there.

  155. @geokat62

    I received no emails from you. Try again.

    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
  156. @Carroll Price

    CP – I sent your email through the Liberty from the Lobby site on FB. Let’s stop using the unz site to communicate this type of stuff, pls?

  157. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It never ceases to amaze me how you neoconferates think your anti war by regurgitate
    ING the pro warmongering stance of Russia, Assad, Iran etc

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
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.