Columbia U book on Iraq war suggests Wolfie, Feith, Wurmser and Perle had ‘Israeli interests, not just U.S. interests at heart’

US Politics
on 105 Comments
Paul Pillar on Charlie Rose
Paul Pillar on Charlie Rose

An important new book on the Iraq war published by Columbia University Press, written by a former longtime CIA official, contains a dual loyalty charge against the neoconservatives, saying that some of them had Israeli interests and not just American interests “at heart” in pushing the war. The charge concludes a section that names Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, David Wurmser and Paul Wolfowitz as former Bush officials who cared about Israel.

Author Paul Pillar has a stellar Establishment reputation. He held several senior positions at the CIA and National Intelligence Council, serving during the Iraq war. Now a professor at the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, he has published a sharp critique of the war effort, titled Intelligence and US Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform.

I got the book yesterday and find that it repeatedly attacks the neoconservatives for hatching the plans for this disastrous war, which was then executed by “assertive nationalists,” Rumsfeld and Cheney. Pillar calls them a “cabal.”

The Iraq adventure was initiated by a small number of neoconservative intellectuals and assertive nationalists, ultimately backed by George W. Bush’s gut. The numbers were small enough for Powell’s longtime assistant Lawrence Wilkerson to refer plausibly to a “cabal” as being responsible for the war.

Pillar is hardest on the neoconservative ideology of using force to spread democracy in the Arab world. He devotes many pages to exploring, and exploding, these ideas. 

He singles out former Bush aides David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz for their roles in fomenting the war and though he says that talking about Israeli security as a motive is the “third rail of American politics,” he concludes that “sympathy for Israel and its interests” played an important role in the war plans. 

Specifically, in a four-page section titled “Israel,” conveniently overlooked by the NYT Book Review of the book, Pillar cites Feith, Perle and Wurmser for assisting Netanyahu in the late 90s with the “Clean Break” policy paper that urged the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the outsourcing of the Palestinian problem to Jordan. Though he does not say that all three men are Jewish, Pillar quotes these religious words by those neocons in that plan, rejecting the idea of land for peace:

“Our claim to the land to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years–is legitimate and noble.”

Pillar then states that Feith’s “dedication to Israeli interests had an intensely personal foundation,” describing the annihilation of his father Dalck’s whole family in Poland during the Holocaust.

Pillar describes Wolfowitz as “another architect of the Iraq war with connections to Israel” and offers that his sister moved to Israel and he was celebrated by the Jerusalem Post as a strong supporter of Israel.

Pillar’s section on the Israel interests concludes thusly:

Sympathy for Israeli interests probably was not the principal motivator of the decision to launch the Iraq War, but it did play an important supporting role….[S]ome policymakers probably gave less attention or weight than U.S. interests warranted to, say, the American human and material resources required for the post invasion occupation of Iraq because they had Israeli interests (or their particular conception of those interests) and not just U.S. interests at heart.

105 Responses

  1. Dan Crowther
    December 21, 2011, 10:08 am

    Funny, I was reading Justin Elliots latest on the block/davis spat
    link to salon.com

    For some reason, i think both davis and block are going to see eye to eye on Pillars book…great post phil….

  2. Annie Robbins
    December 21, 2011, 10:12 am

    Though he does not say that all three men are Jewish, Pillar quotes these religious words by those neocons in that plan, rejecting the idea of land for peace:

    “Our claim to the land to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years–is legitimate and noble.”

    hmm. excellent review phil.

  3. seafoid
    December 21, 2011, 10:15 am

    Endless war is not “good for the Jews”. It has coarsened Israel and means the society is more violent. More extremist. Unable to plan efficiently. I imagine there’s a lot of wife beating in Israel compared to Norway.

    Perle and co live in gated communities and will never feel the insecurity of Jews who are forced to leave their Sparta.

  4. Krauss
    December 21, 2011, 10:19 am

    I think it is legitimate to talk about these issues.
    But what I do not want is a situation where it is the only thing we talk about.

    The Israel Lobby is powerful, yes, but it isn’t the only lobby influencing foreign policy. Not just among (semi) ethnic lobbies, but we have to take into account the military-industrial complex too. As well as simple greed for oil. Iraq has the capacity to produce 10 mb/d of oil. It was producing 3.5 or so for several decades under Saddam due to underinvestment and other issues. Of course that plays a huge role too.

    I would hazard that his book is more nuanced than the view we get here, which is, basically, only Israel and the neocons.
    Walt and Mearsheimer stated this on the issue a few years back:

    “The Iraq war was not solely influenced by the Israel lobby. There were other factors at play. But it was a major force, and without it, the war would likely not have happened”.

    That’s speculation on their part, of course, but it’s a valid speculation nontheless.
    Another issue: it’s very naive of him to talk about the neocons and then use the word ‘cabal’ in the context.

    I think he basically argues that a bunch of Jewish Israel-Firsters together with Rumsfeld/Cheney and the Oil Lobby/Military-Industrial complex convened upon Iraq and sold it to the public by a willing/coerced media.

    But if we only focus on one part, the Israel Firsters, then that brutalizes the discussion and simplifies it. I take the hyperventilation of the neocons lightly, but the specter of a slow-moving anti-Semitism in certain circles shouldn’t be underestimated if the discussion is allowed to be dumbed down and solely focused on the Jewish fringe concentrated among the neocons(sure there were non-Jewish neocons too, but these were generally not as influential and/or as numerous, with a few exceptions).

    I haven’t read the book, but I would venture that it was more nuanced than this view that we’ve gotten here. I don’t mean to be harsh, but it risks the author being singled out for a single-minded focus he didn’t have – by only focusing on one issue – and narrowing the discussion to only the Israel lobby which I find disheartening and frankly a little bit dangerous.

    Don’t take this comment as a call for censorship; rather as a call to broaden the discussion and give it depth.

    • Sin Nombre
      December 21, 2011, 11:10 am

      Krauss wrote:

      “I take the hyperventilation of the neocons lightly, but the specter of a slow-moving anti-Semitism in certain circles shouldn’t be underestimated if the discussion is allowed to be dumbed down and solely focused…”

      Oh, right, bar the door Katie! Forget the distinctly non-spectral reality of even Tom Friedman essentially saying that if you hadn’t had some 25 jewish folks in certain positions in Washington we’d have never gone into Iraq and gotten near 5000 of our own people killed, some multiple of that maimed, and some hundreds of thousands of Iraqis immolated!

      And forget the distinctly non-spectral reality of AIPAC and other Israeli-centric jewish individuals and organizations pushing us to war against Iran, and pushing this “War on Terror” crap including domestic legislation allowing indeterminate imprisonment of us without trial.

      And forget the non-spectral fact that those same folks are using every ounce of brain and dollars they can to get us to hand over billions upon billions to Israel every year to subsidize the stealing of Palestinian land, and the treatment of the Palestinians as helots.

      And forget the non-spectral reality that since the PA has said it won’t talk anymore until at least the settlement expansions stop that the organized jewish community in the U.S. has *still* clearly continued supporting Israel while it continues down that path instead of opting to see it stopped and seeing peace talks resume.

      And forget the non-spectral reality that even in what might be called the “unorganized” jewish community only some pitiful handful of its members have come out against continuing to support Israel while it goes down that path choosing not to even talk peace.

      No no no! Forget that! Forget *all* that! What’s important of course is the mere *specter* that somewhere, at some point, someone might take a bit of disliking to the jews generally!

      I mean … quelle horreur! What’s a few hundred thousand lives and all that other stuff matter when compared to something *serious* like … advertising how allegedly ethically superior we all are by being against stereotyping!

      … and then people wonder how Israel is getting away with it all.

      • Krauss
        December 21, 2011, 11:42 am

        Sin Nombre, you’re losing your head in hyperbole.
        I’m not saying ‘forget it’, I’m saying ‘broaden it’.

        Take a deep breath. Slowly.

        • Sin Nombre
          December 21, 2011, 12:13 pm

          Yeah, you’re probably right Krauss; sorry to pick on you. I’m just sick of the uber-politically-correct sensitivity that seems to me has gotten us into this situation in the first place. Nobody can say s___ that is about what’s blatantly going on because of being smeared as an anti-semite, so absolutely leaving these Israeli Firsters an open field over which they’ve run us into Iraq and this War on Terror and etc. and so forth.

          I just don’t think we can afford to care even anymore realistically. And like I say, if the jewish community isn’t concerned about it enough, why should I be? Of course it *says* it is, but then as I also observed where is that *whole* community now that the Palestinians have simply said stop the settlements and we will talk. Has that community in *any* significant measure stopped its support of Israel? In *any* significant way?

          Hell no. So why is it wrong to observe that well, that community does indeed feel that Israel stealing ever more Palestinian land is more important than it talking peace? Please God *someone* please tell me why this is invalid and wrong.

          Because if it isn’t wrong, the just how much does that jewish community really care about being negatively viewed? Not as much as it cares about seeing the Israelis ever expand those settlements, logic says.

          So how come one can’t just conclude that that community hasn’t just made that choice? Life is tough, choices do have to be made. And you can’t have your settlement cakes and eat the idea that gee you’re wonderful and spotless and would never support anything bad as a group too.

        • Jeffrey Blankfort
          December 21, 2011, 1:51 pm

          Krauss, while you are concerned about what you call “the specter of a slow-moving anti-Semitism in certain circles” it is not just the neocons this time but virtually the entire Jewish establishment that is swiftyly pushing hard for a US attack on Iran and/or support for the Israelis should they elect to do it and it has been doing so since the invasion of Iraq, a fact that has largely been ignored by the same folks on the Left who keep insisting that it was a war for oil, an argument that even the NY Times in its latest summary of the war easily disproves.

