Kampeas: Jewish neocons are more than 2 degrees removed from Bush’s decision to invade Iraq

US Politics
on 146 Comments
Ron Kampeas
Ron Kampeas

Yesterday I posted a question that I’d sent to Ron Kampeas of JTA: why is it that the Walt and Mearsheimer thesis, that the Israel lobby played a crucial role in pushing the Iraq war, has become more and more mainstream in recent months/years?

Kampeas sent me an answer on Facebook yesterday and then posted his response at JTA. Here it is:

Short answer, no, it has not become acceptable in mainstream discourse because it is still not true, and yes, it at least flirts with anti-Semitism. Long answer after the jump, with a couple of small modifications to the Facebook message I sent him.

A) Do I think the Walt-Mearsheimer position, specifically on the centrality of pro-Israel feelings by Jews spurring the Iraq War, has prevailed?

No, especially because Stephen Walt himself has dialed it back. See here

You also mischaracterize M.S. of the Economist (I’m told his name is Matt Steinglass) — he does not quite say “the Iraq war was fostered by neoconservatives concerned with Israel’s security;” he says, “It’s entirely accurate to count neoconservative policy analyses as among the important causes of the war, to point out that the pro-Israeli sympathies of Jewish neoconservatives played a role in these analyses, and to note the support of the Israeli government and public for the invasion.”

So there’s an “among the important causes” there — and even that refers to the holistic role of the neoconservatives and not just their Israel sympathies. So Jewish neoconservatives and their Jewishness are two degrees removed from being the cause, according to his formulation. But even he is wrong.

The Bush administration was determined to invade Iraq. It pitched the invasion to a number of constituencies it saw as important to making the case; like any good salesman, it didn’t use the same pitch twice, it tailored the sale to the target.

So Democrats, always seeking national security credibility, got the terrorism argument. The media, always seeking the next mortal threat, got that. Liberals who have embraced intervention as a means of preventing slaughter, got the Kurdish argument. And pro-Israel groups and Jews and Israel got the threat to Israel.

None of these arguments stood up, and to lesser and greater degrees each of these constituencies paid a price for being duped. Among Democrats, Joe Lieberman is leaving office and Hillary Clinton is not president. Among journalists, Judith Miller and Howell Raines are not at the New York Times and Bill Keller is apologizing. Among liberal hawks, Peter Beinart is shreying gevalt, and Jeffrey Goldberg is still engaged in protracted defenses, and Tom Friedman more or less admits he was duped. And in the Jewish world, the pro-Israel movement is now dealing with J Street — an outcome explainable in part, I think, by distrust in the Jewish establishment engendered by its Iraq War support. (I should note that the manifestation of that support varied widely depending upon the group, from deeply qualified to enthusiastic.)

So yes, there has been a consequence for Jewish officialdom for being talked into backing the war — but you’re mistaking that as a consequence for the pro-Israel movement being central to advancing the war. There is no such consequence because its premise is simply not true.

The Bush administration invaded Iraq principally because it was attached to a policy of maintaining U.S. preeminence in a vitally important region. This policy was cut from the same cloth as GOP/neoconservative clamoring for a tougher posture vis-a-vis Putin, the same cloth as the championing of Taiwan, the same cloth as the decades old isolation of Cuba. 

B) Anti-Semitism can be defined as toxic myths attached to Jews. There are two at work in your thesis here:

1) Jews act only to advance their own interests. They do and they don’t — it’s wildly complicated — but not more than any other special interest in an American polity that is highly susceptible to special interest pressure.

2) Jews send others to die in fruitless wars. Maybe the Iraq war was fruitless — we’ll see — but its motor was not the Jews, it was not Israel. It was a specifically American self-perception of this nation’s preeminence in the world, for better or worse, identifiable as early as Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, if not as early as the Barbary Coast. Both historical identifiers, you’ll note, predate Israel’s existence.

Good debate. Some quick responses: I am informed that Robert Kaplan at the Atlantic has a giant and largely positive profile of John Mearsheimer coming out this week, acknowledging Mearsheimer’s leadership and creativity as a student of history. Huh. What’s that about– the march of history…

Kampeas misquotes the Economist. What M.S. wrote crucially is that “any analysis of the war’s causes that didn’t take these [factors] into account would be deficient”– and those factors were the Jewishness of the neocons.

No one ever said that Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld didn’t start the war. They started the war. No one said that some of these planners didn’t have a deluded American interest in mind that had nothing to do with Israel. The irresponsibility that Kampeas is exhibiting here is the claim that ideas are not important in such matters. The best and brightest fostered the Vietnam war for some reasons I haven’t studied; and in this instance, the idea that was relentlessly promoted by the neoconservatives was the claim that by imposing democracy by force on an Arab nation of importance, democracy would take hold across the region. This was a very powerful and very stupid idea. It held sway. It affected Ken Pollack and Tom Friedman deeply.

And I won’t go into it here, because I  have done so at length on other occasions, but neoconservativism came out of the Jewish community, and its forefathers Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz specifically formulated the school because they feared that a weak American military program would drive a knife into Israel, as Kristol framed it. In the runup to the Iraq war, neoconservatives, who were to be sure not only Jewish, pushed the Iraq war because they said Israel’s war against terror is our war. In countless manifestos for the war (Paul Berman, Kristol and Kaplan, Wurmser, Frum, Perle), Saddam’s actions against Israel in supporting suicide bombers were described as a threat to the west. Israel was on their minds. The irresponsibility of the Kampeas claim is as absurd as a defense of an arsonist who went around a neighborhood urging people to burn down someone’s house that it wasn’t he who put the gas soaked rags on the house. It reflects a belief that Jewish actions don’t have agency in history. No, it is the rulers, the czars, who move history. We are bystanders or victims. This is a misrepresentation of our great tradition in the 20th century, a refusal to recognize that great Jewish bankers putting pressure on American presidents freed my ancestors from pogroms in Russia, and ignorance of the schoolchild’s truth, The pen is mightier than the sword. Some Jews wielding pens have a lot of power in this country, and some of them have acted out of what Irving Kristol described as a “Jewish interest” to protect Israel, and this makes it more important than ever that Jews who don’t see separatism (Zionism) as being in their interest dissociate themselves from the neoconservative agenda and repudiate it. Which is happening.

I am really pleased to learn that people are suffering for having supported the Iraq war. Not that I want anyone to suffer. It’s new year’s! But it is important that there is accountability for bad ideas.

On the anti-Semitism stuff, alas, the neocons have endangered the Jewish presence in the west through their selfish interest. The beauty of this moment is that a lot of great Jews have been called by the neocons’ error to celebrate Jewish integration in western societies. 
 

146 Responses

  1. American
    December 31, 2011, 10:11 am

    link to newamericancentury.org

    Interesting to go back to 1997 thru 2005 and look at how the head neo’s were pushing both Iraq and Iran.

  2. Dan Crowther
    December 31, 2011, 10:13 am

    Phil: I am really pleased to learn that people are suffering for having supported the Iraq war. Not that I want anyone to suffer. It’s new year’s! But it is important that there is accountability for bad ideas.

    ——

    These people cheerleaded for wars that have killed upwards of a million people. Losing your job at the NY Times does not constitute suffering.

    Aggressive war is not a “bad idea” – its a crime. Probably the biggest, and its been understood as such since the Nuremberg Trials.

    And, if as Phil says, Jewish influence, by way of the pen, is such a big part of the problem – I have a remedy: Ask those who cheerlead for war from their keyboards if they have ever been in the service, and if they have ever been near war.

    And just like that, your Bill Kristol problem is solved. To be sure, the idea of a trust fund baby who inherited his position in life advocating others to fight and die is disgusting – but not nearly as disgusting as those who would actually listen to the guy.

  3. irishmoses
    December 31, 2011, 11:19 am

    P. Weiss: “… and in this instance, the idea that was relentlessly promoted by the neoconservatives was the claim that by imposing democracy by force on an Arab nation of importance, democracy would take hold across the region. This was a very powerful and very stupid idea. It held sway.”

    This ‘mposing democracy’ argument could also have been a ruse to conceal the less palatable motive of getting the US to take out a major enemy of Israel. Certainly the Zionist Neocons knew that Cheney/Rumsfeld and Bush as well as the non-Zionist Neocons couldn’t be sold on the latter argument so perhaps they crafted and promoted the ‘imposing democracy’ argument or motive as it better fed into the egos of the hard-line Republicans and Scoop Jackson Democrats.

    I think it is important to remember that the ‘take out Iraq’ concept grew out of the 1996 “Clean Break” strategy which was devised by the Zionist Neocons to ‘secure the realm’ of ISRAEL, not protect the US. That this strategy then morphed into US policy and that the major designers of ‘Clean Break’ ended up in key positions in the Bush administration helping to influence and instigate this policy is no mere coincidence in my mind.

    The following is excerpted from my comment in the earlier thread on this topic, “You don’t write, you don’t call (Ron Kampeas version)”:

    Paul Pillar, in his new book, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy, does a pretty thorough analysis of the motivations behind the Iraq war. He shows how the Bush administration was looking for a reason to invade Iraq from day 1 in its first staff meetings. He also shows how neocons use faulty intelligence on WMD as a smokescreen for their true motives which preceded the whole intelligence stove piping games. In other words, the motive for the war was never based on the supposed existance and threat of Iraqi WMD, but instead was aimed at recreating Iraq as a democratic show horse to undermine ME totalitarianism, and to assert and demonstrate US power to potential adversaries (according to Pillar). Or, if you follow the trail from ‘Clean Break’, the motive may have been to protect Israel and enhance its interests.

    Pillar thoroughly covers the Zionist Neocon connections: Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, Perle, Kristol, et al, from PNAC through the Bush administration, but then fails to connect the dots and concludes:

    “Sympathy for Israeli interests probably was not the principal motivator in the decision to launch the Iraq War, but it did play an important supporting role. Images of a foreign problem such as Iraq that are most important to U.S. interests are not necessarily those most important to the interests of Israel or any other foreign state. Thus, some policymakers probably gave less attention or weight than U.S. interests warranted to, say, the American human and material resources required for the postinvasion occupation of Iraq because they had Israeli interests (or their particular conception of those interests) and not just U.S. interests at heart.” (p. 24; Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition).

    Pillar seems to feel that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush came up with the Iraq invasion on their own and that the Zionist Neocons had little direct influence:

    “But the concept did not solely belong to the neocons. It probably was a major motivation for Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who are best labeled not as neoconservatives, but instead, according to one study of policymaking in the Bush administration, as ‘assertive nationalists’.” (p. 19).

    I suspect Pillar is covering his bets here and shrouding his beliefs behind some well-crafted weasel words. This seems to be a common CYA position, that the Israel connection to the Iraq war is only indirect and that the Zionist Neocon influence is overstated.

    There are several problems with this position: The first is that the Iraq war concept came initially from the Zionist Neocons (via the ‘Clean Break’ strategy letter in 1996) who were then joined by the rest of the Neocons (1998). The pressure for an invasion then grew by leaps and bounds.

    The second problem is that the key drafters of the original Iraq war policy documents were Zionist Neocons who then were awarded positions of high influence in the Bush administration (Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, etc.). To suggest this is coincidental seems quite a stretch.

    I think the key to this puzzle can be found in finding who influenced and convinced Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush on the need for an Iraq war. I suspect it must have been a very heavy effort on the part of the Neocons, and particularly those who were promoting the war primarily or even secondarily for Israel’s sake, but I have not encountered any discussion of this in my readings. This, to me, is the one remaining big mystery. Maybe there is no connection and the war was a Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush gambit, but I remain a sceptic. I hope others, more informed than me, will continue this discussion.

    Gil Maguire

    • Avi_G.
      December 31, 2011, 2:16 pm

      I think it is important to remember that the ‘take out Iraq’ concept grew out of the 1996 “Clean Break” strategy which was devised by the Zionist Neocons to ‘secure the realm’ of ISRAEL, not protect the US.

      The Shiloach Center (in Israel) — the name has now changed to Moshe Dayan Center — for Middle Eastern and African Studies issued a policy brief as early as the 1980s that placed Iraq within a sphere of threats to be neutralized.

      Clean Break was simply the same policy translated into English and given a make-over to Americanize it, to make it more palatable for American audiences.

      And it gained traction in 1996 because the Israel Lobby gained a foothold in the White House during the Clinton administration, something it did not have during the previous Bush administration.

