Now Joe Klein has raised the issue of dual loyalty around the neoconservatives' motivation for "plump"ing for the Iraq war:
The notion that we could just waltz in and inject democracy into an extremely complicated, devout and ancient culture smacked–still smacks–of neocolonialist legerdemain. The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives–people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary–plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel. And then there is the question–made manifest by the no-bid contracts offered U.S. oil companies by the Iraqis–of two oil executives, Bush and Cheney, securing a new source of business for their Texas buddies. [emphasis mine]
Beautiful. A war to make the world safe for Israel. (Though I'd note that Klein needs to paste on the figleaf of the oil men having dual loyalty too. Dubious.) And note why Klein is saying this now: the overheated rhetoric re Iran. The realist view of the Israel/Palestine issue is coming inside.
Related posts:
- The Klein Effect; ‘The Forward’ ‘Jokes’ that Zionist Neocons Pushed Iraq War for Israel
- ‘LA Times’ says neocons who pushed Iraq war ‘possibly harbored dual loyalty to Israel’
- ‘LA Times’ says neocons who pushed Iraq war ‘possibly harbored dual loyalty to Israel’
- Klein and Goldberg Establish Code for Critiquing Neocons’ Religious Agenda: 1, Be Jewish…
- Family Affair: Joe Klein Is ‘Anguished’ by Necessary Task of Informing on Jewish Neocons
{ 24 comments }
Mr. Klein deserves a great deal of praise for having the
courage to write what most of the spineless MSM have
been unwilling to admit.
"And then there is the question–made manifest by the no-bid contracts offered U.S. oil companies by the Iraqis–of two oil executives, Bush and Cheney, securing a new source of business for their Texas buddies. [emphasis mine]"
I think this is overwhelmingly the more important abuse of responsibility and integrity (reject the term "loyalty". Its neanderthol.) That a party in PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE (not just a private advocate or elected representative for factions – remember the federalist papers?) would divert their policy responsibilities to a vested clique.
That is impeachable, criminal.
American / Isreali Dual Citizens Running the American Government
Attorney General – Michael Mukasey
Head of Homeland Security – Michael Chertoff
Chairman Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Richard Perle
Deputy Defense Secretary (Former) – Paul Wolfowitz
Under Secretary of Defense – Douglas Feith
National Security Council Advisor – Elliott Abrams
Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff (Former) – “Scooter” Libby
White House Deputy Chief of Staff – Joshua Bolten
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs – Marc Grossman
Director of Policy Planning at the State Department – Richard Haass
U.S. Trade Representative (Cabinet-level Position) – Robert Zoellick
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – James Schlesinger
UN Representative (Former) – John Bolton
Under Secretary for Arms Control – David Wurmser
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Eliot Cohen
Senior Advisor to the President – Steve Goldsmith
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary – Christopher Gersten
Assistant Secretary of State – Lincoln Bloomfield
Deputy Assistant to the President – Jay Lefkowitz
White House Political Director – Ken Melman
National Security Study Group – Edward Luttwak
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Kenneth Adelman
Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst (Former) – Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
National Security Council Advisor – Robert Satloff
President Export-Import Bank U.S. – Mel Sembler
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families – Christopher Gersten
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs – Mark Weinberger
White House Speechwriter – David Frum
White House Spokesman (Former) – Ari Fleischer
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Henry Kissinger
Deputy Secretary of Commerce – Samuel Bodman
Under Secretary of State for Management – Bonnie Cohen
Director of Foreign Service Institute – Ruth Davis
http://salonesoterica.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/dual-us-israeli-citizens-running-american-government/
Phil,
Klein has made this point before:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004225,00.html
Printer friendly version:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1004225,00.html
How Israel Is Wrapped Up in Iraq
By JOE KLEIN
Posted Monday, Feb. 10, 2003
" . . . a stronger Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war with Iraq. It is a part of the argument that dare not speak its name, a fantasy quietly cherished by the neo-conservative faction in the Bush Administration and by many leaders of the American Jewish community.
"The fantasy involves a domino theory. The destruction of Saddam's Iraq will not only remove an enemy of long-standing but will also change the basic power equation in the region. It will send a message to Syria and Iran about the perils of support for Islamic terrorists. It will send a message to the Palestinians too: Democratize and make peace on Israeli terms, or forget about a state of your own. In the wackiest scenario, it will lead to the collapse of the wobbly Hashemite monarchy in Jordan and the establishment of a Palestinian state on that nation's East Bank. No one in the government ever actually says these things publicly (although some American Jewish leaders do). Usually, the dream is expressed in the mildest possible terms: "I have high hopes that the removal of Saddam will strengthen our democratic allies in the region," Senator Joe Lieberman told me last week."