          The problem, Krauss, is not anti-Semitism at any speed but the growth of a virulent form of philo-semitism among certain Republicans and Christian evangelicals which negates the humanity of the Palestinians and undermines what little is left of our democracy.

        • teta mother me
          December 21, 2011, 2:14 pm

          I have to give my vote to Sin Nombre here, Krauss.
          It was is not just a “cabal” of Jewish neocons allied with Cheney-Rumsfeld; the Israel lobby has achieved full spectrum dominance, its network has a hub in Israel’s highest government offices — Netanyahu’s, as well as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; multiple Jewish billionaires support the lobby; writers who get published because publishers are in the network are part of the spectrum– Mike Evans, and Simon Winchester and Erik Larson come to mind , but no best selling author in any genre makes it through the front door of a major bookstore unless the right things are said about holocaust/Israel/zionism ( David McCullough writes important histories but manages to skirt the issues that would bring the Foxman hammer down on his typewriter).

          Further down this thread American spelled out how and why the oil companies did not want and did not benefit from war on Iraq.

          Also further downthread, PABelmont lists other lobbies with a keen interest in promoting war, among them the defense contractors. When I lived in the DC area in the mid-1980s, and at the time that Martin Marietta merged with Lockheed, dozens of houses in my neighborhood were sold to Jewish employees of either Martin Marietta then Lockheed Martin. One neighbor came to my house regularly and cried over coffee at my kitchen table because her (Hebrew-speaking) husband had been sent to Israel for 6-8 months at a time.
          In that period of time Dov Zakheim held very influential positions in either the Pentagon itself or in major consultants to the DoD. There is a direct linkage between Israel interests and the interests of the defense industry. (Also worth noting — the aeronautics industry that is proving to be of major importance to the economy of South Carolina — Lindsay Graham’s turf–is importing high-skill workers from Israel and Russia, to the chagrin of locals who think they are equally qualified to hold those high-paying jobs.)

          Zakheim was one of the panelists in a discussion of Jacob Heilbrunn’s book (that Phil has cited in the past), They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (Heilbrunn had been a ‘neocon,’ he states). When Heilbrunn said that a primary motivation for several of the neocons listed as ‘part of the cabal’ was their loss of family members in the world war, Zakheim tried to squelch the notion, but Heilbrunn fought back.

          In the 1990s the Jewish population of the DC suburbs ballooned — according to the Jewish demographic studies, the Jewish population in the Washington metro area increased by more than 50,000 from 1990 to 2010 { DC msa Jewish pop. 2001, 165,000 DC msa Jewish pop. 2010, 215,600.} An article that was published in a Jewish newspaper (that I can’t find just at this moment) reports that whereas Jews held only low-level positions–mostly as translators, iirc– in Washington policy making circles, in 1995, Jews made enormous gains in access to decision-making or decision-shaping positions in the State Department among other Washington bureaucracies.

          The Iran Task Force whose mission is to “educate” Americans on the “threat to humanity” posed by Iran is part of the World Jewish Diplomatic Congress, which in turn is funded by Israel’s MFA.

          The qualitative and directional shift toward Israel in Washington policy making correlates with a quantitative increase in Jewish persons present at the policy making table and a leap in wealth aggregation of a number of prominent Jews, among them Sandy Weil at Citibank and others that have already been mentioned.

          First generation survivors of Europe’s wars — my father’s generation, for example –provided relatively few to the policy making apparatus; my father, for example, was too injured by the war to be able to do so. The maturation of the second generation, the sons and daughters of war survivors, particularly among the Jewish people, coincided with the bringing to dominance of the Holocaust — American Jews, Portrait of a Split Personality, published in 1968, has NO reference whatsoever to Holocaust or zionism; the words are not indexed and I did not come across them in reading the text. Steven Spielberg, the Bronfmans, Egypt’s peace accord with Israel in 1979, and Iran’s revolution in the same year, were major factors in propelling the holocaust to worldwide awareness.

        • proudzionist777
          December 21, 2011, 4:19 pm

          I had thought the Saudis were pushing the US for an attack on Iran?

        • Mndwss
          December 21, 2011, 5:07 pm

          p777 “I had thought the Saudis were pushing the US for an attack on Iran?”

          Do you often think you are going to pee, and end up with your pants full of shit?

        • traintosiberia
          December 21, 2011, 8:39 pm

          proudzionist777 says:

          Are they pushing? Or have they been told by US to push?
          Chairman of OIC just assetered that Iran was not building any nukes. Majority of Arab citizen from Morocco to Iraq have supported neuclear ambitions of Iran and contiunes to do so.
          First Gulf War was resented by Saudis , Egyptians and they wanted to continue negotiation to let Iraq leave Kuwait with some respect.This was ignored by US under pressures from Israel and neocons.

        • RoHa
          December 21, 2011, 9:29 pm

          “I had thought the Saudis were pushing the US for an attack on Iran?”

          I haven’t seen the slighted scrap of evidence for this.

          (And I really find it difficult to believe that the Saudis are going to be happy at the prospect of the Gulf being closed to shipping and a full-scale, knock-down-drag-out war against the biggest player in the area.)

          Do you have any evidence?

        • Annie Robbins
          December 21, 2011, 9:33 pm

          didn’t we just have this conversation yesterday pz, wasn’t your sole piece of evidence a leaked cable written by our own state department?

          cough

        • tomloveswine
          December 22, 2011, 8:08 am

          One way to slow up the calls for attack in Iran is to make sure those that call are those in the front line. We should not kill our kids for people who are not willing to have their children killed in the cause that they have pushed. One nation has caused so many conflicts but have not provided one man hour to any United Nation operation. That nation did not provide one man hour to korea or Vietnam.
          Let those that cause the wars fight them. The will do more for peace on earth and anything I can do.

        • dahoit
          December 22, 2011, 9:20 am

          Yeah,look at the Israeli response to the 14 SC members calling the wacko state irresponsible and unjust by framing it as disgusting.What’s really disgusting is their behavior,and the fact that they are making alleged anti-semitism a badge of honor instead of a calumny.
          What do you expect from racist wackos who express forms of bigotry far beyond any of their detractors,and seem to actually believe their own BS.
          The ghost of Adolf smiles.

        • Citizen
          April 12, 2012, 11:20 am

          Broaden it? Why not focus on the most essential: “The Iraq war was not solely influenced by the Israel lobby. There were other factors at play. But it was a major force, and without it, the war would likely not have happened”.

      • Citizen
        December 21, 2011, 12:09 pm

        Not to mention Big Oil did not favor invasion of Iraq; it’s not in the interest of Big Oil to create turmoil in the ME. None of the Arab countries that give oil to the West would not sell it–Israel is basically a problem for them and us.

    • MRW
      December 21, 2011, 11:15 am

      Krauss, read the Amazon reviews!

      • teta mother me
        December 21, 2011, 2:47 pm

        thanks for the suggestion, MRW.

        this from Robert Steele’s review:

        “I actually thought Aspin-Brown did pretty well, and in his discussion of Senator Boren’s 2004 try, am reminding [sic] that the 1992 try was killed by Senator John Warner and then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, both opposed to any reduction of the fraud, waste, and abuse monies flowing into Virginia and across the country.”

        one sleepless night some months ago I listened to the Senate debate on whether to give GWB the power to go to war in Iraq. Warner turned the tide. The senate was leaning against a war resolution; Warner gave a speech in the Senate that was the equivalent of Colin Powell’s UN speech. His speech changed the dynamics in the room and swung the vote.

        Pat Buchanan’s residence is a short walk away from CIA hdqt in Virginia, but Warner’s lifeblood is pumped by the military-intelligence complex in his Virginia state/ district.

    • seafoid
      December 21, 2011, 11:46 am

      The system is bigger than Zionism. Any assessment would need to factor in the nature of modern capitalism and its dependence on cheap oil as a casus belli in Iraq. However Zionism was at the heart of it and the war was supported most enthusiastically by the Jewish elite. Which is a tragedy. When serious war eventually comes to Israel Tel Aviv should expect the Fallujah treatment.

      • Dan Crowther
        December 21, 2011, 12:48 pm

        “Tel Aviv should expect the Fallujah treatment.”

        Lets hope not, Seafoid.

        • seafoid
          December 21, 2011, 3:46 pm

          Dan

          It would be nice if Israel could come to its senses but the reliance on violence
          to address longstanding structural problems is not very encouraging. It’s almost as if Israel is moving slowly to Masada , deliberately.
          The IDF is a huge part of the problem. The whole society is driven by the wrong incentives. Maybe a financial shock would do the trick.

      • teta mother me
        December 21, 2011, 2:58 pm

        I would phrase that differently, seafoid; I suggest that zionism is bigger than the system; zionism incorporates the kind of “modern capitalism” that you allude to; in fact, if you trace the history carefully you notice that the “nature of modern capitalism” arose at the same time and from the same sources/individuals as zionism.
        Samuel Untermyer, the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, Schiffs and Rockefellars are the biographies to study (among a few others) and 1913 is a critical year (again, among others). These were the major players who co-existed with the emergence of zionism, especially as it shifted first from Russia to Great Britain and then to New York.

        Untermyer had his fingers in pies whose ingredients included the creation of “Christian zionism” in 1909 with the impress of the Scofield bible; Warner Brothers and other movie studios that pumped out anti-German propaganda relentlessly; the bankers who simultaneously financed Warner Brothers AND financed BOTH sides of the wars that they incited; the funds used to blackmail key politicians to gain judicial appointments who in turn positioned themselves at the elbows of the blackmailed politicians; the creation of the US central banking system; a visceral, irrational, supremacist anti-German passion that was every bit the equal of Caroline Glick and Pam Geller’s Islamophobia baked in the same tart, and all geared toward the creation and perpetual financial support for zionism and Israel.