    • Philip Weiss
      December 31, 2011, 2:44 pm

      remember that Cheney was at AEI and not just Halliburton before the Bush administration. He celebrated Bernard Lewis as an intellectual influence. Cheney the brilliant thinker (he’s an actor not a thinker; but an actor needs a theory; intellectuals formulate theories, some of them persuasive).
      also: AEI gave more brains to Bush administration than anyone and Feith came from One Jerusalem, funded by Adelson. Wurmser thanked Irving Moskowitz for funding his book at AEI.
      The role of money in this mess, in promoting bad ideas, remains largely unexplored. Let’s talk about the Koch brothers!

      • libra
        December 31, 2011, 6:05 pm

        PW: “The role of money in this mess, in promoting bad ideas, remains largely unexplored. Let’s talk about the Koch brothers!”

        Phil, the Kochs certainly seem secretive and subject to a lot of speculation. But I’ve never come across anything about them funding neocon think-tanks and ideas around the time of the Iraq invasion. Do you have any knowledge that they did?

      • teta mother me
        December 31, 2011, 8:36 pm

        Rumsfeld was among the founders of Team B, which, under Richard Perle’s father-in-law Albert Wohlstetter,

        “accused the CIA of systematically underestimating Soviet missile deployment, in his 1974 foreign policy article entitled “Is There a Strategic Arms Race?” Wohlstetter concluded that the United States was allowing the Soviet Union to achieve military superiority by not closing a perceived missile gap. Many conservatives then began a concerted attack on the CIA’s annual assessment of the Soviet threat.***

        U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld began to make speeches arguing that the Soviets were ignoring Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s treaties and secretly building up their weapons, with the intention of attacking the United States. Rumsfeld used his position to persuade President Ford to set up an independent inquiry. Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz wanted to create a much more severe view of the Soviet Union, Soviet intentions, Soviet views about fighting and winning a nuclear war.

        Joseph Cirincione and others have written quite forcefully that the Soviet military buildup was greatly exaggerated —

        Arsenals of Folly examines the cold war arms race not by recounting treaty negotiations but by studying the psychology, physics, and politics of the era. Perhaps Rhodes’s most valuable contribution is his meticulous documentation of how American officials frequently and deliberately inflated their estimates of military threats facing the United States, beginning with the 1950 report to President Truman, known as NSC-68, that exaggerated Soviet military capabilities. As we know from misleading assessments about Iraq and now Iran, threat inflation has continued to this day.

        America faces real threats that need no embellishment. But as Rhodes shows, politicians have often exaggerated threats for political advantage. “Fear is a very dangerous thing,” said British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin after World War I. “It is quite true that it may act as a deterrent in people’s minds against war, but it is much more likely to act to make them want to increase armaments….”

        The manipulation of fear to promote programs that Americans would otherwise not support is different from honest disagreement over the scale of the threats. Rhodes shows how Paul Nitze, the principal author of the 1950 NSC report, intentionally exaggerated Soviet nuclear capacities and minimized those of the US in order to “bludgeon the mass mind of ‘government’”—as Nitze’s superior, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, admitted years later. Although the Soviet Union had lost at least 25 million people and half its industry in World War II, Nitze portrayed the USSR as a fanatical enemy that, within a few years, would threaten America with an estimated two hundred nuclear weapons. According to his report, the then American stockpile of 1,400 weapons would be insufficient to counter such a threat. Nitze’s report came at a time when international events, including the Korean War, seemed to validate this dark vision. In response, Truman quadrupled the defense budget and began a strategic program that would increase the US nuclear arsenal to some 20,000 thermonuclear bombs by 1960 and 32,000 by 1966.

        The threats were real, but the aggressive American buildup created new dangers without diminishing the Soviet problem. When Richard Nixon began his policy of détente with the Soviets to reverse these trends, Nitze formed, with Albert Wohlsetter at the University of Chicago, the Committee to Maintain a Prudent Defense Policy. It was the first of several private organizations that recruited young graduate students, including Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, with the explicit aim of subverting any plans to reduce the nuclear arsenal. “In doing so,” Rhodes writes, Nitze “unleashed a team of sorcerer’s apprentices whose trail of wreckage extends well into the present century.”

        In 1976 George H.W. Bush, then the director of the CIA, set up a “Team B” of private analysts hand-picked by Nitze’s group with the blessing of Dick Cheney, then President Gerald Ford’s chief of staff, and Donald Rumsfeld, then secretary of defense. Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard directed the team, which in December of that year produced a wildly exaggerated portrait of a Soviet empire bent on world domination.

        *** In the run up to the Iraq war, the Cheney team used a similar tactic to undermine the findings of CIA as well as British intelligence agents, who had obtained evidence that Saddam was NOT seeking to acquire WMD.

        Same tactic used to undermine 2007 Iran NIE that Iran was not developing WMD.

        The fact that one of Rumsfeld’s first political tasks involved writing a letter to Robert Kennedy’s DoJ Foreign Agents Registration Act group on behalf of “valued constituents” questioning published statements about the basis for determining whether American Zionist Committee would be required to register as foreign agent, suggests Rumsfeld has long had close connection to Jewish constituents.

        He attended a seminar of Milton Friedman’s and was influenced by Friedman — and also Wohlstetter and Wolfowitz, as noted above.

      • irishmoses
        January 1, 2012, 7:35 pm

        teta mother me: “The fact that one of Rumsfeld’s first political tasks involved writing a letter to Robert Kennedy’s DoJ Foreign Agents Registration Act group on behalf of “valued constituents” questioning published statements about the basis for determining whether American Zionist Committee would be required to register as foreign agent, suggests Rumsfeld has long had close connection to Jewish constituents.

        He attended a seminar of Milton Friedman’s and was influenced by Friedman — and also Wohlstetter and Wolfowitz, as noted above.”

        The Rumsfeld letter to RFK could be read either way. It looks to me like he is questioning whether DOJ is about to bend to pressure from Jewish groups not to require FARA registration. Remember, this was 1963 when anti-Semitism was much more mainstream and overt, particularly among WASPs like Rumsfeld.

        I also don’t think Rumsfeld’s prior connections to Friedman, Wohlstetter and Wolfowitz are unusual or nefarious in themselves. Rumsfeld is a Republican conservative who would be expected to have connections to these guys.

        Because someone has connections to Jews having influence does not necessarily mean that he or she is under their influence or control. Moreover, even if Rumsfeld was influenced by the economic teachings of Friedman, so what? Friedman may have been Jewish but that had nothing to do with his economic theories. Friedman was a very accomplished economist, period.

        I think it is important to be careful of how we frame these issues. It is very easy to slip from attempting to find a connection between Zionist Neocons (or ‘Greater Israel’ Neocons) and US foreign policy, to finding “connections” between US Jews and US foreign policy. The former is a valid inquiry; the latter crosses the line and can bring on justifiable claims of bordeline anti-semitism.

        I think this usually happens inadvertently. For instance in teta mother me’s comment he sees relevance in Rumsfeld’s connection to Wohlstetter and Friedman. Even Phil, in his earlier comment, saw relevance in Cheney’s connection to AEI and Bernard Lewis. Yet, I don’t see how any of these “Jewish” connections are anything more than coincidental and normal considering how accomplished and prevalent Jews are in many professions.

        If our tentative working hypothesis is that the power and influence of Zionist Neocons may have caused the US to invade Iraq to further the interests of Israel even though it was clearly against US vital interests to do so, then we should limit our inquiry to Zionist Neocons, not Jewish economists, Jewish nuclear weapons experts, Jews on Team B, Jews on First, or Jews in general.

      • irishmoses
        January 1, 2012, 6:18 pm

        Phil,
        This confuses me. I think of AEI as a conservative think tank that has strong connections to the neocons, but not as one directly connected to AIPAC and Israel as say W…. (I can’t remember the full acronym–WIMEA or something). I would expect Cheney and Rumsfeld to be adherents of AEI and Bernard Lewis, but none of this makes the connection to PNAC or a desire on the part of Cheney and Rumsfeld (and Bush) to start wars to enhance Israel’s interests.

        I guess my point is that Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush may have just been US foreign policy GOP hardliners who, still basking in the easy victory in Kuwait, decided to push US power and influence into the middle east militarily. That’s Pillar’s view. Still, the heavy presence of Zionist Neocons in the Bush administration suggests they may have had a major, influential role in guiding that policy. I’d like to know why and how they were given that role, and by whom.

        I think you are spot on about the role of money plays in this mess, but I’m doubtful money bought the support of Cheney and Rumsfeld. Why did they ally themselves so closely with Wolfowitz/Feith/Wurmser/et al? Why did they buy into such a risky move as destroying Iraq when it was clear that tribal chaos would follow and the Shia would likely triumph. Saddam was a bulwark against Iran. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld supported elder Bush’s decision not to invade Iraq after Kuwait for those very reasons. Why the total conversion in just 10 years.?

        Then, after the total disaster of Iraq, the new Obama administration is salted with the same neoconish true believers and anyone with a valid independent view (such as Chas Freeman) is kept out. Why, after that disaster do they still have any influence, let alone the ability to draw us into a new war?

        Truly baffling.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 1, 2012, 8:09 pm

        Why did they buy into such a risky move as destroying Iraq

        it wasn’t a risky move for them, it was intended for iraq to be destroyed. it was a complete redistribution of wealth from the american people to the war profiteers. cheney was a war profiteer.

      • MRW
        January 1, 2012, 6:39 pm

        Phil,

        “Let’s talk about the Koch brothers!”

        “Mark Ames: Ezra Klein’s shine job on the Kochs”
        link to nakedcapitalism.com

    • teta mother me
      December 31, 2011, 9:17 pm

      Kampeas should be careful about relying on the nonsense about Barbary pirates — Michael Oren’s slanted historiography — and the Woodrow Wilson gambit– Wilson was very heavily influenced by zionists Louis Brandeis, Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer.

      As well, Kampeas ought to get in touch with Steve Clemons and Charles Kupchan, who are once again putting a spin on US policy (proposals) that look like more of the same neocon meddling in the affairs of other people/nations:

      Clemon’s stunning assessment:

      The dominant personality of the Republican and Democratic parties runs under two monikers — but is essentially tied to the notion that the US has a moral responsibility to re-order the internal workings of other nations that constrain the freedoms and rights of their citizens.

      Ron Paul does not believe the US has a “moral responsibility” to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations.

  4. Richard Witty
    December 31, 2011, 11:35 am

    I think you should accept the refutation of your thesis in this article, and earlier by Norman Finkelstein, in interview with Chris Hedges on his site.

    I assume you saw it.

    • Donald
      December 31, 2011, 3:00 pm

      “I think you should accept the refutation of your thesis in this article,”

      That’s right Richard. Faced with arguments you immediately change your opinions.

      Kampeas goes too far here, but I didn’t have to listen to Finkelstein to think that someone like Cheney wasn’t tricked into invading Iraq. It’s just that there are plenty of people in the foreign policy establishment who have very similar views of the world. Among other principles one is this–if some non-Westerner gets uppity you kick him in the face. There is a natural affinity between someone like Cheney and the Israeli government.

      • Richard Witty
        January 1, 2012, 6:55 pm

        The thesis is that the Iraq War was fought for Israel, and not for oil, not for ideological motivations extending beyond the “Jewishness” of a few proponents.

        That thesis is conspiratorial, requiring giant leaps of imagination to connect the dots.

        Suspicion is NOT the same as fact. Suspicion provides the initial motivation for the beginning of an inquiry.

        It is SUCH a dangerous accusation, with such racialist potentials, to make it carelessly, not noting the distinction between suspicion and curiosity and fact, is negligent.

      • Shingo
        January 3, 2012, 7:05 pm

        If the Iraq war had been fought for oil, then the oil would be in the hands of US companies. As it turns out, the oil is in the hands of pro Iranian Shiites and oil
        contracts have gone to non US companies

      • Richard Witty
        January 3, 2012, 8:51 pm

        I don’t think that that proves anything.

        They weren’t necessarily looking for control of the oil so much as to remove the element of unreliability on the part of Saddam.

        It is the same motivation that drives confrontation with Iran.

        The recent verbal battles over the control of the Straights of Hormuz, with alternating Iranian and US/Nato military exercises in the Gulf are a demonstration of that.

        That Iran is even mentioning closing the straights is regarded as an aggression on the part of Iran towards the US and the west, and would motivate US military involvement.

        The Straights are international waters, not Iran’s. And, they are different importance to the world’s economy than Gazan international waters (I expected the next question. Forgive me if you didn’t plan on evoking it and I negatively second guessed.)

      • Shingo
        January 4, 2012, 3:12 am

        I don’t think that that proves anything

        Actually it does, it proves you’re prepared to spew out the first lie that comes to your head in defense of Israel.