"Beautiful. A war to make the world safe for Israel."
Come on Philip,don't make a fool of yourself in front of your readers who:
- appreciate you very much.
- have known this for at least 5 years if they read Antiwar.com,don't they?
If PODS (People Of Double Standard)were only half as smart as they advertise themselves!
"now for an even more foolish assault on Iran"
IRAN should make VERY CLEAR to the world what her RESPONSE to aggression WILL BE: Thousands of missiles targetted on every oil-refinery, every oil tanker, and every oil facility in the Middle East. Why waste a good missile on Tel Aviv when the same missile could knock out 5% of the world's daily supply of oil???
Why should Iran only knock out it's OWN OIL INDUSTRY when it is capable of hitting every other major oil producer also?
Millions of poor Arabs throughout the Middle East go to bed hungry; destroying the oil-infrastructure supplying the western world will not cause them much more misery than they already know.
So go ahead. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran. And if you do, risk having to live without oil (ie, back to the stone age).
Judging by the increase in number of comments, here, it looks like the word is beginning to get out about the great work you're doing. I'd be interested to know, Phil, whether your own count reflects an increase in readership.
Howardo, I think one could easily register peaks according to issues, if one took the time to study things more closely.
Beyond that it is like the sea: low and high tides, from my point of view …
Not that there's any evidence of substance to support Witty's allegation of oil being the driving force behind the war in Iraq, but even if there were, so what? Americans need oil and millions willingly pay for it at the pump to buy it daily.
What we don't need is the millstone of Israel wrapped tightly around our necks thanks to the UnAmerican conduct of American Jews, most of whom, like Witty, are more than willing to tell any lie on behalf of Israel. Let's make nice to the Arabs and loosen up those oil spigots. Israel can manage their affairs on their own and American Jews can either get over it or move to the land they love. That would solve more than a few problems.
The list of dual citizens seems to be taken out of someone's ass. There are at least 4 gentiles that I can spot in two seconds. I doubt it has any validity.
Hey, Chuck, how about this as evidence?Try this:
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp
and this
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html
Aren't you selective?
Also, you seem to say that Iraq war is fine if it is fought for oil?
Iraq war was not waged for a single reason. Interests of several groups came together (neocons and oil industry, to name the usual two suspects), in addition to people who supported the war because of honest belief it could bring good things to the Mideast if waged correctly.
Peter, if you actually understood the economics of the oil industry, you might understand that the pricing is very inelastic, ie small changes in either supply or demand lead to big changes in the price. This inelasticity stems, not from conspiracies, but rather huge fixed costs and long lead times for drilling and infrastructure. It is recognized by any expert out there, that changes in demand from China and India are largely responsible for changes on the demand side. Most experts also recognize that the lack of profitability in the industry from 1985 through 2000 led to many oil and gas producers going broke, thus reducing the supply. And as far as the USA going to war to obtain oil, we don't need to as it is much cheaper just to buy it from the tinpot dicators in the many countries that so willingly sell it.
I suppose after we attack Iran, the Israel lovers will be telling us it was to get Iranian oil. Of course that's not the reasoning McCain and Obama were offering up at the AIPAC meeting to standing ovations, was it?
This war for oil canard has been served up by the Israel lobby for one purpose, to fool the American public and deflect criticism from their own treachery. Publishing a news article in the NYT that discusses oil contracts between Iraq and American oil companies does not change that fact. It confirms it.
current wars and the upcoming wars were/are pushed from behind closed doors by GE/nuke power industry and the glass industry . GE would benefit from the country going nuke and GE owns NBC(able to push blame onto the innocent jews). the glass industry also was in on the dirty deed(need to control world supply of sand).
note the huge number of glass reps in academia, media, and the appointed positions in gov.
Actually, former Big Oil corporate board members like Bush's National Security Affairs adviser/Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Halliburton CEO Cheney joined with the neocons/JINSA/pro-Israeli lobby representatives within the Bush administration to push for the attack on Iraq.
But, for obvious reasons, the Big Oil companies whose former executives were also responsible for the strategically and morally disastrous decision to attack Iraq (and their allies within the U.S. military-industrial-academic complex-think-tank world) apparently want to place all the historical blame for this decision just on the Zionist Lobby.
A similar thing seemed to happen in Germany after World War II. Nearly all the German corporation executives, German journalists and German professors that had enthusiastically supported Hitler's decision to launch WW II until the German military machine got stopped at Stalingrad, placed all the historical blame for this decision, after Germany's defeat, just on German Chancellor Hitler and the Nazi leadership.