        • seafoid
          December 21, 2011, 4:18 pm

          Capitalism is much bigger than Zionism even if Zionists are involved in some of the core institutions. The whole system is rotten. Zionism has a colonial problem on top.

          I think when things get really hairy for the global economy the Zionists will be left to fend for themselves and they’ll learn diplomacy pretty quickly because deep down they are undoubtedly smart if a little misguided.

        • dahoit
          December 22, 2011, 9:37 am

          Ditto.I was writing along the same lines but you said it more civilized than I was.
          And it all sprang from the head of Zeus,correct?(blame the Greeks)

        • Citizen
          April 12, 2012, 11:24 am

          teta mother me: yes

      • traintosiberia
        December 21, 2011, 9:05 pm

        No. No Israeli child deserves Fallujah.

        • Chaos4700
          December 21, 2011, 10:32 pm

          Lucky Israeli children, too, they almost certainly will NEVER have to live through the sort of hell that Palestinian children do. It’s a sad state of affairs when the victims of Israelis know more about what it must have been like for Jews in the Holocaust then citizens of the so-called “Jewish state” will ever have to experience first hand.

        • teta mother me
          December 21, 2011, 10:42 pm

          No Fallujah child deserved Fallujah.

        • seafoid
          December 22, 2011, 5:53 am

          The Middle East didn’t deserve Zionism.

        • seafoid
          December 22, 2011, 5:55 am

          No Israeli child

        • Chaos4700
          December 23, 2011, 12:47 am

          What we did in Fallujah was a crime against humanity. I think some day the United States is going to have answer for all the pain and hideously short lives we forced on innocent people who had NOTHING to do with nukes or 9/11.

    • American
      December 21, 2011, 12:05 pm

      Krauss

      I think you would have to put the oil company lobby theory as last on the list.
      The FT, CS Monitor and all the Oil Industry ‘s own reports covered the oil interest qualms about the Iraq invasion extensively before the invasion of Iraq. There isn’t a example of where the US ever actually ‘seized’ the oil fields of another country and ‘gave’ it no bid or otherwise to any US oil company. From the oil companies point of view war is the riskiest way for them to obtain oil contracts…they are subject to lose all their investment by revolts or change of rulers that might ‘nationalize’ their oil resources and award contract to some other company. Even in countries like Columbia that we’ve never invaded companies like Exxon are subject to disruption and terrorism by groups who object to what they see as US companies getting too good a deal from their governments and cheating the people.
      Prior to invading Iraq France, Russia, China and other countries had multibillion dollar contracts with Saddam that entitled them to drill in Iraq’s oil fields. The contracts were frozen because of UN sanctions.
      If the oil companies here or any where had that kind of lobbying power they would be lobbying ‘against’ sanctions to begin with. Every day a barrel of oil isn’t produced they lose money.
      Once a war is certain however the oil companies do have an interest in reasserting their prior contracts or in contracts being offered for new bids….but that is a long haul with uncertain outcomes because no one knows what government will come out of war or how long it will last.
      Iraq is even more unstable than it was before the US invasion with the Sunnis and Shiites still jockeying for power.

      There are several foreign country oil companies and oil consortiums operating in Iraq now. One US company Exxon has contracts with the Kurds who want to be independent from Iraq. Iraq right now is getting ready to kick Exxon out and quash the Kurds attempt to consider themselves and their oil as separate from Iraq.
      link to upi.com
      If this happens, and it probably will, Exxon has lost billions of up front investment. At points like an oil company might lobby it’s government to see if they can prevent being kicked out but there also aren’t many examples of the US being able to do this once they have turned over the country to whatever government they set up or tired to set up.

      Besides deposing an anti Israel Saddam, the oil in the Kurds region was one thing Israel was interested in…why Israelis were operating covertly in Iraq for the Kurds and pushing their efforts to separate from Iraq. In their plans in the invasion of Iraq was a pipeline for Kurdish oil to Israel. This was one of the reasons for Feith’s falling out with Chalabi…learning that Chalabi had his own ideas about ruling Iraq and Israeli interest didn’t’ figure in his agenda.

      ‘Governments’ have an interest in oil supplies, particulary neocon governments with players like Cheney. Oil companies however are about profit with the least risk and they have to depend on whatever government is in control in a country to maintain their business there—-lobbying for invasions or take over of countries is not something they do. Typically they rely more on bribes or incentives to whatever ruler or government they are submitting bids to and have to operate under.
      Just as in Iraq now, everything including oil contracts are subject to change, sending their investment down the drain. A government created by a foreign invasion makes instability and changes even more likely.

      • bob
        December 21, 2011, 5:58 pm

        Oil companies were fighting and lobbying to increase trade to both Iraq and Iran. In the late 1990′s, Iraq was begging to sell their oil, and U.S. companies like ExxonMobil (and the American Petroleum Institute) were lobbying to ease the sanctions . link to nytimes.com
        Meanwhile, the lobby, as it were, was pushing for both Iraq invasions (yes, the first one, too link to mondoweiss.net link to mondoweiss.net . In Iran, AIPAC, the Bronfmans, and senator D’amato lobbied and passed harsh sanction on trade with Iran when US oil companies was Iran’s biggest oil trading partner by far. When the neocons were writing in the mid nineties about “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right,” Cheney was talking about how an invasion would be a quagmire.

        What about the opinion of the “oil guys.” Obviously, Daddy Bush was against the invasion, much top the very public chagrin of the neoconservatives who very openly fought against Clinton, then Powell in pushing for the war. Phillip Carrol, the former CEO of Shell oil thought the neoconservative plan was terrible. The James A Baker Institute wrote a paper warning about the war.

        The James Baker institute “cautioned against expectations of an Iraqi oil bonanza with the assessment that “Iraq’s oil industry is in desperate need of repair and investment” after more than two decades of wars and sanctions. It also warned that the pace of recovery in Iraq’s oil sector would depend on the post-invasion political and security environment. “

      • traintosiberia
        December 21, 2011, 8:46 pm

        I remeber Colin Powell , immediately after the 2003 war asking Arab nations to recognize and do business with israel. He also touted the prospect of restarting of the pipeline from Kurdistan to Haifa ASAP.

        • bob
          December 21, 2011, 9:40 pm

          Powell, Scowcroft, and others were the most influential figures in pushing back from this neoconservative war for regime change. Powell and his representation of a more “Daddy Bush” style foreign policy, was particularly hamstrung, though, he had significant policy influence before 2002.

        • Jeffrey Blankfort
          December 22, 2011, 12:58 am

          Powell was, in the end, a soldier obeying orders but was never trusted by the neocons, even before he told his biographer that the war in Iraq was the responsibility of “the JINSA crowd.” He knew who was guiding the hands that were pushing the levers but strangely that comment of his was ignored by “the no blood for oil” demagogues of the Left who have acted as the Lobby’s rear guard and are still doing so.

          “No blood for Israel!” should be the slogan now but in case people haven’t noticed, despite all the talk about the likelihood of an attack on Iran, there has been no visible anti-war activity on the part of the groups that directed the protests against either Iraq war. Under the circumstances, one must conclude that the Zionists have done a good job in getting all the bases covered.

        • bob
          December 22, 2011, 7:46 am

          “No blood for Israel!” should be the slogan now but in case people haven’t noticed, despite all the talk about the likelihood of an attack on Iran, there has been no visible anti-war activity on the part of the groups that directed the protests against either Iraq war.

          No help from the left from sympathetic media members or people like Chomsky.

          Its worse when people think the baseless “took their oil” claim deserves equal treatment to the highly nuanced Israeli lobby genre of research which passed through an unimaginable gauntlet of trials and attacks. These premises and the rigor in which they were developed have an incredible inequality on the quality of their research. One has throngs of supporters ranging from highly paid professionals to emotional bloggers and posters throwing attacks and demangind nuance at every turn. One does not and its quite possible to throw the most hap hazard arguments about “oil corporations” with no chance of reprisal.

    • Donald
      December 21, 2011, 12:26 pm

      Krauss, I basically agree. The Lobby is a big factor in our foreign policy and in the invasion of Iraq, but not the only factor. To the extent that people here might over-emphasize it sometimes it’s in part because it is so underemphasized everywhere else.

      • lysias
        December 21, 2011, 1:06 pm

        The Lobby may not have been the only factor in our invasion of Iraq, but it was a decisive factor. Without it, there would have been much more Democratic opposition to the invasion that probably would have prevented it from happening.

    • BradAllen
      December 21, 2011, 12:52 pm

      You’re quite right Krauss, and we should never forget the other factors that influence US foreign policy. However, I tend to think that if the Israel lobby was not a major factor in this one, then other groups would not have had the same influence or power to push this war. The key question is who benefits the most. The other groups likely would have pushed the idea too but they would have picked their battles better and may have even abandoned the push fearing Colin Powell for one and AARP for the other. The involvement of the Israel lobby tipped the balance.

      • BradAllen
        December 21, 2011, 12:54 pm

        One more point, i still remember the cries in Congress during those days, where many reps were saying “its the jews again”, not too many of them dare say that again.

        • dahoit
          December 22, 2011, 9:45 am

          Wha?

        • Mycos
          December 25, 2011, 2:12 pm

          Ditto. Whaaaaaa?

        • Annie Robbins
          December 25, 2011, 2:17 pm

          i’m down for the trifecta

    • American
      December 21, 2011, 1:44 pm

      “by only focusing on one issue – and narrowing the discussion to only the Israel lobby which I find disheartening and frankly a little bit dangerous.”…Krauss

      The dangerous thing Krauss is not discussing it, bringing it out and putting an end to it.
      I believe everyone understands that we do have a certain zionist/Jewish cabal that operates for Israel. Whether some of them delude themselves or justify it by saying they are also pushing US interest is really beside the point.
      Everyone also sees that US neocons and Jewish neocons collaborate with other…no one denies that.
      But people like Feith, Perle and a host of others are interested in the US only in the sense of what it can do for Israel and because in a so called representative democracy and capitalist society like ours there hundreds of avenues to undue influence and corruption of government.
      Having a huge military, being a supreme power, controlling regions like the ME…
      all things neos support the zios also support…but for their interest in Israel because they know the US is the sole source of Israel’s power.