        They weren’t necessarily looking for control of the oil so much as to remove the element of unreliability on the part of Saddam.

        You’re talking your usual garbage. First you said it was about oil, now it’s not about oil but about Saddam. Like I said, any lie will do when you need to defend Israel.

        It is the same motivation that drives confrontation with Iran.

        Which exposes yet another lie, that the beef with Iran has anything to do with nukes.

        Reading your comments is sometimes like watching a slow motion train wreck, as you implode.

        That Iran is even mentioning closing the straights is regarded as an aggression on the part of Iran towards the US and the west, and would motivate US military involvement.

        Right Witty. So the nearly daily threats from the US and Israel of bombing Iran is not a threat, butclosing the straights, which would be a response to such an attack, is a sign of aggression.

        The senility a early signs of dementia are certainly setting in.

        The Straights are international waters, not Iran’s. And, they are different importance to the world’s economy than Gazan international waters (I expected the next question. Forgive me if you didn’t plan on evoking it and I negatively second guessed.)

        They are of the same relevance in terms of legality and status. The recent US sanctions are themselves an act of war.

        But of course, to rabid Islamophobe like yourself, the rights of Muslims is of no consequence.

  5. Annie Robbins
    December 31, 2011, 11:38 am

    from my angle as an ordinary citizen, in the run up to the iraq war it wasn’t primarily the behind the scenes actions and pressures of the lobby/neocons to influence the government, it was ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’. it was stoking the flames to get the american public behind attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. and that was done thru the media. over and over and over these guys were given free reign, a platform to spread everything from islamophobia to hysterics about wmd’s while any other mindframe was effectively smothered.

    this was calculated and carefully nurtured. who could forget the line in the rolling stone..ron s..brain malfunctioning..argh..about the people just watching what happens of finding out and they write history or something. whatever. the stove piping the office of special plans..the weekly iraq groups..they were determined already on the inside but it was the platform the media provides them and still provides them to this day. why do the neocons have to much preeminence in the pundit class..in the media?

    and as for behind the scenes stuff, don’t forget the iraq national congress

    Chalabi was also part of a three-man executive council for the umbrella Iraqi opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress (INC), created in 1992 for the purpose of fomenting the overthrow of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

    Initially, Chalabi enjoyed close political and business relationships with some members of the U.S. government, including some prominent neoconservatives within the Pentagon. Chalabi is said to have had political contacts within the Project for the New American Century, most notably with Paul Wolfowitz, a student of nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter, and Richard Perle.

    the neocons were greasing the wheels for war from every angle. they were way ahead of the game.

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    • justicewillprevail
      December 31, 2011, 11:49 am

      Good question, and we are seeing exactly the same pattern as before: a media bent on representing a minority belligerent, aggressive position as the mainstream consensus, willing to smear and belittle decent arguments against them, and ignore any evidence which doesn’t fit their war ideology (not to mention a willingness to invent ‘facts’ as it suits them). They digest the Zionist/neocon agenda without question, even though it is clearly not in the interests of the US or its citizens. They seem quite happy to bankrupt America over futile wars, encourage more terrorism for years to come, and splinter the Middle East into civil wars which may end up with more violent, unrepresentative regimes. Quite a record. The only answer is to look at the ownership of the US media, and to follow the money. It is confined to a small, hugely wealthy corporate elite whose interests have nothing to do with those of ordinary Americans. Never mind an Arab Spring, it is American Spring which is urgently needed to save the US from these fundamentalist warlords, many of whom worship at the altar of Zionist ideology.

      • dumvitaestspesest
        December 31, 2011, 12:23 pm

        Amen to that.
        Boycott MSM. Cancel cable.
        Do not follow the pop culture treacherous trails.
        Start reading and watching reality that affects you, not lives of ” celebrites”.
        Stop being a puppet that feeds on brainwashing , msmedial agenda that puts its poisonus drips into the veins of the whole nation.
        Wake up, before it is not too late.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 31, 2011, 2:50 pm

        the people who push the american public to war want to create an illusion the results of that pushing don’t matter. that americans wanted to go, overwhelmingly. that’s why we’re having this conversation now. they want us to forget their participation and pretend it was some sort of organic reaction coming out of 9/11. it wasn’t.

      • teta mother me
        December 31, 2011, 8:48 pm

        yea Annie, I just finished watching the Norman Finkelstein video linked earlier — over 2 hours worth, including Q&A. In the Q&A Finkelstein says “Americans wanted to go to war with Iraq but American Jews did not.”

        I googled polls from 2002 on “Americans favor Iraq war” and first hit was a CNN poll whose HEADLINE said Americans in favor of war, but if you read the poll questions, they say, “do you think we should invade Iraq or wait for inspections,” and the like. On most questions phrased that way, the majority — at least 55% — said Wait, Inspect, etc. The headlines were skewed, the poll questions were skewed.

        Polls are no where and no time reliable; they serve as a barometer to the propaganda ministers of how effective their war marketing campaign is. If results of a poll show Americans not sufficiently warlike, then the propaganda dose is increased accordingly, and tested again a few weeks later. We are propaganda rats in a Skinner box being fed Luntz crumbs.

    • PeaceThroughJustice
      December 31, 2011, 8:35 pm

      Annie wrote: “who could forget the line in the rolling stone..ron s..brain malfunctioning..argh..about the people just watching what happens of finding out and they write history or something.”

      You didn’t give us much to go on, but perhaps you were thinking of this from Karl Rove?

      “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
      link to en.wikipedia.org

    • irishmoses
      January 1, 2012, 6:31 pm

      There was an interview of someone who wrote a book about Chalabi’s influence on Bob Edwards weekend on NPR yesterday. He claims Chalabi was the guy that convinced the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Interesting interview. He claims Chalabi told the Bushies to invade but not occupy and that he would be able handle the rest using the existing Iraqi army.

  6. W.Jones
    December 31, 2011, 12:23 pm

    Kampeas writes: “The Bush administration was determined to invade Iraq… it tailored the sale [of the war] to the target.

    So Democrats, always seeking national security credibility, got the terrorism argument. The media, always seeking the next mortal threat, got that. Liberals who have embraced intervention as a means of preventing slaughter, got the Kurdish argument. “

    The claim that democrats and the media wanted the war because of terrorism I disagree with. There were occasional claims about S.Hussein being involved with terrorism, but it was not a common claim or a big one. The big claims were alot more about WMDs.

    Liberals didn’t seriously care about Kurdistan. It wasn’t a big theme either in the war.

    So Kampeas is making a misportrayal when he says the war was just based on Bush and Cheney’s own decision and then liberals going on board because of terrorism and Kurdistan.

    It was really more about WMDs, which as people know now was a made up claim anyway.

    So if it wasn’t based on Terrorism or Kurdistan as Kampeas claims, or WMDs or democracy as Bush claimed, the other three reasons I can think of are O.I.L. as some insiders claim. And those are three reasons that make sense. You can easily find out what that stands for. :)

  7. irishmoses
    December 31, 2011, 12:52 pm

    I think you are conflating two different issues: The threat of Iraqi WMD was used and promoted to sell the American public (and Congress) on the Iraq war but it was not the motive for the war. The separate and key question/issue in my mind is why Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush bought into the Iraq war concept; what was their motive? I suspect ‘imposing democracy on Iraq to save/reform the ME’ was likely the motive they believed in but I also think they may have been sold on that motive by the Neocons as a ruse to hide a more questionable motive of getting the US to take out Iraq to enhance Israel’s interests. Admittedly, I don’t have any direct evidence of that and I may well be wrong, but I would at least like to see that possibility explored and discussed.

    As to the Iraq national Congress/Chalabi connection, as you yourself say, it also grew out of the PNAC Perle/Wolfowitz connection and was really just another neocon tool used to sell the public and congress on the need for an Iraq invasion.

    The real question in my mind is how did Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush get sold on an idea that was so clearly contrary to US vital interests, and who did the selling? It may well have been nothing more than a continuation of a century or more of the American ideal of ‘saving the world for democracy’ (Pillar’s ‘assertive nationalists’ view of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush) but I suspect the same phenomenal neocon skills and efforts aimed at selling the war to the American public and Congress, were also first used to sell the war to the key US political players who would have to make the final calls.

    Interesting debate except for Mr. Kampeas’ assertion that the debate itself is anti-semitic because it enhances or furthers ‘toxic myths attached to the Jews’. Since this debate is not about ‘the Jews’ but rather about a very small subset of Israeli and American Zionist Jews, perhaps best described by Andrew Sullivan as the ‘Greater Israel’ crowd, it would be nice if Mr. Kampeas acknowledged that the debate is not between just him and the antisemites, but perhaps also between people of good faith some of whom disagree with him.

    I and most of the commenters at MW are neither antisemites nor ‘fellow travelers’ of antisemites. While the likes of the David Dukes of this world may gleefully adopt or latch onto the questions I and others raise, that does not mean that all those who raise these questions are motivated by antisemitism. Mr. Kampeas is too bright a guy not to know the difference.

  8. TonyG
    December 31, 2011, 1:44 pm

    Mearsheimer and Walt’s argument that the Israel lobby was decisively influential in the Iraq war decision was the weakest part of a generally good book. (Note that “the neo-conservatives” and “the Israel lobby” are far from being identical.) But Kampeas’s accusation that W&M are “at least flirting with anti-semitism” is unwarranted and reprehensible. Knee-jerk accusations of anti-semitism–sometimes quite sincere, often, I believe cynically calculated–serve to stifle legitimate inquiry into the influence of the Israel lobby on U.S. policy. Plenty of people believe that organized groups composed primarily of Cuban-Americans have exercised inordinate influence on our policy toward Cuba. I never hear those critics accused of being “anti-Cuban.”

    • MRW
      December 31, 2011, 4:34 pm

      Excellent point, TonyG:

      Plenty of people believe that organized groups composed primarily of Cuban-Americans have exercised inordinate influence on our policy toward Cuba. I never hear those critics accused of being “anti-Cuban.”

      But this was not:

      Mearsheimer and Walt’s argument that the Israel lobby was decisively influential in the Iraq war decision was the weakest part of a generally good book.

      Philip Zelikow, who was on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), and who reported directly to the president from 2001 to 2003, said it himself in 2003 at a foreign policy conference.
      link to atimes.com

      • Annie Robbins
        December 31, 2011, 5:12 pm

        Zelikow made his statements about “the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

        “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 – it’s the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of September 11 and the future of the war on al-Qaeda.

        “And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.

        The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 US troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington’s desire to defend the Jewish state.

        hmm

      • teta mother me
        January 1, 2012, 8:22 pm

        hmmm again.

        Zelikow was in Charlottesville, VA on Sept 10, 2002.

        Bibi Netanyahu was in Washington, DC on Sept 12 2002 appearing before a panel of Congressmen chaired by Dan Burton, urging them to support George Bush who was, on that day, at the UN in New York, delivering a speech about the conditions under which he would lead to the US to war.

        prolly just a coincidence, all those people with interest in Israel gathered in the US to influence US policymakers.

        ps. as I recall, Bibi told the congresspersons that Israel would be in danger if Iraq were attacked, so US “must provide” gas masks vaccinations to Israel (which US did). Kucinich asked him if Israel would be in danger if Iraq were NOT attacked. Bibi did not answer the question.

      • TonyG
        January 2, 2012, 11:22 pm

        MRW (and also Annie R.):

        Zelikow’s comments are certainly noteworthy, but they speak to the administration’s motives for war, not to the influence of the Israel lobby. (Even re. the administration’s motives, Zelikow’s comments are hardly conclusive: he could well have been projecting his personal priorities on the administration.) I don’t doubt that the neo-cons were critical in the war decision, and Israel was a major motivator for them, but that still doesn’t establish that the Israel lobby’s role was critical. As I said earlier, the neo-cons and the Israel lobby are not identical: the neo-cons didn’t need any push from the lobby, which joined, but was not a formative influence, in the drive to war. W&M, in overstating their case on this point, opened themselves up to criticism by Israel apologists eager to discredit their broader arguments.

  9. Avi_G.
    December 31, 2011, 2:00 pm

    The problem with this debate is that it is carried out between members of an American Jewish community who (1) Have an interest in shaping and framing the narrative regarding the attack on Iraq and (2) Preclude Israeli sources which shed an entirely more informed light on the subject.

    I wouldn’t look to Ron Kampeas — whatever qualifications he may think he possesses — for information on the Israeli push for war on Iraq.