It's unlikely that the current era of permanent war in the Middle East will really end until the special influence of both the pro-Israeli Lobby and Big Oil over U.S. foreign policy-making decisions is finally ended. And since AIPAC and Big Oil also exercise a special influence over both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, neither a Democratic president nor a GOP president in 2009 is likely to end the current era of permanent war in the Middle East (especially if the Pentagon agrees to automatically carry out a Bush White House order for an attack on Iran after the November 2008 election, but before the January 20, 2009 inauguration of Bush's successor).
"Publishing a news article in the NYT that discusses oil contracts between Iraq and American oil companies does not change that fact. It confirms it."
In other words, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Should NYT not report about it so that it doesn't look like Israel Lobby's attempts top shift blame? I don't understand.
I am not for one moment deny Israel Lobby involvement in Iraq War. I indeed have no good knowledge of how oil or military industry interests might be at play. However, to suggest that the *sole* motive for the war in Iraq was to safeguard Israeli interests strikes me as too simplistic as well as trying to create a scape goat for the botched affair that at the time was supported by a lot of people. Looks to me that some of this people, seeing how disastrous the affair turned out to be now need to divert the blame from themselves too.
Again, I am all for exposing the nefarious lobby and punishing the responsible; I am against a witch hunt that will satisfy itself with finding somebody to lynch and then go on.
A couple of germaine links:
Joseph Massad on the lobby:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/787/op35.htm
Quote:
"The underlying argument has been simple and has been told time and again by Washington's regime allies in the Arab world, pro-US liberal and Arab intellectuals, conservative and liberal US intellectuals and former politicians, and even leftist Arab and American activists who support Palestinian rights, namely, that absent the pro- Israel lobby, America would at worst no longer contribute to the oppression of Arabs and Palestinians and at best it would be the Arabs' and the Palestinians' best ally and friend. What makes this argument persuasive and effective to Arabs? Indeed, why are its claims constantly brandished by Washington's Arab friends to Arab and American audiences as a persuasive argument? I contend that the attraction of this argument is that it exonerates the United States' government from all the responsibility and guilt that it deserves for its policies in the Arab world and gives false hope to many Arabs and Palestinians who wish America would be on their side instead of on the side of their enemies."
Finkelstein/Petras debate:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/1557
From Xymphora:
Are They Really Oil Wars? No:
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2008/06/are-they-really-oil-wars-no.html
And this one is damn funny on your media:
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2008/06/cause-and-effect.html
By the way, the appearance of Steve Sailer here criticizing Phil while refusing to provide a link to mondoweiss on the related post he wrote on his site is a good indicator of Phil's increasing popularity. Fear of competition is the only genuine feeling of the blogosphere primadonas.
I'm curious if Peter Potamus here can provide those four unjews.
"I'm curious if Peter Potamus here can
provide those four unjews."
John Bolton,
Ruth Davis,
Larry Franklin,
on top of my head. I said 4 b/c I confused David Frum with Michael Gerson, who is indeed not Jewish. My bad. My point was, they just picked up people with Jewish names, got a couple of gentiles in the process, and claimed something about dual citizenship. This is BS. Even if we don't adhere to the strict legal interpretation of dual citizenship (which, I am sure, most if not all of the people the list do NOT have), claiming dual loyalty needs proof, not some kind of sweeping smear campaign.
I dearly wanted that fourth one, but three in thirty three is not that bad, specially when we got the mad John Bolton and the traitor Larry Franklin as the key unjews.
But I will then make a soft analogy here. The proportions of unjews on that list mirrors the war-for-oil credibility factor, while the other 90% mirrors the war-for-the-jews plus the war-for-war-sake credibility factor, being those last two one and the same, as Joe Lieberman may tell you.
And of course the "dual citizenship" is indeed a bogus claim, but the plague of dual allegiance will be the bane of the american dream.
Anonomous of Saint Barbara, it's 3 in 32, if we are being nitpicky, since Christopher Gersten – who, btw, I doubt is a Jew based on his first name – appears on the list twice :)
But you do know that any evildoers list without name repetition is considered incomplete, don't you? It's de rigueur.
Anyway you are now being considered for nomination to the prestigious righteous nitpicker award, for trying to save the last unjew twice. It's an accomplishment of dershowitzean proportions and the first step on the hard and dangerous road of those who want to attain Wieselhood which is like becomming a sort of Mondoweissian Buddha.
left off are luti and rhoades and hadley and pipes and zakheim and many more hidden in bowels of deceit.
i judge em by their words and deeds. nut case bolton(en?) and gaffney and franklin and others act, talk like the most lunatic of israelis so they qualify. certainly arent christian.
forgot the 2nd most incompetent cia director, woolsey. he is sharon's personal boot licker and thumb sucker. a judeo-not-christian parasite.
1st most incompetent per usa security concerns goes to deutch. gave lots of stuff to israel.
Comments on this entry are closed.