      What is hypocritical is what we see all the time….being told that we can’t point out the zionist influenced congress or Israel interest because it is dangerous to Jews.
      When we see every single day, and on here by committed zionist like eee and witty saying that they put Jews interest and welfare above other people’s and it is only natural for them and any group to put their interest first.
      Then turn around and say other people can’t state or put their own interest first because it is dangerous to Jews.
      If there is to be a fight between Jews/Zionist and Americans on whose interest comes first, theirs and America’s, or Israel’s and the Jews, it is fight they themselves started and brought on by their allegiance to the foreign country of Israel.
      Because if it ever came down to a no choice- choice between Jews and Israel or America and Americans then Americans, including the Christian zios, just like the Israel first zionist are going to put the US and themselves first.
      The ultimate danger to Jews if is the US zionist and Israel succeed in having the US even further infiltrated and involved in the insanity and agendas of Israel and push a choice on us.

      Whatever is said now about Jews/zionist/Israel will increase 100000x’s more if Israel is able to get the US to attack Iran or even get more involved in the ME.

    • seafoid
      December 21, 2011, 3:51 pm

      I think the Israel lobby is powerful but ultimately it will be marginalised because it doesn’t have a big constituency behind it . It has been fantastic for the Zionists to get this far over say 3 generations but their success contains the seeds of their ultimate failure. Shamelessly putting Israel forward was okay as long as the US was doing well but with hundreds of thousand of people in Ohio running out of unemployment benefits next month, what has Israel got to offer them?

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        December 22, 2011, 1:48 pm

        While The Lobby may have sowed the seeds of its own destruction it is difficult to speculate if and when they’ll sprout, particularly when it dominates not only Congress and the public discussion at every level but the media which reports it.

        Consequently the unemployed of Ohio and very other state have very little knowledge of how Israel and its agents in the US have negatively influenced their lives and added to the corruption of our political system.

        The most important aspect of Tom Friedman’s recent comment about how Congress has been bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby is that his column is syndicated in newspapers, large and small, throughout the country where, with hardly any exceptions, nary is heard a negative word about the tail that wags the dog. Friedman’s statement may get a few people to start thinking about the subject and its implications.

    • Charon
      December 21, 2011, 4:43 pm

      I’m sure there is some sort of a war equation out there. The Bush administration had the right amount of neocons (many who wrote a clean break and were involved in pnac), banking/finance veterans, and oil men (from various oil-related backgrounds) to all agree on the equation. Increase and better standardize existing oil supply, remove current regime, make oil lobbies happy, make saudis happy, make other neighbors happy, make Israel happy, reduce population, potentially divide and partition population, Western archaeological access to important ancient sites, insert Western-friendly dictator, etc.

      Could say many of the same things to Iran, although to a much lesser degree. And the administration has changed so there is no astronomical alignment to wage war.

    • Pixel
      December 21, 2011, 5:36 pm

      Cabal: A cabal is a group of people united in some close design together, usually to promote their private views and/or interests in a church, state, or other community, often by intrigue.

      Cabal is appropriate.

    • traintosiberia
      December 21, 2011, 8:30 pm

      Krauss says:
      December 21, 2011 at 10:19 am

      I have a few reservations about your commnets
      1- Oil lobby did not want this war. It does not help them to have interrupted flows of oil, loss of business from destruction of pipelines,fires,saboatge and lack of security. May be Halliburton saw it as an opportunity of rebuilding the infrastructures after destruction by the neocon’s war.But not the big players back then. Right now oil lobby does not want war with Iran.They want to do business with Iran.
      It was the intentionally stupid commnet by Fed Chairman that brought this lies to the realm of respectabilty and useful obfuscation.

    • American
      December 22, 2011, 1:49 am

      I have given Krauss’s comment about not singling out the Israel lobby or zios becuase of anti semitism a second and third thought.

      I think those who see us as “ganging up on” the Jews or Israel don’t fully understand where some of us are coming from.
      First any decent person, looking at what Israel had done, is doing to Palestine is going to be appalled.
      When that person also learns that his own government is complicit because his politicians take blood money to allow and enable it and some do it because they more loyal to Israel —-then that doubles the outrage.

      What higher form of corruption could possibility exist in a nation than a country’s leaders allowing a lesser client country to literally kill real live mostly defenseless people and steal from real live people for fucking decades and decades, in return for dirty money and votes for their political careers from a small special interest group dedicated to that lesser client state?
      If anyone can think of a worse, more in your face immoral, despicable form of corruption than this please let me know cause I can’t.

      There have been a lot of mea culpas and finger pointing by politicans saying they ‘didn’t know” they were being lied to about Iraq and some of them may have been fooled. BUT…they KNOW about Israel, they KNOW. They have known for DECADES exactly what Israel is doing. And still they allow it.

      That some Jews might be uncomfortable is not a good enough reason to allow the zionist and the lobby and Israel to continue doing what they do.
      Being ‘uncomfortable’ about anti semitism is going to be the least of their and our problems if this Israel fetish in the US government isn’t stopped.

      • Sin Nombre
        December 22, 2011, 8:56 am

        AMERICAN wrote:

        “What higher form of corruption could possibility exist in a nation than a country’s leaders allowing a lesser client country to literally kill real live mostly defenseless people and…”

        Kind of a shame this appears buried, in what seems a possibly played-out thread, but even given the likelihood that no-one is gonna read this I’m gonna respond anyway.

        My response to this is to suggest an amendment to AMERICAN’s formulation here to say that there is perhaps no greater corruption than he mentions … when that “greater” country does what it does *and* it is against its own interests, and I think this is cause for some reflection.

        It seems to me that perhaps quite a lot of the ability of Israel to get the U.S. to do what it has lies in the damage that was done since the Sixties to the idea of patriotism and the idea that the U.S. should indeed conduct itself in its own interests.

        And the reason I think this is damaging is, for one, exactly what we see going on with the U.S. and Israel now: When a country acts *wrongly* or even in an evil manner but still in the belief it is pursuing its own interests—let’s say as was lots the case in Vietnam—it at least hasn’t lost sight of “the metric” or the bounds of the debate or, even worse, given away control of its actions.

        But the latter is exactly what has happened with the U.S. vis a vis Israel: While our politicians tell the great mass of us supporting Israel *is* in our interests, of course they speak the truth to their jewish audiences when they brag about how their real goal is simply helping Israel. And, predictably, to that very *very* large degree that what we are doing is really for Israel, there’s no metric by which we measure when we change what we are doing or stop entirely. And thus not only have we long passed the point at which it’s obvious our support for Israel hurts us—because, after all, that mostly wasn’t the metric in the first place—but it also explains us going wrong now for what seems an eternity.

        At least since ’72, I’d say, and think about this: Is there *any* discrete policy of the U.S. that’s so clearly bad and wrong that we have pursued for so long? In other words, is this not a record?

        Obviously I know this site is packed with Progressive types, but I’m sorry, I think you guys are lots responsible for this denigration of the idea that the U.S. should primarily act in its own interests, going way back before the Sixties indeed. And I’ll even take on one of what seems your iconic moments and that is so staunchly defending domestic communists back in the 50′s. Yes, that is, McCarthy was a buffoon, but boy are you guys ever still proud of, say, excusifying the actions of Rosenbergs by saying “oh gee they were just universalists working for world peace really,” or the similar sugar-coating of the communist-party membership of the Hollywood people who remained communists even after the Stalin-Molotov Pact. And for anyone doubting that this is what Progressives were doing, what was the title of that relatively recent book by that daughter of some hard-core commies back then? “The Romance Of American Communism,” right?

        And then of course there was the movements that sprang up (understandably perhaps, but still wrong) in the wake of Vietnam essentially saying “oh yes, it’s wrong if not actually *evil* for the U.S. to pursue its own interests,” and that its prime motive should be helping this or that other.

        Well now, I say, that’s what we got now, isn’t it? Outraged by Jonathan Pollard? What’s he done different than the Rosenbergs in a big important way? You dissed the idea of patriotism then and celebrated them, (“they were working for something greater!”), but now that their children, as it were, such as Pollard and other obvious Israeli agents, as working for something “greater” than the U.S. well my God do you know something’s deeply wrong. Same as when you see our politicians clearly acting in Israel’s favor that hurts us.

        Suddenly, that is, there’s some appreciation of the not-total-but-still significant virtues of patriotism.

        Thus, just as I perceive that Progressiveism’s embrace of Political Correctness has essentially given the Israel-Firsters their power of mass silencing via calling people “antisemites,” I think there’s also some responsibility there for exalting the idea that the U.S. should go jumping around lending itself to others’ crusades.

        And indeed when I think of it, especially in light of a recent Haaretz article detailing the wonderful, shocking-to-remember tough way Reagan and his Sec.s of State and Defense dealt with Israel, I believe it can easily be argued that it was especially under liberal/left Presidencies that the U.S. really started to subordinate itself to Israel’s wishes. Carter, Clinton…

        Not to absolve Bush II: He was clearly worst, but he didn’t start it really, and I think it still can be said that in this respect he wasn’t conservative at all. Who, after all, disputes that in general “conservatism” has in the past much more been associated with a “America First” policies and ideas, and opposed to U.S. “internationalism” or universalism?