    The fact of the matter is that:

    (1) As early as the 1980s, Israel identified several spheres of threats with which it sought to deal. One of those was Saddam Hussain’s Iraq.

    (2) In 1991, Israeli air force jets were on standby to drop nuclear bombs on Iraq.

    (3) In 1981, Israel launched an attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility.

    (4) Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and John Podhoretz among others, are all Jewish.

    Short answer, no, it has not become acceptable in mainstream discourse because it is still not true.

    Well, if you keep claiming it’s not true, it could very well become a fact. Just remember to repeat it often.

    I find it amusing how Ron Kampeas is having this back and forth debate with zero evidence to back his claims. The only half-baked argument the reader gets is:

    There is no such consequence because its premise is simply not true.

    The Bush administration invaded Iraq principally because it was attached to a policy of maintaining U.S. preeminence in a vitally important region. This policy was cut from the same cloth as GOP/neoconservative clamoring for a tougher posture vis-a-vis Putin, the same cloth as the championing of Taiwan, the same cloth as the decades old isolation of Cuba.

    “The Bush administration invaded Iraq principally because it was attached to a policy of maintaining U.S. preeminence in a vitally important region,” said our ‘political analyst’ and ‘geopolitical expert’, Ron Kampeas.

    Nevermind, of course, that said ‘analysis’ is total bullshit. And the gaggle about Taiwan and Cuba makes him look like a kindergarten child who likes to repeat what he hears at home, but can’t quite maintain the coherence of the original argument.

  10. anonymouscomments
    December 31, 2011, 2:23 pm

    i don’t want to marginalize myself, but i would like to see an analysis on the iraq war from some of the intellectual and history heavyweights here, with a significant “fringe”* assumption.

    my assumption is that 9/11 was a USG false-flag, all the way. of course this does not mean massive numbers of people in the USG, it means key power players, and shady parts of the CIA, etc. i am not here to argue it, i just know some people here have concluded it was highly likely to have been such. people can look at the wealth of evidence and honestly come to either conclusion. but WTC7, and many other things have convinced me, including the political response, where the WH hit the ground running.
    link to vimeo.com

    for me, this really zooms out further when considering everything that came after 9/11. 9/11 was the prerequisite for everything that came after. and what came after was generally unproductive, unrelated, or counterproductive when considering islamic terrorism (obv., we all get this). 9/11 simply gave the (IMHO too convenient) political capital to implement our subsequent actions in the ME.

    given my assumption, we have to assume the variable players in the WH/CIA/etc that carried out 9/11 were the DIRECT PREMEDITATED cause of the iraq war. naturally, 9/11 would not be carried out to just step on a weak afghansitan. iraq and assumedly a reshaping of the ME was the real policy goal, as we continue to witness. therefore i consider neocons of any stripe, those with only a pen in hand, just window dressing. most just useful intelectual helpers, who would by their very nature support the wars, but some individuals perhaps part of the scheme. but the WH waged the wars and rolled out the propaganda (office of special plans, etc.), and to blame the various public players who jumped on board, and helped in the media, is a very narrow analysis, and distracts from the players with the most direct blame.

    in this scenario, you really would have to lift any serious blame off of the pundits and various lobbies, but they are by no means blameless (their analysis was horrible, and they played a supporting role). i do admit, if we accept my assumption, it opens up a much larger can of worms. i think that this means variable elite players with substantial power in the USG are the true culprit. the motivations may have been very diverse, or very specific. it might just have been a diverse mix of war profiteering, oil, right-wing ideology, ensuring republican control, and israeli interests combined. i really do not know.

    but for anyone who agrees with or considers my assumption, it means there is a real ROOT cause, and it is in our government power structure. and the supporting players are still there of course. we can talk all day about how to split the blame in the public realm, but if we ignore the root (which is very hard to determine, let alone, root out; no pun intended), we may just be spinning our wheels.

    but i am interested in what some have to say, granting my assumption. i know the old news of the PNAC paper, and the clean break paper, which do offer some insight. but i am interested in people’s opinion.

    thanks

    * i am not interested in having my assumption labelled as “ludicrous”. 9/11 would be the biggest false-flag in history, seems inconceivable, but things do just get bigger and better- it’s the american way. it is the volumes of evidence that support the false-flag theory, and the indirect political evidence, that swayed me. i do not discount people who consider it roughly the official story. we simply differ in our conclusion. but people might want to consider the history of false-flags, and keep themselves open to it.

    • Gellian
      December 31, 2011, 2:57 pm

      “i am not interested in having my assumption labelled as “ludicrous”. 9/11 would be the biggest false-flag in history, seems inconceivable, but things do just get bigger and better- it’s the american way”

      Your assumption is ludicrous. You need to be told that. No one did that operation except bin Laden’s team who, as you surely know, went on to take credit for it.

      • MRW
        December 31, 2011, 3:56 pm

        Wrong, Gellian. Bin Laden’s “team” never took credit for it. In fact, Bin Laden somewhere around Sept 16 or 21, 2001 issued a statement that was not widely distributed–it’s bouncing around the net somewhere–but I sure as hell saw it overseas, which was where I was after 9/11, and on BBC, Skynet, etc. He said he didn’t do it, and that he mourned for those who died in the awful event.

        The fact is that Bin Laden’s name, and the accusation that he was involved, was advanced by Ehud Barak on BBC World on 9/11 at 3:30 PM GMT from the BBC. Later that evening, BBC time, Richard Perle and Ehud Barak were on TV for AN ENTIRE HOUR laying out how Bin Laden did it. I have both clips. I think you can find them in the Wayback Machine Archives of 911.

        Now. Ehud Barak just happened to be in the London BBC Green Room waiting to go on to comment about the hijacking of four planes??? I watched this live. It was 1/2 hour before the first tower fell…and he’s blaming Bin Laden? Then he coyly says, well, I don’t know, “we’ll know in 12 hours,” he says, meaning who hijacked the planes. He’s the phucking ex-PM of a country in the ME and he presumes to know when a perp can be determined? But in this first clip he calls on all the world powers to execute a global war on terror over four hijacked planes. Remember, the towers had not fallen. I sat bolt upright watching this because for one half hour before he appeared at 9:30 AM EST, they showed inserts of Barak sitting in the Green Room, waiting to come on. They kept headlining him sitting in the Green room. At 9 AM EST, all the planes had not hit their targets. There was no shock. There was no disbelief that it had happened. Zero.

        Then, at 10:30 PM GMT on 9/11 (which is 4:30 PM NYC time, I think) on BBC Newsnight, Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, and Ehud Barak are on for a goddam hour declaring it was Bin Laden.

        If by “team” you mean that guy they had in jail on August 16, 2001, Moussaoui, whom they now claim was the mastermind, then that’s another whistle up the collective ass. The mastermind–who BTW said at his trial that he didn’t do it, the trial docs are available online–was in jail in Minnesota handling the attack?

        Gellian, you need to take an hour off and watch this Adam Curtis BBC documentary. There’s a lot you don’t know:
        link to video.google.com

        I have no idea who did it, but getting me to believe 200,000 tons of steel can evaporate in 8.2 seconds from jet fuel (kerosene), when I can barbecue a chicken in my Big Green Egg at the same temperature wrapped in tin foil for an hour and the tin foil doesn’t melt, is asking me to believe in insanity.

      • MRW
        December 31, 2011, 5:13 pm

        Furthermore, British Steel sponsored a series of fire tests at the Building Research Establishment’s Cardington Laboratory from 1995 to 1996. These were highly scientific structural engineering tests.

        The tests were carried out on an eight-storey composite steel-framed building that had been designed and constructed as a typical multi-storey office building. The purpose of the tests was to investigate the behaviour of a real structure under real fire conditions and to collect data that would allow computer programs for the analysis of structures in fire to be verified.

        The test building (see Figure A.1.1) was designed to be a typical example of both the type of braced structure and the load levels that are commonly found in the UK. In plan, the building covered an area of 21 m x 45 m and had an overall height of 33 m. The beams were designed as simply supported acting compositely with a 130 mm floor slab. Normally a building of this type would be required to have 90 minutes fire resistance. Fin-plates were used for the beam-to-beam connections and flexible end plates for the beam-to-column connections. The structure was loaded using sandbags distributed over each floor to simulate typical office loading.

        There were two projects in the research programme. One project was funded by Corus (formerly British Steel) and the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), and the other was funded by the UK Government via the Building Research Establishment (BRE). Other organisations involved in the research programme included Sheffield University, TNO (The Netherlands), CTICM (France) and The Steel Construction Institute. Fire tests took place between January 1995 and July 1996.

        The University of Edinburgh 76-page June 2000 Main Report on the Cardington Frame tests is here. “Behaviour of steel framed structures under fire conditions MAIN REPORT”:
        link to civ.ed.ac.uk

        And the link where the quote above was taken from is here. You can see photos of the fire and fire-ravaged buildings here as well:
        link to 911research.wtc7.net

        Bottom line: they didn’t melt. They didn’t fall. The steel beams were minuscule compared to the core columns of the WTCs.

        And another quote from my library of research on this, which I can’t link to because it isn’t available:

        Even if the fire-rated suspended ceilings and spray on fire-protection from the trusses was removed by the
        impacts and the trusses were heated till they had lost most of their room temperature strength, we know from the Cardington tests and real fires like Broadgate, that the relatively cold concrete slab will supply strength to the structural system, and collapse will not occur. Remember, that at Broadgate and Cardington, the beams/trusses were not fire-protected. Consider this quote: “After the Broadgate Phase 8 fire and the Cardington frame tests there were benchmarks to test composite frame models. Research intensified because almost all the tests had unprotected steel beams (no fire rated suspended ceiling and no spray-on fire retardant) but collapse was not seen [3]“

      • Avi_G.
        December 31, 2011, 5:39 pm

        Gellian says:
        December 31, 2011 at 2:57 pm

        Your assumption is ludicrous. You need to be told that. No one did that operation except bin Laden’s team who, as you surely know, went on to take credit for it.

        Ignorant people like to fill in the gaps of their knowledge with opinions that are based on superficial information and lacking in real evidence. That is to say that, the typical intellectual midget likes to think that he can formulate entire ideas, without a shred of proof.

        But, the fact of the matter is that the attacks on the Twin Towers and the subsequent collapses, coupled with the so-called 9/11 Commission Report, raise dozens of unanswered questions.

        (1) How did the support beams of both building collapse if the heat inside the buildings could not — scientifically — have reached the temperature required to weaken or melt said steel?

        (2) On the day of the attacks, the United States airforce routed most of its fighter jets to Alaska as part of a joint NORAD exercise named Able Danger. As a result, few defenses were left to protect the eastern seaboard.

        (3) What explains the discrepancy between the government’s claims concerning the competency of the alleged hijackers and the incompetence described by the flight instructors who knew the alleged hijackers?

        (4) Anyone who tells you that a plane crashed into the Pentagon is lying to you. No commercial jet and no human pilot could carry out the maneuvers attributed to the plane that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon.

        (5) It takes days to rig a building to implode in a carefully controlled demolition. How is it that Building 7, a building that suffered no significant fire damage, implode on its own footprint and fall at close to 9.8m/s^2 (Acceleration due to gravity — in this case, Earth’s gravity)?

        Now, I understand that many like to think that their opinions are the ultimate truth, but very few actually offer any scientific evidence or explanations for their opinions.

        In addition, very few people seem to understand the basic and simple premise of informed opinion.

      • MRW
        December 31, 2011, 6:31 pm

        Avi, to your no. 1 point above, Kevin Flynn, of the New York Times, reporting on the NYFD Dispatch tapes that only the 9/11 families could listen to for the first few years:

        Chief Orio Palmer says from an upper floor of the badly damaged south tower at the World Trade Center. Just two hose lines to attack two isolated pockets of fire. “We should be able to knock it down with two lines,” he tells the firefighters of Ladder Co. 15 who were following him up the stairs of the doomed tower. Lt. Joseph G. Leavey is heard responding: “Orio, we’re on 78 but we’re in the B stairway. Trapped in here. We got to put some fire out to get to you.” The time was 9:56 a.m.

        The south tower collapsed at 9:59 AM.

      • irishmoses
        January 1, 2012, 12:11 am

        MRW,
        Have the engineers that conducted these tests now concluded that WTC 1-3 came down for reasons unrelated to fire and impact? There are real world examples of other steel frame buildings that have collapsed due to fire. See the link I provided in a subsequent comment on this thread. There’s a whole section devoted to that subject.