        Progressives, that is, I think bear some good deal of responsibility to what we are seeing today vis a vis America and Israel. Especially when it came to laying the moral/intellectual foundations for it which, perhaps, is the greatest responsibility of all.

        • dahoit
          December 22, 2011, 10:04 am

          In a true democracy of free people,any political view should be able to be judged on its merits or not,and to condemn the Commies(who are mostly belly up anyway) is somewhat ludicrous in this world of neolibcon slaver warmonger criminality.
          The Soviet Union(and China) getting nukes probably saved millions and millions of lives all over Asia,by preventing US from using ours with impunity,like WW2.

        • American
          December 22, 2011, 11:13 am

          SN.

          I agree liberalism helped created the atmosphere issues like Israel flourish in. Liberalism in many ways is like some mommy giving her child candy to keep him happy and rotting his teeth and making him obese in the process.
          Conservatism on the other hand is often like beating someone up for his own good.
          Both have zero common sense, zero clue about balance.

        • Jeffrey Blankfort
          December 22, 2011, 4:49 pm

          Well before the appearance of the Communist Party on the US scene or anywhere else, and well before Zionism arrived to infect Palestine and later our domestic political discourse, the US was spreading its influence around the globe, supporting and/or installing dictators and intervening militarily hundreds of times simply on the orders of whoever happened to be president.
          Whether that was in the US national interest or not, we’ll give former marine general, Smedley Butler, the last word on that.

          Henry David Thoreau went to prison rather than pay taxes to support the invasion of Mexico in 1846 and Abe Lincoln resigned from Congress as an expression of his opposition to that same war and what amounted to the greatest land theft in recorded history. They didn’t think that war was in our national interest. If one looks at the bottom line, they were both wrong since morality and national interest have rarely been demonstrated to be more mutually exclusive.

          Take Mark Twain. He was one of the major figures in the Anti-Imperialist League which was founded in opposition to the US bloody takeover of the Philippines. Again, morality vs national interest. It was no contest.

          By that same standard, citing a national interest encrusted with the blood of other weaker and darker hued peoples, supporting Israel doesn’t serve it. It has increasingly isolated us from most of the world including traditional allies, and has not enhanced our axis to oil, quite the opposite, but led us into a disastrous and costly war which while enriching a handful of corporations has drained our economy and weakened the US position in the region.

          The Sixties and the antiwar movement had nothing to do with it. As for the McCarthy period which I lived through and suspect that Sin Nombre didn’t, America became like a police state when it came to expressing political opinions. Many of the communists that SN complains about, misguided as they certainly were about the Soviet Union, were domestically heavily involved in the earliest days of the civil rights movement, in labor’s struggles to unionize and for the 8-hour day and joined the army, navy and marines after the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor.

          Although Julius Rosenberg apparently passed scientific secrets to the Soviets, it was German-born Klaus Fuchs who worked on the Manhattan Project who passed on to them the atomic secrets which greatly assisted their building of the bomb. And Rosenberg didn’t do it for money as did Pollard

          As Dahoit points out, with the Soviets and later the Chinese possessing the bomb the world was most likely spared another US launched nuclear attack.
          The other day I had a chance to watch one of the scariest movies I have ever seen, “The Atomic Bomb Movie,” made in 1995 which shows footage of the bomb development and the effect of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and subsequent tests on islands in the Pacific and the deserts of the US. As horrible as was the footage, some of which I had previously seen, the statements from the mouths of the generals, public officials and news reporters were, in their own way, even more frightening. These men were clearly mad as were their successors and had the Soviets, with their own weapons, not forced us to accept the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) concept, we probably would not be around to have this exchange of ideas.

        • American
          December 22, 2011, 10:42 pm

          “subsequent tests on islands in the Pacific “…JB

          I have a good friend, Vince Guariso, whose father was on the ship that observed those tests in the Pacific. When he got out of the Navy he spent the rest of his years being a activist against nuclear use.

    • dahoit
      December 22, 2011, 8:47 am

      60%Israel,40%MIC.Backed by the full throat of the Zionist media,on every channel and frequency,and every populist anti-war actor muted and ignored,crowd sizes diminished and relegated as naive expression of unimportant people.
      But of course any rational explanation for this concerted effort is called a forgery,(By the perps)and every attempt to ignore and marginalize the one guy who can rescue US from this wackiness is coming from that same cabal of witches and warlocks book burners that make Shakespeare’s witches seem tame.

  5. MRW
    December 21, 2011, 10:20 am

    Thanks for reviewing this, Phil. Just bought my Kindle copy. Robert D Steele’s Amazon review of this book at your first link above is not to be missed, either, for some choice quotes.

    • lysias
      December 21, 2011, 12:24 pm

      Note the big saving if you buy the book on Kindle.

    • lysias
      December 21, 2011, 12:56 pm

      Note also that, according to Steele’s review, the book is devastating on the 9/11 Commission Report. When will our media admit that that report is fiction? (Oh, well, they’re still defending the Warren Commission Report.)

  6. Kathleen
    December 21, 2011, 10:48 am

    Whoa can not wait to get this book. Jason Vest (the nation 2002 Men from Jinsa and CSP) Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski, Justin Raimando, Seymour Hersh, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, Kathleen and Bill Christison and so many more have written about this issue. The dual loyalty piece and these individuals not only pushing but controlling the (Office of Special Plans) and the stovepiping of the false intelligence into the White House.
    Definitely will be getting this book. Pillar in the documentary “No end in Sight” had a great deal to say that confirmed what so many had said before the invasion

  7. Scott
    December 21, 2011, 10:52 am

    I want this book for Christmas. I hope he’s not saying that Feith et al. were only partially driven by concern for greater Israel, because that would be a severe understatement.

  8. Kathleen
    December 21, 2011, 10:56 am

    Backing up what it sounds like Pillar is saying go read PHASE I AND PHASE II OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRE WAR INTELLIGENCE

  9. Scott
    December 21, 2011, 10:57 am

    It’s worth noting too that George Packer’s The Assassin’s Gate makes the point very eloquently and even empathatically.

  10. Avi_G.
    December 21, 2011, 11:29 am

    Why it makes perfect sense. You lose your entire family in Poland, your first reaction is to annihilate families in Palestine to make room for other Jews’ families.

    And yet the shmuck lives in the US.

    A psychologist could write an entire dissertation about this mental condition.

    • MRW
      December 21, 2011, 12:37 pm

      Trenchant observation. One I’m going to steal and claim as my own, Avi. ;-) Because claiming that an astute Israeli came up with this diverts the point.

      • Avi_G.
        December 21, 2011, 2:38 pm

        Trenchant observation. One I’m going to steal and claim as my own, Avi. ;-) Because claiming that an astute Israeli came up with this diverts the point.

        No problem. I’m flattered.

        As an aside, I don’t refer to myself as Israeli. Years ago, when I left Israel, I forced myself to undergo a transformation, one where I shed all things Israeli and adopted a new personal identity, one that is not shackled to a nation, or a people or a state. I am, me.

    • justicewillprevail
      December 21, 2011, 1:45 pm

      Indeed. How can anyone say this: “Our claim to the land to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years–is legitimate and noble” with a straight face? I can’t think of anything more illegitimate or ignoble than declaring that you and your friends have the rights to farmers’ properties, land and water in a land where you have no connection other than a shared cultural myth. To further twist the foreign policy of your supposedly own country in favour of this rogue state, to the extent of embroiling it in wars which cost trillions and hundreds of thousands of bodies (while you and your adopted holiday home suffers nothing) is psychotic. It may not be the only factor, but the obsessive ideological nature of these people, their single-minded devotion to a clique of undemocratic fundamentalists, gives them an influence far beyond their numbers. Not to mention the fatal compliance of a neoliberal media and congress, all of whom are terrified of tackling the Israeli question, and adopt a policy of craven acquiescence to its dominating bullying network of paid shills. It is a scandal that AIPAC has decreed that the president of the US must not have the option of diplomatic solutions to Iranian issues, as they once again do everything in their power to force another senseless, disastrous war on the American people for their own perceived, selfish ends. They should be locked up, instead they are repeating the same lies, intimidation and categorically wrong propaganda about the necessity for more death and destruction, just to satisfy their inept and stupid ideology. Everyone should face them down, and say ‘never again’.

      • teta mother me
        December 21, 2011, 3:36 pm

        justicewillprevail wrote:

        “Not to mention the fatal compliance of a neoliberal media and congress, all of whom are terrified of tackling the Israeli question, and adopt a policy of craven acquiescence to its dominating bullying network of paid shills.”

        Add the Religious Organizations to that mix, and not just the Christian zionists.

        Almost 10 years ago I read that the Israel lobby was as powerful as it is because there is no other organized group willing or able to counterbalance it. I thought that the Catholic church should be “able and willing,” but the more I see of Catholic (and other mainstream Protestant) thinking, the more hopeless the situation appears.

        National Catholic Reporter does not have a single solitary clue that something called zionism exists let alone what if means, its history, and its presence in US life today. In the comments to a recent NCR article on Newt Gingrich, half of the commenters said “Catholics should vote for Rick Santorum — he’s pro-life.” My response that he’s pro-life unless the life you enjoy happens to be Iranian was scrubbed from NCR. They are frickin’ braindead!! That, and Catholics & mainstream Prots. are intent on being ‘nice’ to Jews to ‘make up for it.’ They do not know and what is worse do not want to be informed of the reality of the situation.

        btw — Richard Land and Jim Wallis had a very lively exchange about Ron Paul on C Span Wash Journal this morning — Land disdains & dismisses Paul — “he’s an isolationist!” while Wallis explained Paul’s position in more accurate terms and fully endorsed them.

    • American
      December 21, 2011, 2:17 pm

      “A psychologist could write an entire dissertation about this mental condition.”

      It is a mental condition.
      However I am not willing to let some individuals mental condition be deadly and destructive to others as zionism and other delusions are.
      I doubt the world will let it continue forever either.
      The way Israel is headed, they are eventually going to cause so much pain and damage to others, besides just the Palestines, by stepping on some other powers interest somewhere that someone/country/countries are going to come down on on them.
      Nothing illustrates the Israeli hubris any better then their constant giving the finger to the US on settlements and everything else. ….the constant f**** off to their only protector and supporter.

    • Citizen
      December 21, 2011, 3:55 pm

      Or you could define that mental condition as Pre-TSD or Pre-TSS (Syndrome), as Atzmon did in his book, The Wandering Who? There’s also the handy old freudian terms, projection, and cycle-of-abuse.

    • Charon
      December 21, 2011, 4:49 pm

      It makes perfect sense to me. Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, who represented all the Arabs of Palestine, was best friends with Hitler. They had long walks on the beach and talked about better ways to deal with the Jews. He gave Hitler hints because he thought they were going to easy on them (the propaganda about the hints really exists.. people really believe this…!). Therefore, all Arabs are Nazis and all Nazis are Anakites. It is the duty of every Jew to exterminate the Anakites. Says so in the book.

      This really is a mental condition, probably a society-based one. Possibly curable, but doubtful. The holocaust refugees in Palestine were brainwashed from the get go. They were told that all the Arabs want to push them to the sea, that Arabs are their biblical enemies, and that if they don’t do anything a holocaust will happen again. And they’re only safe in Israel because the world didn’t do anything about the holocaust because the world hates Jews and is pretending to like them. Yeah that’ll do it

  11. wondering jew
    December 21, 2011, 12:01 pm

    This “cabal” came out in public in 1998 with their first letter from the Project for a New American Century to assert the necessity of confronting Saddam Hussein. They were devoted to a muscular America and saw a muscular Israel as being in tune with a muscular America. Their candidate for president was appointed by the Supreme Court and they were then brought into the administration.

    To attempt to dissect their loyalties and to hypothesize, if only they had not been pro Israel their pro American guts would have headed in a different direction is logically faulty. If you asked Richard Perle, were you against Saddam Hussein because of Israel or because of America, he would have said both and both equally. I think those who are not in favor of a strong military in the post Soviet world see the whole issue entirely differently and are not even on the same page as those who have an urge for the US to dominate the world militarily.

    • American
      December 21, 2011, 1:56 pm

      They were devoted to a muscular America and saw a muscular Israel as being in tune with a muscular America. ”

      Nope…they see a muscular America ‘as necesary” to the survival of Israel.
      For the people you are talking about there are hundreds of examples of them knowingly undermining some US real interest, economic and foreign interest, for Israel’s benefit.
      If you aren’t aware of all the (proven) things they have done in that regard I suggest you consult Grant Smith, read the Israel Lobby, read Green and a number of others on the results of investigations on these same people.

    • Avi_G.
      December 21, 2011, 2:56 pm

      This “cabal” came out in public in 1998 with their first letter from the Project for a New American Century to assert the necessity of confronting Saddam Hussein. They were devoted to a muscular America and saw a muscular Israel as being in tune with a muscular America.

      The “cabal” first reared its head as early as September 1990. A month after Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bernard Lewis published an article in the Atlantic. The article was entitled The Roots of Moslem Rage. In it, Lewis, an orientalist, laid the groundwork for spreading Western-style democracy — the white man’s burden — throughout the Middle East.

      Colonialism was reborn.

      PNAC and its work was an afterthought, or if one prefers, the finishing touches on forcibly transforming the Middle East into an Israel-friendly region, all under the guise of American imperialism. The rest is just noise and static.

      To attempt to dissect their loyalties and to hypothesize, if only they had not been pro Israel their pro American guts would have headed in a different direction is logically faulty. If you asked Richard Perle, were you against Saddam Hussein because of Israel or because of America, he would have said both and both equally.

      So on the one hand you are against hypothesizing, and on the other hand you claim to know what Perle would or wouldn’t have said? Do you not see the contradiction?

      • MRW
        December 21, 2011, 11:49 pm

        Perle deserves to be eviscerated. His all-out blitz on 9/11 starting in London at the BBC around 11:30 AM EST, then his hour a couple of hours later with Ehud “Elmer Fudd” Barak pushing the accusation that it was Bin Laden would did it–without one shred of evidence–was a criminal act.

    • American
      December 21, 2011, 6:41 pm

      WJ,

      “To attempt to dissect their loyalties and to hypothesize, if only they had not been pro Israel their pro American guts would have headed in a different direction is logically faulty. If you asked Richard Perle, were you against Saddam Hussein because of Israel or because of America, he would have said both and both equally.”

      You need to read this article which is fact not fiction, on the histories of Perle, Bryen, Woflowitz, Leeden, Feith and others…to disabuse yourself of the idea that this cabal has any loyalty to the US.
      How many times they were caught in espionage for Israel, how many times their friends in congress got them out of by interceding with the Justice Dept or FBI.
      How many time they got caught dead to rights and had their security clearances revoked and then reinstated by friends in “congress” or the WH.
      Let’s take a small example not even connected to war or stolen classified material…like using their jobs in the pentagon to sell the latest brand spanking new US weapons to Israel at 1/3 of the real price and getting caught at it.
      These people have been caught and caught and caught cheating and stealing from the US and the American people time after time.
      Every time they get out of it thru “friends’ or because they are Jews and we can’t make a example of or even punish the guilty when they are the holocaust people or becuase it was for the holocaust Jewish state of Israel.

      Well, that excuse is over with for me and I imagine over for most Americans who know even a half of what they have done.

      link to counterpunch.org

    • Chaos4700
      December 21, 2011, 10:35 pm

      LOL! Excuse me WJ, are you trying to exonerate Jewish neocons of their dual loyalties, even though it’s true, because you’re trying to argue that hypothetically their dual loyalties wouldn’t have been a factor, even though they were.

      My oh my. Did this article hit a bit close to home, hmm?

  12. Donald
    December 21, 2011, 12:10 pm

    I assume Phil will probably put up a post about this article in Salon today, but if not, here’s a link–

    media consensus on Israel is collapsing

    The article mentions Friedman, this blog, Paul Pillar and others.

    • MRW
      December 21, 2011, 12:40 pm

      My suspicion, too, Donald is that many of the intelligent comments here and the wealth of hard research and I-was-there history backing them (provided by the likes of Hostage, Blankfort, et al) are also making an impact on non-MW writers tiptoeing into this minefield.

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2011, 2:38 am

        Agreed MRW,

        I always enjoy reading Donald’s comments.

        • MRW
          December 22, 2011, 2:59 am

          I included your comments in my “intelligent comments.” Should have put a comma (what! no comma!), or the comma, after Donald.

    • Mndwss
      December 21, 2011, 1:25 pm

      The media consensus on Israel is collapsing

      The Tide Is Turning….

      I’m not saying that the battle is won (SOPA)
      But on Saturday night all those kids in the sun
      Wrested technology’s sword from the hand of the
      War Lords.

      Ooh, the tide is turning………..

  13. pabelmont
    December 21, 2011, 12:14 pm

    Good book, probably, and great review. Be interesting to see an discussion of these three questions: [1] did these neocons actually feel ‘fealty’ to BIG-OIL and/or BIG-ARMs strongly enough (if at all) to have pushed for this war solely because of those concerns and without regard for Israel; [2] would GWB have started the war had these neocons not pressed for it on the basis of concerns for Israel, and [3] would GWB have started the war had these neocons not pressed for it at all.

    I subscribe to the theory that the USA’s pro-Israel policy (and perhaps also its decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq) arises from the oligarchic manipulations of BIG-OIL, BIG-ARMs (aka MIC), and BIG-ZION (aka The Lobby). A “convergence of interests”. But the iraq war was SO STUPID (and had not been undertaken earlier) that I think 9-11 and Israel created the enthusiasm. (And, mumble, munble, I also believe that 9-11 was manufactured by someone to serve as a causus belli).

    • MRW
      December 21, 2011, 3:05 pm

      pabelmont,

      Israel had an oil interest itself, as this Guardian article written in April 2003 revealed to the great anger of the Israelis. Got them huffing and puffing for months, then they fired Israeli INterior Minister Paritsky for letting the cat out of the bag. The last link here shows that this was planned BEFORE the war started.

      “Israel seeks pipeline for Iraqi oil
      US discusses plan to pump fuel to its regional ally and solve energy headache at a stroke”
      link to guardian.co.uk

      “Iraq-to-Haifa oil pipeline could spur economic rebirth”
      link to jewishsf.com

      The early (before 2003) DoD maps show that this was planned long before the Iraq War started. Bases H1, H2, and H3 were THE FIRST BASES supplied with US troops. The CIA hid the original photo, but it’s here on page 2.
      link to nogw.com

      • teta mother me
        December 21, 2011, 3:51 pm

        if the soul of propaganda is repetition, then the antidote must also include repetition.

        Recall that Iran and Israel had had an oil agreement/trading company that provided a generous stream of revenue to Israel
        link to haaretz.com

        and made Marc Rich a very wealthy man (and an international criminal until pardoned by Clinton). link to amazon.com

        One of the outcomes of the revolution in Iran was that Khomeini turned off the spigot of cheap Iranian oil to Israel. Israel spent the next 20 years a) compensating for that Iranian-sourced revenue by selling armaments to Iran to fight Iraq; and b) delaying and defending against Iran’s lawsuit against Israel based on the collapse of the joint oil venture (Israel lost the suit but still refuses to pay the decreed settlement. Sooprise sooprise)

        Therefore, from one perspective, the Iraq war WAS about oil — oil for Israel, and in that, it DID create a question of dual loyalty. Calling it out is not antisemitic, it’s speaking the facts.