      • MRW
        January 1, 2012, 1:03 pm

        Gil, to your question: “Have the engineers that conducted these tests now concluded that WTC 1-3 came down for reasons unrelated to fire and impact?” I have no idea. I found out about the Cardington tests from an international panel of structural engineers who were discussing the problems they had with the NIST conclusions and the generally accepted idea of how the towers fell: by fire.

        As one of the senior US panel members said–his point is a lucid one–we teach the structural engineers that design and build American infrastructure, industry, and architecture. If our knowledge is wrong, we are endangering the indoor and outdoor lives of every citizen in the world by teaching the wrong information.

        I couldn’t find the examples you cite in your link. (Not enough coffee yet?)

        I have a problem with that site, Gil. There is no About. There is no Contact. The basis for it is kept secret. There is no indication of who put it together, what the person’s qualifications are for making the judgments, and someone spent a lot of time doing it. It’s purpose appears to be debunking what it considers conspiratorial, and everything that doesn’t comport with the official story appears to be judged automatically a conspiracy. If the definition of a conspiracy theory is a theory that assumes a conspiracy as fact, as some secret plan on the part of (at least) a minimum of two people to influence events by partly secret means, then the site itself, the way it’s done, the curious secrecy or non-existence of the webmaster and author(s) is itself conspiratorial, by definition. It’s full of glib dismissals of serious researchers for reasons other than scientific: because someone got laid off, or because some other cited or linked source said the researcher should be dismissed. It’s too full of asinine aha-gotcha’ pronouncements. How is that helpful or useful to a thinking individual?

        I have absolutely zero interest in debunking or not debunking. I am not interested in having an opinion on what happened on 9/11, or taking a stance. I want the facts. I want the truth. I don’t buy the official story; it doesn’t make sense, it was concocted the day-of with no independent and open scientific investigation into what went wrong–the FBI to this day is withholding critical security camera and black box information from the public, what’s up with that? why?–and the unanswered questions are too glaring to be ignored. Period.

      • MRW
        January 1, 2012, 1:27 pm

        Gil, I just ask myself reasonable-to-me questions. Here’s one: if the towers were brought down by fire, why was the majority of the debris 8 1/2″ x 11″ sheets of paper?

      • irishmoses
        January 1, 2012, 8:02 pm

        Well, the obvious reason would be that since the fires only engulfed a few floors but the entire buildings collapsed, all the paper from those unburned floors would be present throughout the debris. That analysis required no research and less than 2 seconds of brainpower, diminished though it might be.

        MRW, you are a bright guy whose comments and opinions on IP issues I greatly admire. Why is it that you couldn’t immediately see the flaw in your paper debris question? Answer: cognitive dissonance. You want so desperately to believe in a 9-11 conspiracy that your brain is closed to the obvious flaws in your own reasoning.

        Avi_G and others, whose opinions on MW IP issues I genuinely respect, have, to my horror, also quafted deeply from the Kool Aid in the 9-11 conspiracy chalice. What is with you guys? It is garbage, pure and simple. You can easily find the flaws and reasonable responses to all the 9-11 conspiracy claims on the web at a wide variety of websites, government and non. But, you must be willing to start your inquiry with an open mind and read both sides’ claims with balance.

        Would that you would do so my friend. It distresses me deeply to see good minds burying themselves in the endless machinations of the 9-11 conspiracy theorists. We at MW have far more important fish to fry.

      • teta mother me
        January 1, 2012, 8:53 pm

        “(2) On the day of the attacks, the United States airforce routed most of its fighter jets to Alaska as part of a joint NORAD exercise named Able Danger. As a result, few defenses were left to protect the eastern seaboard. “

        According to Ellen Tauscher, State Dept. undersecy for disarmament, in a speech in California early 2011, the only time NATO dispatched forces to protect a member nation was on 9/11, when the NATO rep in Belgium sent planes to protect the US homeland.
        That NATO representative was Victoria Nuland (Kagan).

      • MRW
        January 2, 2012, 12:29 am

        Gil, I’ll flog this one last time. You wrote

        Well, the obvious reason would be that since the fires only engulfed a few floors but the entire buildings collapsed, all the paper from those unburned floors would be present throughout the debris.

        Robert Krulwich reported on Peter Jennings’ ABC newshour (I have the clip) three days after 9/11 that engineers at the company who built the towers best guess to account for the missing 1200 feet* of material from each tower was that “the large portions simply vaporized” into dust.

        Here’s what vaporized in both towers in approx. 9 seconds, as reported by Krulwich. (Count out 9 seconds on your fingers). So what vaporized these “unburned floors” as you call them, because they vaporized from the top down?

        • 43,600 windows
        • 600,000 sq ft of glass
        • 200,000 tons of structural steel
        • 5 million sq ft of gypsum
        • 6 acres of marble
        • 425,000 cubic yds of concrete

        The largest structural elements in the towers were pulverized into fine dust, a cloud, said the environmental scientists who examined the dust.

        Yet, what remained unscathed? The most combustible of material: paper. “Fully intact” letters, business forms, stationery.

        ____________
        * because 100 ft remained at the bottom

      • irishmoses
        January 2, 2012, 1:51 am

        MRW (Avi and others):
        I’ve posted quite a bit on the 9-11 conspiracy theories on prior threads, and spent a lot of time researching the various claims. While many of the claims sound valid at first glance, they all fall apart on detailed scrutiny of the various reports and investigation of 9-11. In other words, there are reasonable explanations given by trained investigators, structural engineers, etc. for each of the apparent anomalies.

        If you want to see more detail about why I don’t buy the conspiracies you’ll need to check my prior postings. I’m too exhausted by this topic to discuss it any further as I’ve found that any report or site I provide as evidence for my belief is immediately ridiculed as flawed or tainted by the conspirators. In essence, there really isn’t any useful dialogue between the two sides. That’s why I see it as similar to trying to argue religion, and why I no longer will participate in the futile exercise of trading sources.

        I think the main problem in the debate is that the 9-11 investigation, which included highly detailed reports on every aspect by NIST engineers and many outside consultants, provides an explanation that the conspiracy theories can snipe selectively at. No amount of factual rebuttal seems to stick. The same bogus claims about WT7, NORAD, etc. keep coming back, as they have in this thread.

        I place the onus on those who claim conspiracy to offer their own full explanation and timeline of what they think really happened. Not something vague like a ‘false flag’ operation, but something detailed that provides counter explanations for each of the parts or events of 9-11 they dispute.
        For instance, try to explain in detail how all three buildings could have been torn apart and wired for ‘controlled demolition’ without anybody’s knowledge. Try to explain how the conspirators managed to crash two planes into the buildings without screwing up the controlled demolition wiring job and charges. When you actually make the effort to lay out the details necessary to make the conspiracy work, it is mind boggling in its complexity and sheer fantasy in terms of explanation.

        So, if you want to make the effort to provide your complete theory of how it all came down (pun intended) on 9-11, from start to finish, have at it. I promise to review it with a neutral and careful eye so long as you first provide me with your complete version of the 9-11 event, and all the evidence that supports your version.

        Gil Maguire

        p.s. The usual response to my suggestion is: “No, no, we don’t know what really happened; all we want is a new investigation.” That, of course, is nothing more than a convenient cop out. If you are claiming conspiracy the onus is on you to provide a complete version and all the evidence that supports your claim.

      • anonymouscomments
        January 2, 2012, 3:04 am

        Irishmoses-

        The reason some people you admire and respect think it was an inside job is because a GREAT DEAL OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THIS. End of story. We are all smart enough to read the counter arguments. Some truther theories are refuted and are debunked. Many are not, and apparently cannot be suficiently “debunked”. That does not mean that they will not come up with some BS for the issue on your favorite “debunking” website.

        They count on people like you to buy the lie, and the main reason you do is because YOU are not being open minded, and perhaps do not have a very scientific mind with a good BS detector. Again, I think all of us were on your side for some period of time.

        But we were open minded, and that is precisely why we came to our current conclusions (or undefined 9/11 issues), upon inspecting the facts.

        You can disagree, and I think you would be wrong to buy most anything from the official story.

        But at a minimum quit the childish, holier-than-thou condescension. And for years I discounted it as well. The MAIN reason I strenuously denied it was a false-flag was because I had strong preexisting biases about what was “possible” from a logistics level, and a pure “evil” standpoint. Those were unsupported assumptions I made, and once I got over those gut biases, and reviewed the evidence, I got it very clearly.

        You keep acting like everything is debunked. If you want we can go back and forth on one specific area of the general consensus false-flag theory…. I am VERY sincere. We can both probe each other’s facts and their logic. Maybe we will learn something. Sure as hell will beat you just dismissing people with absolutely no evidence, logic, links, or anything. BTW linking once to a debunking website, which is very poorly done and often FAILS to debunk the issue at hand, is not an argument. But you can feel free to copy and past their BS and I will very handily debunk the debunking for you, for all to see and comment on.

        Shall we begin? What issue do you want to consider- perhaps the collapse of WTC7? Or a smaller issue like NIST lying about explosions and molten steel? Or the feasibility of thermate/nanothermite as a major component in performing the work in controlled demolition? Trust me, you might enjoy it, assuming you like some sincere debate, and are open minded….

      • anonymouscomments
        January 2, 2012, 3:33 am

        irishmoses,

        i missed your invitation to actually discuss, before i made my last posting. appreciate the willingness and intend to take you up on it tomorrow.

        i find it unlikely we will reach agreement, but if we both share facts and inspect the logic from each, it can be a mutually beneficial exercise. to prevent the world from being up for debate i will outline what i think happened on 9/11, as an overview with best guesses… *precisely* how it was done is more hazy, but what is clear is that the official story is a lie (IMO).

        then, we can drill down on one piece of my proposed theory (WTC7 collapse), so the scope is limited. i will-
        1) show why the official story (which is a NIST theory) is by NO MEANS a convincing explanation
        2) propose what likely did occur, with significant evidence that supports my theory

        and then we can go back and forth, refuting/disputing/adding evidence, and challenging the logic/conclusions presented. until we are sick of it. :)

      • Avi_G.
        January 2, 2012, 4:11 am

        Gil Maguire,

        On October 1st, in response to an article about the assassination of al-Awlaki, a US citizen, you wrote:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        An American citizen who chooses to fight on the side of the enemy is an enemy combatant, pure and simple, and is no more entitled to the protections of our criminal justice system than was the Gestapo general who was assasinated in Poland during World War II.

        About that case, Glenn Greenwald, citing a news report, wrote:

        link to salon.com

        The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.

        But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki’s hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.

        I couldn’t care less about al -Awlaki or his nonsense.

        The point is that based simply on the say-so of the government, you jumped to the conclusion that Al-Awlaki was an “enemy combatant”.

        Since you require no proof to condemn someone and ascribe him the label “enemy combatant”, you have relinquished the privilege of claiming that you give a rat’s ass about evidence, or proof.

        There is no point in debating you about 9/11. Any such debate with you is bound to be as fruitful as a debate with richard witty, who is the epitome of cognitive dissonance and denial on these very boards.

        He has his ideology and his own blinders and you have yours; the proof is in your comments for they show that you have an inability to objectively analyze information.

        Your profile states that you used to be an attorney. What kind of attorney are you that you can reach conclusions on the say-so of someone else? I mean, if you were litigating a case and as soon as you walked into the courtroom the judge told you that your client was guilty, would you not ask for an explanation?

        Or, would you simply accept that decision and go about your day as usual?

        Now, I’m going to jump to a conclusion here, and based on your comments on this board, comments that are usually critical of Israel, I’m going to conclude that you are motivated to participate due to deeply ingrained anti-Semitism. After all, a reasonable person will surely find it peculiar that you are able to see through the Israeli government’s propaganda (give your defense of Palestinian rights), but somehow lose that ability when it comes to US government propaganda.

      • Avi_G.
        January 2, 2012, 4:21 am

        Moderator,

        Please reject post at January 2, 2012 at 3:40 am

        Thanks.

      • IranContraClanDidNineEleven
        January 2, 2012, 4:32 am

        IrishMoses said:
        ” While many of the claims sound valid at first glance, they all fall apart on detailed scrutiny of the various reports and investigation of 9-11. In other words, there are reasonable explanations given by trained investigators, structural engineers, etc. for each of the apparent anomalies.”

        These folks beg to differ my good friend:
        link to patriotsquestion911.com

        also, this clip is eye opening to say the least:

      • MRW
        January 2, 2012, 7:16 am

        Don’t be ridiculous, Gil: “If you are claiming conspiracy the onus is on you to provide a complete version and all the evidence that supports your claim.”

        (1) I am a taxpayer. The onus is not on me to provide anything. The onus is on the government to provide a proper investigation and explanation with my tax dollars and yours.

        (2) I am not interested in theories, neither mine nor yours. You are no more an arbiter of the truth than I am. I want facts, solid answers based on the entirety of the evidence which is a reasonable request, and so do the majority of people in this country. We didn’t get them.

        (3) Read: NYT reporter, Philip Shenon’s book: “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation.”

        Shenon…reveals that [Executive Director Philip] Zelikow, before the Commission’s work had begun, had written a detailed outline for the Commission’s report, complete with “chapter headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings,” and that he and the Commission’s co-chairs agreed to keep this outline a secret from the Commission’s investigative staff.

        (4) Former FBI director Louis Freeh criticized the 9/11 Commission for ignoring key evidence, and further, accused the Pentagon of withholding evidence. (Google it.)

        (5) The two co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, wrote in 2008, “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission” in which they said the commission was set up to fail. They were denied access to key intel evidence and witnesses, and were underfunded ($3 million). By comparison, Starr’s investigation of Clinton 12 years ago cost $40 million.

        (6) The senior legal counsel for the commission, John Farmer, wrote “The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11″ in which he says that the commission was denied the truth and access to the evidence that it was set up to investigate.

        (7) David R Griffin has written scholarly books on the lack of sufficient evidence. From a review blurb

        bin Laden expert Bruce Lawrence called [the] videotape [in which a bin Laden boasts about the attacks] “bogus” and that FBI spokesman Rex Tomb admitted that “the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” . . . [A]lthough we were told that the presence of hijackers on American Flight 77 was proved by Barbara Olson’s phone calls to her husband, Ted Olson, the evidence given to the Moussaoui trial in 2006 by the FBI said that no such calls occurred. [Available online.] This same report contradicted the widely held belief that cell phone calls from passengers on United 93 had reported the existence of hijackers.

        (8) The Bush admin resisted an investigation for two years, mainly for political re-election reasons.

        These are not conspiracies, these are criticisms. And they justify re-opening the investigation. We’ve lost half our civil liberties, turned into a police state, started two wars–threatening a third–and spent $3 trillion because a proper one wasn’t done.

      • Philip Weiss
        January 2, 2012, 10:36 am

        i did it avi

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        January 2, 2012, 10:45 am

        @ IrishMoses: In other words, there are reasonable explanations given by trained investigators, structural engineers, etc. for each of the apparent anomalies.

        This is just not true. Pls refer us to a single plausible explanation for WTC7’s miraculous collapse by fire alone, penned by a structural engineer or otherwise.

        The NIST report (years late) could not be defended by its own authors.

        The official explanation is absurd on the face of it. Go plant a stool in a fire, a big fire, and wait until the whole thing catches fire. Then load the structure with a weight of your own choosing — 50 kg, whatever. And wait some more. Repeat this experiment one million times. Report back if you ever — just once! — observe all four stool legs failing at the same time such that the seat falls at free-fall speeds and the entire structure is left in a completely disintegrated state.

        (Hint: You would be wasting your time. One leg will always fail before the others and the stool will topple before failing “through itself.” Indeed, this latter mode of failure sees the structure failing along the path of greatest resistence.)

        The official explanation is bizarre and outlandish. I hold out WTC7 as a litmus test for one’s ability to think critically. -N49.

        ps — re So, if you want to make the effort to provide your complete theory of how it all came down (pun intended) on 9-11, from start to finish, have at it. I promise to review

        Umm, that’s not our burden. The official theory is your theory, not mine. It is for you to defend, not me. It was you who chose to deposit this exceptionally ugly baby in your stroller and parade it around the park for all to see.

        How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

        Sherlock Holmes, The Sign of Four.

      • Avi_G.
        January 2, 2012, 1:03 pm

        Thanks, Phil.

      • irishmoses
        January 2, 2012, 1:19 pm

        Pulling out the old anti-semite card eh Avi? You’re a real class act.

      • American
        January 2, 2012, 1:59 pm

        “But, you must be willing to start your inquiry with an open mind and read both sides’ claims with balance. ”

        I think the people questioning the official version are being open minded.
        I have read both sides of the debate, but what it came down to for me is this…..my cousin is an engineer whose company builds skyscrapers, bridges, etc., my good friend is former navy pilot, now an FAA investigator, another good friend is a former Boeing 757 pilot, now an instructor for Boeing pilots…. they don’t believe the official report.
        NONE of these people are conspiracy theorist, they are practical people with real expertise and decades of experience in their fields and do not believe 911 could have happened as claimed…….somewhere there is more to it. Whatever that more is, we may or may not never know. ..but there is more.

      • IranContraClanDidNineEleven
        January 2, 2012, 2:36 pm

        AVI said:
        “…a reasonable person will surely find it peculiar that you are able to see through the Israeli government’s propaganda (give your defense of Palestinian rights), but somehow lose that ability when it comes to US government propaganda.”

        There’s a difference?! Ha, just kidding, however I will say that in response to IrishMoses’s queries for a plausible thesis I direct him to Robert Bowman, whose credentials are jaw dropping –
        link to youtube.com

        Furthermore, and I know it’s controversial, however I think it’s worth taking a good hardnosed look at Alan Sabrosky’s thesis. Sabrosky’s resume is also damned impressive and he has authored articles for this website.

      • Avi_G.
        January 2, 2012, 7:26 pm

        irishmoses says:
        January 2, 2012 at 1:19 pm

        Pulling out the old anti-semite card eh Avi? You’re a real class act.

        From that entire argument all you managed to glean was the mental exercise whose purpose you obviously missed?

        It appears you’re not only biased and blinkered in your thinking, you’re also a disingenuous hack.

      • MRW
        January 2, 2012, 7:52 pm

        IranContraClanDidNineEleven, that Bowman video is powerful.

      • W.Jones
        January 2, 2012, 9:48 pm

        After 911 happened, some other people asked me if I thought the US govt did 911. I said no, because the WTC was the capitalists’ own centre of power (or one of them), so they wouldn’t do this. This is still confusing to me why they would attack one of their own centers.

        Second, with the issue of the dancing Israelis, the debunking site says that in fact the witness who saw them said that she saw them only after the 1st attack had already occurred, which allows the possibility that they set up the van only after the attack happened.

      • irishmoses
        January 2, 2012, 11:28 pm

        Avi,

        Why is it you are always so quick with the ad hominems? On MW ad hominem argument is rarely seen, except by you, and frequently by you. Are you insecure? I suggest you count the ad hominems you have tossed out on just this thread alone.

        Why do you waste your obvious fine intellect in creating tortured “mental exercises” to criticize me which, I think not coincidentally ended with a scurilous accusation of antisemitism (you could have called me a closet Neocon or a mental midget)?

        Should I call you a bozo or a hack for your describing the NORAD deployment to Alaska incorrectly as Operation Able Danger? I suppose I could but it probably was just an honest mistake so I let it pass. If I had chosen to respond it would have been with the correct name of the operation and a link.

        Why do you feel a compulsion to destroy with ad hominems anyone on MW who makes a weak argument or, god forbid, has the termerity to disagree with you? Do you think it enhances your stature?

        It doesn’t. Lighten up for god’s sake.

      • Shingo
        January 2, 2012, 11:39 pm

         I said no, because the WTC was the capitalists’ own centre of power (or one of them), so they wouldn’t do this. This is still confusing to me why they would attack one of their own centers.

         
        There’s no reason to be confused.  The WTC was only a symbol of the power.  The buildings were actually becomming a financial liability.  The floorspace was becomming vavant and increasingly difficult to lease.  It was riddled with asbestos, the cost of which removing was enrormous.  In other words, the buildings were obsolete white elephants.
         

        Second, with the issue of the dancing Israelis, the debunking site says that in fact the witness who saw them said that she saw them only after the 1st attack had already occurred, which allows the possibility that they set up the van only after the attack happened.

         
        What “debunking site” leaves out is the fact that that they admitted on Israeli television that they were in NY to document the attacks, which suggests they weren’t just a bunch of tourists who happened to be in the right place at the right time. 

    • Donald
      December 31, 2011, 3:15 pm

      Not a “heavyweight” here, but I think 9/11 was carried out by Al Qaeda. If there are any dark secrets about it, and perhaps there are, it might involve more incompetence than we’ve been told or perhaps intelligence links with some of the perpetrators. Speaking purely hypothetically, it wouldn’t surprise me if some Al Qaeda types were on someone’s payroll, but I don’t think the any Western government targeted the US.

      I could also believe that someone like Cheney could have heard intelligence that there was a terrorist attack soon to take place and thought to himself “Well, wouldn’t that be convenient? Let’s not try too hard to stop it.” Maybe that’s unfair. Anyway, it’s just speculation. I could believe anything about Cheney, save the physically impossible. If he could dress up as a ninja and plant the explosives himself using his secret invisibility cloak, it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s exactly what happened. But I think we’re in the realm of the physically impossible. Shooting friends in the face is about his limit when it comes to personal prowess with weaponry.

      The technical arguments people make for the explosives scenario seem less than convincing to me, but I’m not going to get into it. I’m not an expert, though I can do back of the envelope calculations. But blog comment sections tend to be darn poor places for technical arguments anyway.

    • teta mother me
      January 1, 2012, 8:46 pm

      I don’t think your assumption is ludicrous at all. the mere fact that passports were discovered within hours of the collapse of the three towers, but the hardened black boxes were pulverized — that’s gotta make any rational person smell a rat.

      But I’m not sure CIA was in on it. This is based on several situations Ron Suskind details in “The Way of the World.” Highest level CIA agents — including, at one point, George Tenet — vigorously opposed the inclusion of the infamous “16 words” in George Bush’s State of Union speech. Based on contacts with an Iraqi with second-tier access to information in Saddam’s government, they had serious doubts that Iraq had WMD but were manipulated into giving assent to the speech.

      British intelligence had developed a connection with Iraq’s director of intelligence who convinced the 30-year head of Brit. intel, Richard Dearlove, that Iraq did not have or seek WMD, neither nuiclear nor bio-chem. The Brit. chief himself communicated the information in person to US CIA, who in turn communicated it to Condi Rice, who buried the information. CIA was in despair that the Bush admin. was not paying attention to their analyses.

      There may have been some rogues in CIA, but there were also, according to Suskind, a number of people in the agency who worked hard & took risks to protect the nation from a bad decision.

      oh — I remember — Suskind also discussed a CIA agent –I think his name is Shipper — who managed the German office & was involved with ‘Curveball.’ He told Germans that they should not let US CIA talk to Curveball, and they didn’t. Had US talked to Curveball, they’d have known he was bogus.
      Shipper did some other off-the-reservation things that raised suspicions among his peers and superiors at Langley, and they kept an eye on him for a time, but the guy was protected — Langley would pull in his chain but somebody higher up would arrange for him to get plum assignments. Suskind says the CIA finally figured out that Shipper was communicating directly with Cheney’s office.