  14. HarryLaw
    December 21, 2011, 12:30 pm

    After the Iraq debacle it would appear every American president has to learn the lessons of history by himself, and so we had the spectacle of Obama[the empty suit] regaling 3000 vets [at the 93rd annual conference of the American legion in August 2011] mouthing the well tailored sound bites to the assembled vets,” you Vietnam veterans, did not always recieve the respect that you deserved, which was a National shame, but let it be remembered that you won every major battle of that war, every single one.” Surely those claims could not have gone unnoticed by some of those Vets, especially those who served under Col Harry G Summers jr, who when visiting Hanoi in 1975 told a Vietnamese officer “you know, you never defeated us on the battlefield” the officer replied ” that may be so but it is irrelevent” oh for one of those Veterans to have done a Ray McGovern [ to H Clinton] and stood up and thrown that soundbite back at the Commander in Chief. As in Vietnam cutting edge technology from the most powerful military machine the world has known means nothing when pitted against a resourcful opponent, no matter how small, one example in the so called Sunni triangle in Iraq the resistance planted roadside bombs efp’s [ explosively formed explosives] the cost of those bombs was approx 20 dollars each comprising a small ammount of high explosive, a metal pipe and a disc of copper, this easily constructed device has the capacity to wreck an M1 Abrams battle tank [ 5 million dollars] it can go right through it from front to back. The Iranians [ who else ] were blamed for introducing this 2nd World war technology into Iraq until the US found several small workshops turning out these discs in their thousands, now who would have thought that the Iraqi’s would have the engineering skills to do such a thing they have only been in the engineering industry serving the oil sector for generations. The US then spent millions trying to defeat this simple bomb employing dozens of task forces and university think tanks all over the US they employed these countermeasures on military vehicles and were successful for a time until the insurgents came up with the ultimate triggering method a piece of string, game set and match. Then Bush signed the status of forces agreement. Similarly the Taliban employ the simple ied [improvised explosive device] using for the most part non metallic parts in almost undetectable bombs,these are the cause of most casualties in Afghanistan they are fertilizer based now the US are trying to monitor and regulate fertilizer sales in both Pakistan and Afghanistan both hugh farming communities, well good luck with that one, for more on this see, Sherwood Ross, Scoop Independent News 21st Dec 2011, US losing the battle against ied’s in Afghanistan. The commanders of US forces think they are invincible flying their f16′s and drones thinking that thos uneducated Pashstuns holed up in caves with out the capability to retrieve 2nd world war technology everyone else knows about. Someone should remind Obama only 14 at the time Col Summers made his statement that because he is a constitutional Law Professor he is probably no cleverer when it comes to the art of war than an uneducated foot soldier living in a cave. The thing that drives Obama is winning the next election what drives the Taliban is the Knowledge that he will be in Afghanistan all his life, he is fighting for self determination and self respect, the latter as Obama’s performances at the UN and Apaic have proved has non. Winning the 2012 election may bring him victory but in regards to the war it is irrelevent.

    • lysias
      December 21, 2011, 12:59 pm

      The Iranians just showed us that those drones are not so invincible.

  15. Kathleen
    December 21, 2011, 2:08 pm

    Was trying to think about the articles that were being written before the invasion about the highly questionable intelligence That Jason Vest article in the Nation in the fall of 2002 really put lots of folks on alert as well as what former weapons inspector Scott Ritter was saying everywhere he could about questionable pre war intelligence. Then after invasion Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski wrote “The New Pentagon Papers” and Seymour Hersh wrote “The Stovepipe”

    Kathleen and Bill Christison wrote “A Rose by Another Name” in the fall of 2002 which put many of us on alert as well.

    Cannot wait to read the book but there were lots of experts before the invasion questioning those who were creating, cherry picking and dessiminating much of the false pre war intelligence.

    They should be put on trial for war crimes. As well as Bolton, Cheney, Ledeen, Woolsey etc all of those who were complicit in putting together lies to convince some Americans to support an unnecessary and immoral war.

    The most outrageous and criminal part of all of this is these individuals have no respect no regard for lives lost in Iraq or American soldiers many who believed their lies. Feith, Wolfowitz, etc knew they were lying. They knew and had and have no regard for others lives serving their needs

    • lysias
      December 21, 2011, 4:23 pm

      Maybe Pillar on Iraq is only repeating, to a large extent, what others have said or written. Nevetheless, it is news when someone who was as high up in the CIA as Pillar was says it.

      And what’s really big is for someone who had the position he had in the CIA to criticize the 9/11 Commission Report the way he apparently does.

      • American
        December 21, 2011, 6:01 pm

        “Maybe Pillar on Iraq is only repeating, to a large extent, what others have said or written.’…..lysias

        To some extent he is……creditable people, insiders, former officials have been writing about it for decades….Stephen Green (former US-UN) is one not usually mentioned but who even the FBI visited for info on the Zioinst during the latest AIPAC investigation.

        There was some hope/belief by Sate and Defense at the time that President Kennedy was going to (actually he did) take a harder line with Israel. But after his assassination Israel gained even more ground in the US government with Johnson. And it’s escalated ever since Johnson.

        In his book, The Passionate Attachment, former Undersecretary of State George Ball summarized the results of Johnson’s Middle East policies: First, the Johnson administration put America in the position of being Israel’s principal arms supplier and sole unqualified backer.
        “Second, by assuring the Israelis that the United States would always provide them with a military edge over the Arabs, Johnson guaranteed the ‘escalation of an arms race… Third, by refusing to follow the advice of his aides that America make its delivery of nuclear-capable F-4 Phantoms conditional on Israel’s signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Johnson gave the Israelis the impression that America had no fundamental objection to Israel’s nuclear program.
        “Fourth, by permitting a cover-up of Israel’s attack on the Liberty, President Johnson told the Israelis in effect that nothing they did would induce American politicians to refuse their bidding. From that time forth, the Israelis began to act as if they had an inalienable right to American aid and backing.”
        As Stephen Green concluded in his discussion of the incredible changes in U.S. policy toward Israel that took place during the Johnson era in ‘Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations With A Militant Israel’:
        “By June of 1967, for a variety of reasons that prominently included ‘domestic political considerations,’ Lyndon Johnson and his team of foreign-policy advisors had completely revised U.S.-Israeli relations. To all intents and purposes, Israel had become the 51st state.”

        This was the exact opposite of what Kennedy’s attitude toward Israel was and had he lived we would probably have a different relationship with Israel today.
        Former high-ranking U.S. diplomat Richard H. Curtiss, writing in ‘A Changing Image: American Perceptions of the Arab-Israeli Dispute’, elaborated on Kennedy’s attitude toward the Middle East controversy. In a chapter appropriately titled: “President Kennedy and Good Intentions Deferred Too Long,” Curtiss comments:
        “It is surprising to realize, with the benefit of hindsight, that from the time Kennedy entered office as the narrowly-elected candidate of a party heavily dependent upon Jewish support, he was planning to take a whole new look at U.S. Mideast policy.
        “He obviously could not turn the clock back and undo the work of President Truman, his Democratic predecessor, in making the establishment of Israel possible. Nor, perhaps, would he have wanted to.
        “Kennedy was determined, however, to develop good new personal relationships with individual Arab leaders, including those with whom the previous administration’s relations had deteriorated.
        Soon after Kennedy assumed office, Israel and its American lobby began to understand the import of Kennedy’s positioning in regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel was not happy – to say the very least – and began putting heat on the White House through its supporters in Congress, many of whom relied upon support from the Israeli lobby for campaign contributions and political leverage.
        By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hated Kennedy with a passion. In fact, he considered JFK a threat to the very survival of the Jewish State.

        Kennedy according to Curtiss cited four areas causing a strain in U.S.-Israel relations: 1) Israel’s diversion-from the Arab States-of the Jordan River waters; 2) Israel’s retaliatory raids against Arab forces in border areas; 3) Israel’s pivotal role in the Palestinian refugee problem; and 4) Israel’s insistence that the United States sell advanced Hawk missiles to Israel.
        “The President outlined to Mrs. Meir what has come to be called the Kennedy Doctrine. Kennedy told Meir that U.S. interests and Israel’s interests were not always the same.
        The Talbot memorandum described Kennedy’s forthright stance:
        “We know,”that Israel faces enormous security problems, but we do too. We came almost to a direct confrontation with the Soviet Union last spring and again recently in Cuba… Because we have taken on wide security responsibilities we always have the potential of becoming involved in a major crisis not of our own making.
        “Our security problems are, therefore, just as great as Israel’s. We have to concern ourself with the whole Middle East. We would like Israeli recognition that this partnership which we have with it produces strains for the United States in the Middle East… when Israel takes such action as it did last spring when Israel launched a raid into Syria, resulting in a condemnation by the UN Security Council. Whether right or wrong, those actions involve not just Israel but also the United States.”

        According to Seymour Hersh: “Israel’s bomb, and what to do about it, became a White House fixation – part of the secret presidential agenda that would remain hidden for the next thirty years.”
        In March, 1963, Sherman Kent, the Chairman of the Board of National Estimates at the CIA, wrote an extended memorandum to the CIA’s Director on the highly controversial subject entitled “Consequences of Israeli Acquisition of Nuclear Capability.”
        According to Stephen Green, for the purposes of this internal memorandum, Kent defined “acquisition” by Israel as either (a) a detonation of a nuclear device with or without the possession of actual nuclear weapons, or (b) an announcement by Israel that it possessed nuclear weapons, even without testing. Kent’s primary conclusion was that an Israeli bomb would cause ‘substantial damage to the U.S. and Western position in the Arab world.
        According to Green, “The memorandum was very strong and decidedly negative in its conclusions” which were as follows:
        “Even though Israel already enjoys a clear military superiority over its Arab adversaries, singly or combined, acquisition of a nuclear capability would greatly enhance Israel’s sense of security. In this circumstance, some Israelis might be inclined to adopt a moderate and conciliatory posture…
        “We believe it much more likely, however, that Israel’s policy toward its neighbors would become more rather than less tough. Israel would seek to exploit the psychological advantages of its nuclear capability to intimidate the Arabs and to prevent them from making trouble on the frontiers.”
        In dealing with the United States, the CIA analyst estimated, a nuclear Israel would “make the most of the almost inevitable Arab tendency to look to the Soviet Bloc for assistance against the added Israel threat, arguing that in terms of both strength and reliability Israel was clearly the only worthwhile friend of the U.S. in the area.
        “Israel,” in Kent’s analysis, “would use all the means at its command to persuade the U.S. to acquiesce in, and even to support, its possession of nuclear capability.”
        In short, Israel would use its immense political power – especially through its lobby in Washington – to force the United States to accede to Israel’s nuclear intentions.

        Stephen Green believes that Kennedy’s position vis-a-vis Israel was an important stand: “It was a remarkable exchange, and the last time in many, many years in which an American president precisely distinguished for the government of Israel the differences between U.S. and Israeli national security interests.”
        Thus it was that John F. Kennedy informed Israel, in no uncertain terms, that he intended – first and foremost – to place America’s interests – not Israel’s interests – at the center of U.S. Middle East policy.
        Kennedy’s friendly overtures to the Arab states were only a public aspect of what ultimately developed into an all-out ‘secret war’ between Kennedy and Israel.
        Another part of the all secret war between Kennedy and Israel according to Hersh was Ben-Gurion’s hated Kennedy because he consider his father an anti semite and Hitler supporter. Hersh wrote, “The Israeli prime minister, in subsequent private communications to the White House, began to refer to the President as ‘young man.’ Kennedy made clear to associates that he found the letters to be offensive.”
        Kennedy himself told his close friend, Charles Bartlett, that he was getting fed up with the fact that the Israeli “sons of bitches lie to me constantly about their nuclear capability.”
        Obviously, to say the very least, there was no love lost between the two leaders. The U.S.-Israeli relationship was at an ever-growing and disastrous impasse, although virtually nothing was known about this to the American public at the time.”…….Green

        So yeah…….everything about Israel has been known and written about for a long time. Something now is spooking the pro Israel supporters like Friedman and others to speak out…the non zio/Jewish non Israel supportive community has been warning and warning on Israel forever.
        Read George Ball and Stephen Green and the old timers who know every detail from way back on US- Isr.

        • lysias
          December 21, 2011, 7:24 pm

          The reactor at Dimona went critical on Dec. 26, 1963. Interesting date. Some Christmas present.

        • Jeffrey Blankfort
          December 22, 2011, 2:37 pm

          A very useful post, American, and thanks for taking the time to lay it out. For too many, Chomsky’s “The Fateful Triangle” has been the bible for supporters of Palestine and critics of Israel from the Left. Compared, however, with both Stephen Green’s “Taking Sides” (1984) and George Ball’s “Passionate Attachment,”(1992) “The Fateful Triangle” if one wants to understand the history of US-Israel relations, it reflects more deception than perception.

          In fact, one can find almost no mention of any of the significant facts in both Green’s and Ball’s books in Chomsky’s work. In a book ostensibly about US-Israel relations with regard to Palestine, Chomsky makes no mention of the Kennedy presidency or Israel’s nuclear program. (Nor, that JFK died trying to get AIPAC’s predecessor, the American Zionist Council to register as a foreign agent and that he was the last president to support Res. 194, the Palestinian right of return). Curious omissions, no?

          By coincidence, the estimable Grant Smith of IRmep, has just produced a new 298 report, replete with photostats of critical government documents, redactions and all, entitled, “Divert! NUMEC, Zalman Shapiro, and the diversion of US weapons grade uranium into the Israeli nuclear weapons program.” link to informationclearinghouse.info

        • American
          December 22, 2011, 5:11 pm

          Thanks JB,

          I have no use for Chomsky and never bother reading him any more,
          He’s a one note johnny, you know exactly what he is going to say every time….everything is the US’s fault, we’re the only great satan, blah,blah,blah.

    • Mycos
      December 25, 2011, 5:35 pm

      Another aspect of the Iraq debacle I seldom see mentioned is the question of how all those powerful people at the Pentagon, State Dept., and all those aerospace/arms manufacturers responded to the collapse of the USSR and their ability to continue justifying their own existence now that they could no longer hold up the spectre of nuclear annihilation sitting silently submerged just 10 minutes off the New Jersey shoreline.

      And to that, it appears the invasion of Iraq in 2003, despite it’s justification in PNAC documents going back before Bush2 had even gained office, actually goes back even further to – at least! – as early as the 1992 Pentagon Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) , a classified paper sent out to defense industry CEOs and others in certain government agencies with a real need to know ahead of time the direction of US policy for the foreseeable future. And in the very first DPG to be issued by the Pentagon following the demise of the Cold War, the Pentagon had already decided there would be no “peace dividend” paid out to American taxpayers for their loyalty (and funding) over the preceding decades, but instead it was determined that defense spending would stay the same in order to now fund America’s new role defending it’s newly found status as the world’s one and only superpower. And from what we were able to read from the DPG draft leaked to the NY Times, how they intended to go about it bears a remarkable resemblance to the “Bush Doctrine” we learned about 10 years later.

      And why not? The authors of that 1992 DPG happened to be none other than Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby.

      Once that DPG was shown to the people expected to pay for this policy (which is likely the reasoning behind whoever it was that leaked it), the uproar over it’s decidedly martial, not to mention unilateral tone, compelled the GOP to order a revision. But again, who did they tap this time? Dick Cheney and Colin Powell.

      So it;s not a leap of any kind I believe to say that with the election of Bill Clinton and their subsequent removal from power, they simply retired to PNAC where, along with Bill Kristol and Richard Perle’s media knowledge and access, they reworded the 92′ DPG (or “Wolfowitz Doctrine” as it was being called) into something they hoped would be more palatable to the population at large. From there we see the “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” document they promoted during Clinton’s tenure with limited success. So it must have seemed a signal from God himself when W Bush come knocking on the door of none other than PNAC member and co-author of that embarrassing “Wolfowitz Doctrine”, Dick Cheney, asking him who a good choice would be for VP should he win the upcoming general election. He did, the Wolfowitz Doctrine was relabeled the “Bush Doctrine”, and “the rest is history”, as they say.

  16. Kathleen
    December 21, 2011, 2:11 pm

    Wonder how many folks from around the world have contacted the ICC demanding that these warmongering individuals be put on trial? Wilkerson has stated that he would testify against Cheney for war crimes. Pillar? Who else? Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski?

    Why would these individuals be any less guilty than those who were complicit during the Holocaust or any other genocide?

    • Citizen
      December 21, 2011, 5:22 pm

      Of course, they are as guilty as the policy managers hung at Nuremberg, but Germany lost the war, and the US stands as the only superpower in the world. But you know that. Wouldn’t you like to interview Goering now about what he sees going down in the world?

  17. Pixel
    December 21, 2011, 5:28 pm

    .
    FABULOUS!

  18. MichaelSmith
    December 21, 2011, 8:27 pm

    “Author Paul Pillar has a stellar Establishment reputation.”

    That makes him … “Pillar, of the Establishment”?

  19. AmericaFirstforaChange
    December 22, 2011, 4:31 am

    Ron Paul vs the Neocons: link to tinyurl.com

    Neocon Warmongers: link to tinyurl.com

  20. tomloveswine
    December 22, 2011, 7:56 am

    “We can have no “50-50″ allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all.”
Theodore Roosevelt (American 26th US President (1901-09), 1858-1919)’

    Nothing else needed to be said. What needs to be determined is the physical location that these dual citizens actually live. I have looked at official Israel documents and USA information on passports reports. It would appear that millions of Israel citizen do not live in Israel.

    How are we sending so much money to a shell? Why do they need the money. New York City is a big drain on our money and it would appear so is Israel. Are we providing money to the same people? If so then why?
    BTW If it appears that the jewish people really do not like to live in the middle east why do we continue to support them. In 1910 about 4 percent of the present area of Israel was jewish and that was after 30 years of money being paid to jewish people to move to the area.
    I would love to see someone who actually has something to prove what I now believe to be correct but in most cases it will only get the usual response such as you do not now know the history of Europe and our suffering. I do know the history of Europe when the rich bankers of Europe allowed my ancestors to starve during the Irish famine. They were just poor people so they do not count when you consider suffering.
    What is needed is truthful information as to what is going one. The world now faces nuclear war over a very small piece of land.

  21. Mycos
    December 25, 2011, 4:20 pm

    Having only just now signed up to MW, I didn’t want to make my first post an “Argghhhh!”followed by yet another groan in response to Krauss’ attempt to dilute Zionism’s responsibility for much of the difficulty now seen in the Middle East by dangling the spectre of anti-semitism in our faces as if to say “Don’t go there…. You know what happened last time, don’t cha?”
    I read that and immediately began to suspect that perhaps I had been mistaken about my earlier, positive evaluation of the place as an intellect-driven oasis in a desert of PC pseudo-liberalism and conservative insanity.

    But I began reading responses below it, most seeming to come from people who are are apparently regulars here, and after a half-dozen or so saying things I myself could easily have penned, and with only one or two rather weak defenses of Krauss by the very bottom of the page, that initial “arghh” I’m happy to say has turned into an unreserved “I think I’m home!”

    • john h
      December 25, 2011, 8:17 pm

      Welcome home, Mycos!

      Now show us what you’re made of!