      • anonymouscomments
        January 2, 2012, 1:26 am

        @teta mother me-
        i went into something you might want to read down thread-
        link to mondoweiss.net

        regarding odd things going on in our intelligence agencies, etc… i think we have to conceptualize how right-wing fascist types exert influence. i tend to think they are amorphous players and very “go along to get along”/”pay to play” and shake hands across borders (for example, MI6-CIA-ISI-Mossad-Saudi goons…. they all have dark parts which are almost perpetual, and they cooperate sometimes).

        i think israel is particularly ruthless though, if you want to note this gem in haaretz; but we know the israeli MO from zionist history-
        link to haaretz.com
        British intelligence wasn’t always forthcoming with sharing information with its Israeli counterpart, former MI6 director Sir Richard Dearlove said in a conference Wednesday, adding that he felt Israeli intelligence played by a different set of rules than the U.K. agency. (mossad doesn’t play nice, and they might ef you over)

        i fully agree, the majority of people in the military power structure and intelligence agencies are actually good people, i’ve met a few and have two colonels in my family. whenever something nutty goes down, it is implemented on a need-to-know basis, and compartmentalized.

        sibel edmonds is a prime example of the rare whistleblower that breaks ranks, and gets the story out to some degree.
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        an interesting defense/CIA asset may also be the peace activist susan lindauer who did backchannel negotiations with saddam for GWBush, before we blew the effing country up. she had to be muzzled so tight they threw her in jail, and resorted to calling her crazy (from interviews i heard, i’m buying her story, and she wrote a book).
        link to en.wikipedia.org
        libya reference, fits with some things i heard, and libya made me VERY wary of AJEnglish, that was a sick joke-
        link to youtube.com
        did not watch this, but have heard here story-
        link to youtube.com

        so what i’m saying is that there had to be real CIA and military involvement, due to the nature of 9/11. the cover-ups themselves show the darker forces at work stuffing down the good soldiers who get out of line.

        also, think of it this way… if i can figure out with near certainty it was a false flag, and the basics of the execution, the CIA are flipping idiots if they DID NOT do it. ie if it was only mossad and was not fully consented to by key USG players, including key CIA posts, israel would be discarded trash after the US sorted it all out.**

        sadly, i think mossad and the CIA worked on it. which for me now means each country has a gun to the other’s head, if one country wanted to break ranks in a big way (each has serious dirt on the other, and ways to trump the other on various planes; but sadly we do not lobby the knesset for US interests, while they do the reverse oh so well…). i almost think it’s like a mutually assured destruction, cold war attitude, but with conjoined twins sharing organs. therefore the agenda flows in the direction the collective center of gravity wants to go, which media magnets and lobbies largely define in the modern world. israel is our 51st state in a way, and she is a very oversized, ideological, and single-minded 51st state, that can throw very violent temper tantrums if we don’t appease her. and we walk over the bodies together.

        i don’t know how we get out of this, and i think the best way is a revolution in american-jewish and israeli thought. of course, right wing zionist fascists can always rally the troops, by starting a war, blowing things up, pumping anti-semitism, etc. also, the “enemy” is not at all just israelis, zionists, and pro-israelis/israel-firsters; we obviously have our own fascist nutters, power grabbers, and war-profiteers. so….. yeah. happy new year, it will be interesting, and i hope the iran folks don’t think it is “neat” to fit the disastrous war with mayan prophecy.

        **from israel’s history, i do not know how many guns they hold to the collective US gov “head”, so i do suppose it is (ever ever so slightly) possible it was mossad, and only treacherous few *key* assets in the USG. yet if it was “israel” they would have to couple it with open loaded gun threats to the major power players… like nuclear blackmail, or some really nutty stuff. but this just seems too risky for israel, overtly unnecessary (don’t they already get what they want?), and frankly anti-semitic (AS for some proponents of that theory, honest belief for most). there is some evidence that it was in some ways a more literal coup, than a nice clean false-flag…. but i think this threat came from fascisty right-wing power players involved in the false-flag, for some reason (coup within a coup)…. i am referring to the “angel is next” threat to air force one… maybe there is a shifty globalist dark hand controlling most events in the west and elsewhere, and in this case we all have a common but maleable and faceless enemy, and these guys would be diverse (not zionists or jews; but jews are always disproportionately represented in power structures, so they might have some collective love for the tribe!). but i do not like to think about that, cause WTF can we do?
        link to dailymail.co.uk

  11. Richard Witty
    December 31, 2011, 2:51 pm

    Phil,
    Any comment on the Finkelstein interview with Chris Hedges?

    Located on Norman’s website.

    • justicewillprevail
      December 31, 2011, 3:15 pm

      Yawn.

    • Shingo
      December 31, 2011, 8:37 pm

      Hey Witty,

      Any comments on:

      1) your claim that the BDS movement revised their stated goals in 2005?
      2) whether you agree wuth Walt’s description of both the attacks on Eilat and Cast Lead as morally repugnant?
      3) whether you regard ethnic cleansing as ever being necessary?
      4) whether you agree with Finkelstein tht Israel is a demonic and terrorist state?

      Looking forward to your responses.

  12. Gellian
    December 31, 2011, 2:55 pm

    I guess I am with Kampeas on this one. He makes good replies, though they’re self-servingly phrased. (Which is only to be expected, though – kind of like asking the Pope to condemn Catholicism. He ain’t gonna do it, for professional reasons if no other.)

    Phil I think pushes the Jewish angle of the Iraq war too hard. I do think he’s right that a huge number of influential Jews supported and promoted the war and that yes, they did it because they love Israel and wanted this opportunity to help that country.

    But I remember the days and weeks post-9/11 as clearly as anyone else and I remember most of us being fighting mad, ready to strike a bunch of Muslims wherever we could, and fast. Show ‘em who’s boss. Show ‘em they’d better not attack the U.S. again, ever. And so on.

    I remember the footage of the dancing Palestinians on 9/11 and thinking, not really sure why this makes them happy but SOLD – I’ll sign up and take ‘em out, whatever their beef is. And I’m very far from being alone in that theory. Because seeing them then reminded me of when I first came to consciousness about Palestine back in 2000, having just arrived back in the U.S. and listening to NPR one day when the second Intifadah broke out and not knowing what exactly any of that was about. I do remember bombs going off everywhere and limbs flying and thinking, that’s not right.

    So to laying part of the Iraq war disaster at the feet of Jews is correct, but not (I’d say) in the way Phil and others around here keep saying. Cheerleading the war wasn’t that big a deal. We didn’t need to be cheered on for it. Many of us wanted it. Many of us knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But many of us also knew Saddam was an evil tyrant and hoped that getting rid of him would dial down the tensions with the Arabs/Muslims.

    Jewish responsibility for 9/11 goes further back. Inasmuch as bin Laden himself said our antagonism of the Palestinians was a major reason he attacked us then, Jews worldwide who supported Israel in its various conquests and occupations deserved blame.

    But blaming the neocons’ role in cheering on the Iraq invasion is kind of beside the point. It was too late then. Most of us–regardless of our religion or ethnicity–wanted that war.

    We shouldn’t go rewriting history now.

    • Donald
      December 31, 2011, 3:18 pm

      ” U.S. and listening to NPR one day when the second Intifadah broke out and not knowing what exactly any of that was about. I do remember bombs going off everywhere and limbs flying and thinking, that’s not right.”

      Your memory is a little off on that. The second intifada began mostly with Israeli soldiers gunning down protestors. The suicide bomb attacks came months later.

      • Gellian
        December 31, 2011, 3:27 pm

        “Your memory is a little off on that. The second intifada began mostly with Israeli soldiers gunning down protestors. The suicide bomb attacks came months later.”

        In this case I’m sure it’s not my memory that’s off but rather literally the time at which I came to awareness of the conflict–or at least the media through which I first heard about it. It was a day in September 2000 so I guess pretty early on, and sitting in a cheapie pizza place with a friend killing time. She (Jewish) already knew all the background to everything. I was a newbie. She explained things as she understood them and, of course, I’m sure she was biased in her presentation of things toward the Israelis.

        So I do mean what I said earlier about “not knowing exactly what was going on”. I certainly didn’t, though I don’t dispute you on the facts.

      • Richard Witty
        December 31, 2011, 3:37 pm

        The suicide bombs started before the second intifada.

        Much much slower than later.

        The Al Aqsa Martyrs returned to resistance in 1996.

        A thickening circle, in which everyone seeks to declare “it started in ….”.

        But, noone stating “let’s stop it in ….”

      • straightline
        December 31, 2011, 5:27 pm

        For once you’re right, Witty, but only in part. And indeed someone did say “let’s stop it”. But as usual it wasn’t Israel.

        link to mediamonitors.net

        ?The first martyrdom operation came in response to the massacre of Muslim worshipers as they kneeled in prayer in the Ebrahimi mosque in Hebron at dawn by a Jewish settler Dr Baruch Goldstein. Sheikh Ahmed Yasin, Hamas spiritual leader who offered Israel a truce, explained that his movement does not endorse the killings of civilians, but that it is sometimes the only option it has to respond to the murder of Palestinian civilians. Israel has spurned Hamas offer.”

      • Avi_G.
        December 31, 2011, 5:58 pm

        Rest assured, you’re still unaware and a “newbie”.

        When you first joined this website, you screeched something about Tel-Aviv being like Manhattan.

        That was the first laugh I had about your inane, worthless, and uninformed comments.

        After that, you toned down your ignorance, knowing that people here could call you on it. But, later, when you found like-numbed individuals on here, especially eee, homphi, krauss-the-Islamophobe, and richard witty, you gained some confidence knowing that there will be those who will defend your ignorant comments.

      • Shingo
        December 31, 2011, 8:41 pm

        The suicide bombs started before the second intifada.

        Please provide evidence. As a well know fabricator, surely you don’t expect to be taken at your word.

        The Al Aqsa Martyrs returned to resistance in 1996.

        The first Intifada was also resistance.

        But, noone stating “let’s stop it in ….”

        Translation: nothing to see, move right along folks.

      • Donald
        January 1, 2012, 1:23 pm

        “The suicide bombs started before the second intifada.”

        Oh, for pete’s sake, Richard, we were talking about the second intifada, not what happened several years earlier. The Israelis reacted to stones and protests with bullets in 2000.

    • MRW
      December 31, 2011, 4:24 pm

      I remember the footage of the dancing Palestinians on 9/11 and thinking, not really sure why this makes them happy but SOLD

      Which was discredited later. The exact same footage of the dancing Palestinians was found. It was filmed in 1993.

      • Gellian
        December 31, 2011, 4:33 pm

        Wrong; that footage was real. See here: link to snopes.com

        If Palestinians were dancing in the streets in 1993 the first time the towers were attacked, that’s only to their greater shame.

      • Avi_G.
        December 31, 2011, 5:21 pm

        The footage wasn’t real, dear intellectual midget. The footage used was from Arafat’s arrival in Gaza, for the first time in decades, after the Oslo Accords were signed.

      • Avi_G.
        December 31, 2011, 5:50 pm

        Snopes. I always refer to Snopes when I need to reference some scholarly research.

        Now, in all seriousness, you’re a joke. And judging by the level of your comments on this website, the fact that you considered people at that party to be, “some of the smartest [you've] ever met” gives me an idea of their intellectual level. After all, if they were the smartest you’ve ever met, then it’s no wonder that in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

    • Avi_G.
      December 31, 2011, 6:05 pm

      Actually,

      This thread tells us a lot about what Gellian doesn’t know, about how he sees the world through the prism of a biased mainstream media and how he remains comfortably ignorant, refusing to reconsider the propaganda he “remembers”, as though the media is incapable of broadcasting propaganda and lies in real time.

      He “‘remembers” it all, so it must be factually true.

      That people confuse first hand experience with what is filtered through the TV and radio tells one everything he/she needs to know about those people.

      This thread also tells us how little Donald actually knows about the so-called conflict.

    • Avi_G.
      December 31, 2011, 6:14 pm

      We shouldn’t go rewriting history now.

      You have no idea how laughable it is that you wrote that, given that:

      (1) You have just rewritten history through the narrow prism of both your memory and what the mainstream media in the US showed you.

      (2) You presume that what you saw on TV was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So the reader is left wondering about the extent of your ignorance.

      You don’t need to answer because whatever you say will clearly show how little you understand about this simple argument.

    • libra
      December 31, 2011, 6:40 pm

      Gellian: “But blaming the neocons’ role in cheering on the Iraq invasion is kind of beside the point. It was too late then. Most of us–regardless of our religion or ethnicity–wanted that war.”

      This is just utter rubbish. The public anger certainly existed but it is nonsense to believe that anger directed the attack on Iraq. Why did anyone connect an Al-Qaeda attack ostensibly directed from Afghanistan to an attack on Iraq which had nothing to do with it? The public would have been satisfied with the destruction of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, especially if the campaign against the latter had been better prosecuted.

      Selling the lie about Iraqi involvement and their WMD etc. and redirecting attention from Afghanistan to Iraq took a lot of work and the neocon network was behind it. They certainly took advantage of general climate generated by 9/11 but no doubt would have found some other pretext to push a war against Iraq. After all, an attack on Iran is being drummed up now with a similar script by a similar set of neocon players but with no equivalent of 9/11.

      The truth is the full history of these events has not been written yet. But it’s you who is indulging in rewriting history here. I assume out of a sense of guilt that you wanted the war with Iraq. But surely the one lesson to learn from the way the Western world is currently run is that what you want has very little to do with what happens.

    • American
      January 2, 2012, 2:17 pm

      “Most of us–regardless of our religion or ethnicity–wanted that war. ”

      Don’t know where you live–but I live in military and consertive land and the reaction here was much more guarded than that. Except for the usual simple minded chickenhawk retards, most I know were against treating 911 as anything but a criminal act and thought our response should be limited to simply targeting AQ, not invading Afghan and Iraq.
      In fact sarcastic remarks about ‘security’ were the order of the day.

  13. HRK
    December 31, 2011, 3:08 pm

    You don’t have to delve too deeply in neocon writings (and we could even limit those writings to pre-9-1-1 writings) to realize that the neocons pretty much revolved their world around what they perceived was good for the Jews and Israel.

    I was young when I first stumbled onto Commentary. As a “persecuted” Christian conservative type on campus with an unconscious bias toward the Jews and against the Palestinians (whom, oddly, I visualized as squatters), I welcomed the magazine when I first began reading.

    Actually, truth be told, I wasn’t all that interested in middle east politics–mostly, it was their other conservative political stances. Wow! Conservative intellectuals–that’s just what conservatives need!

    Even though at the time I was naive on issues surrounding ethnic/religious identity (having been raised in a home in which ethnic topics were never spoken about), even I–as supremely naive as I was–figured out within a few years that the neocons were all about what was good for Israel.

    (In fact, I remember once when I was at the university library–this was before the internet was widely popular and we still read at libraries!–and I was thumbing through Commentary. I literally looked up from the magazine and pushed it away from me, thinking: “Hey! All they care about is Israel!”)

    Kampeas writes about anti-Semitism and myths: “Jews act only to advance their own interests. They do and they don’t — it’s wildly complicated — but not more than any other special interest in an American polity that is highly susceptible to special interest pressure.”

    Just as Kampeas says that this is wildly complicated, I should note that my own feelings here are wildly complicated, as well. To be truthful, at the time I pushed Commentary away from me I wasn’t so upset that the neocons were single issue, I was upset with them that they weren’t my single issue.

    I was (and still am) pro-life, but back in my early adulthood I was much more single issue on that subject than I am today. (My view on the subject today is here: link to cognitiveparfait.wordpress.com ) So my reaction to them taking such die-hard pro-Israel positions was something like: “But that means they’ll relegate the pro-life issue to a low priority!” (I believe this occurred to me when I read an article in Commentary which expressed support for Giuliani; strong on Israel, not pro-life.)

    Today, I think I realize that many Americans don’t share my viewpoint and that for social conservatives to obsess about winning on one issue puts other important issues in jeopardy. For example, social conservatives tried to win by rolling into bed with economic conservatives (I’m certainly not the first to note this, and I don’t think it was super-intentional–it was just a matter of turning where you can find friends). But economic conservatives (btw, I’m visualizing WASPS here but really I mean to simply not blame any one ethnic group for this) were always craftier than we social conservatives–throwing us a bone here and there while they sponged up all the lucre from America’s middle and working classes.

    So Kampeas is correct that a lot of groups push issues that are important to them.

    However, I do think that there is a correlation between the “groupiness” of a group and the extent to which its members become animated to push for what’s in their own group’s interests. And, of course, is there a group that values it’s own sense of being a group more than the Jews?

    Is believing this anti-Semitic? A toxic myth? I don’t think so, but the “complicated truth” is that a person who values peace who nonetheless comes to this conclusion is in a “complicated” situation. Publicize this fact and generate unwanted anti-Semitism. Be quiet about this fact and then watch a thin strata of animated, group-driven individuals (like the neocons) push for policies which disproportionately benefit their group (as they see it) but not others. Which generates unwanted anti-Semitism, as well.

    Jews and gentiles: We’ll both be here as long as there’s an earth. I know if we tone done the worst in each group we’ll get along well together. Can we do that?

    • yourstruly
      January 1, 2012, 7:41 pm

      tone down the worst in any group by promoting the cause that brings out its worst.

  14. Stogumber
    December 31, 2011, 3:28 pm

    Some publicists were contacted by the government before they began to write about that matter. Some weren’t (above all the people who undersigned the three open letters against Iraq betweeen Bush I and Bush II) and don’t have that excuse.
    The best which we can get out of this muddle are more clearcut concepts about where intellectual responsibility begins and where it ends. At the moment, I can only propose two test questions:
    1. If the war against Iraq had been a roaring success, would those publicists proudly have taken responsibility for it?
    2. If Iranian publicists had published similar articles against Israel – would Kampeas hold them responsible?
    And I suspect that the answer is yes and yes.

  15. chauncey
    December 31, 2011, 3:48 pm

    No heavyweight claims here, but your assumption is not ludicrous in my book.

    The 9/11 question is begged by the discussion of the neocons’ push for the Iraq war.

    There were plans to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11 that weren’t coupled with a propaganda campaign. Perhaps because the “new Pearl Harbor” was
    in the works. And Iraq plans were in place too, just ask Paul O’Neill, or Richard Clarke, who was ordered by G.W. Bush to connect Iraq with
    the 9/11 attacks in the immediate aftermath.

    If you watch a video of the collapse of building 7, its sure looks like a classic demolition, and it wasn’t hit by a plane. How did the 9/11
    Commission report handle the collapse of building 7? By not mentioning it.

    WTC buildings 1 and 2 exploded outward, with large pieces sent long distances sideways. These were not collapses caused by
    gravity after plane impacts.

    • W.Jones
      January 2, 2012, 8:15 pm

      If little dinky steel wheels can hold an airplane why can’t a steel tower?

      Maybe several floors melted from the heat, and so they brought the rest down very quickly?

      So: if the top of a steel building has a very hot fire and an aluminum weight is added to it, then it will collapse straight down?

      A big airplane is a few hundred tons. The WTC was 500,000 tons.

      Like I said, I don’t have an opinion about it, but the subject of what happened should be open for discussion.

  16. irishmoses
    December 31, 2011, 5:56 pm

    Once again we have a great debate about an important IP issue hijacked by the 9-11 conspiracy crowd. While I don’t begrudge these folks’ right to believe in this nonsense, I do object to their ruining the debate concerning the thread IP topic at hand. Typically, once the 9-11 conspiracy talk starts, most of those engaged in the thread’s IP topic leave in disgust.

    I think the MW screeners should be directed to block comments concerning 9-11 conspiracies unless directly related to a particular thread on that subject. There are loads of sites concerning the alleged 9-11 conspiracy–both pro and con. The proper place for that debate is on those sites, not MW which was created to discuss IP topics.

    Don’t waste your time responding to this post with all the bogus arguments about why there was a conspiracy. I’ve addressed those at great length as have others more competent than me. See my MW comment history for examples of my own and others’ responses.

    A good website to review if you are interested in getting up to speed on this topic is:

    link to debunking911.com

    However, I warn you that no amount of debate will dissuade the 9-11 conspiracy true believers who carry their torch with true religious fervor. Read my comments on this topic in prior threads and you will quickly see the problem.

    • Avi_G.
      December 31, 2011, 6:19 pm

      Why is it a “conspiracy”? Explain yourself. So you bought into the government’s story, hook, line, and sinker? What’s the point of having a brain if one is willing to accept prepared narratives riddled with proverbial holes? That’s not meant as an insult, it’s a serious question.

    • Avi_G.
      December 31, 2011, 6:36 pm

      Link to debunking911? That’s all you have to offer?

      Do you understand the arguments they make on that website? Or are you merely good at linking to a website without understanding any of the information surrounding those events?

      Incidentally, did you take physics in high school or university? Did you understand it all and get a grade of A? You need to understand basic physics to realize that you are being deceived by the very people whom you think are there to protect you.

      That you think that governments cannot willingly and knowingly hurt their own citizens — the same citizens those governments are supposed to protect — points to a high level of naivete. Again. That’s meant as an observation, not an insult.

    • Shingo
      December 31, 2011, 8:47 pm

      Look Irishmoses,

      You’re not a scientist, have no grasp if the mist basic fundamentals of physics, architecture, structural engineering or metallurgy.

      What’s nonesense is someone with such a limited understanding if the principals to decide what is nonesense.

    • chauncey
      December 31, 2011, 9:29 pm

      I wouldn’t call it a “hijack.” The article discusses whether neocons directly influenced Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. It’s not that big a leap to suggest that 9/11 was a false-flag attack to set the stage. Evidence is plentiful.

    • anonymouscomments
      January 1, 2012, 5:45 pm

      isrishmoses-

      you might want to note that very knowledgable people, who you may even respect, question 9/11 in very fundamental ways…. and that is those who are brave enough to air their views, given the public climate people like you help create.
      robert fisk admits questions, and i very much respect him-
      link to independent.co.uk
      gore vidal-
      link to guardian.co.uk
      alan hart-
      link to alanhart.net
      many engineers (myself a signatory, with an MS in biomedical engineering; i also work with nanomaterials and various characterization techniques, hence take particular interest in some of the dust studies; but the collapse analysis/failure mode is the most important angle [and shockingly persuasive when taken in conjunction with the glaringly flawed NIST reports, and the 9/11 commission report])-
      link to ae911truth.org
      lists of various people, with 9/11 skepticism-
      link to pilotsfor911truth.org
      link to militaryofficersfor911truth.org
      link to patriotsquestion911.com
      link to 911proof.com

      alternative 9/11 theories do not commonly “hijack” threads here, and i think that is a very good thing. it only comes up sporadically. i myself may have started it on this thread, and i was specific in that i wanted productive discussion about the *given topic*, if we assume what is not an uncommon belief.
      link to zogby.com
      link to en.wikipedia.org
      link to en.wikipedia.org
      ~23% of germans ~36% of turks think the US was behind the attack. i frequently visit NYC from my hometown of boston, and in NYC there is significant and serious doubt about the official story.

      I think the MW screeners should be directed to block comments concerning 9-11 conspiracies unless directly related to a particular thread on that subject. There are loads of sites concerning the alleged 9-11 conspiracy–both pro and con. The proper place for that debate is on those sites, not MW which was created to discuss IP topics.

      you always seem overly eager to shut down the discussion on this topic, whenever it rarely comes up. i agree that if it ever became a problem, significant OT 9/11 tangents should be curbed. this is not the case. also, the MW community is very well informed, and we often take very long OT walks, where most everyone benefits from the voluntary and (usually) respectful sharing of ideas.

      i think for various political and strategic reasons MW should not itself be breaching the 9/11 firestorm. but for us to have a rigorous debate about it, every once in awhile, on a rare MW post (and each day there are many MW posts) is beneficial for anyone who chooses to engage in it.

      you talk about religious 9/11 truthers who cannot be swayed, no matter what you say. the same goes for you, regarding your position that “we” are delusional idiots buying some ridiculous conspiracy theory. no amount of debate will change your position, and i consider your 100% confidence in your position to be rigid, intellectually dishonest, and just as dogmatic as some of the truthers. …but then again, that might be due to your initial strong convictions, and reliance on biased sloppy websites like debunking911.com.

      i do not fault you for your position on the issue (i was there for years!), but i do take issue with your level of condescension, and especially for calling for censorship, when it is not a real issue.

      at least learn to have respect. or simply ignore it when people go off on a 9/11 thread…. we are openly sharing information, ideas, and opinions. i myself DO NOT want 9/11 to hijack threads, or come up too often, but i do think it would be good to have it out, with sincerity, once in awhile.

      • irishmoses
        January 2, 2012, 2:16 am

        Avi_G, Shingo, Chauncy and Anonymouscomments:

        See my response to MRW and others above at Jan.2, 1:51am. In any trial, both sides are required to provide their full version of the truth and all the evidence in support of their version. The jury then gets to weigh the evidence and decide which version is “the truth”.

        We have the government version of the 9-11 truth and all their evidence. What we don’t have is your full version of what happened on 9-11 and all the evidence you think supports your version.

        It’s time to lay it all out for us; start to finish. Enough of the sniping and nit picking. If you think you got a conspiracy, tell us the whole story and give us all the details on how it works.

        Gil Maguire

      • American
        January 2, 2012, 2:30 pm

        Question….

        What difference does it make to you irishmoses if it was a conspiracy of some sort?
        Exactly what does it do for you to believe the official version?
        And what would it do to you for the official version not to be true?
        In other words what is your reason for wanting to the official version to be true…to the point where you want any discussion of other possibilities banned?
        Seems strange to be so adamant on this.

      • irishmoses
        January 2, 2012, 5:32 pm

        American,
        My main problem is I don’t like to see important threads hijacked by 9-11. It’s like an off-topic diversion that frequently replaces the subject the original thread was about. I have no objection to separate threads in which the entirety of 9-11 can be discussed. I thought I had made that clear in my 5:56pm comment above: “I think the MW screeners should be directed to block comments concerning 9-11 conspiracies unless directly related to a particular thread on that subject. ” So, I am not trying to ban the topic, just prevent thread hijacking. Fortunately, this particular thread has managed to keep going (whether Zionist Neocons caused the war in Iraq). That’s not usually the case.
        I’m not sure what you are getting at when you say “what does it do for me…” I think what happened was pretty clear and we all saw it; Two planes crashed into WTC 1&2, both buildings burned for awhile, then each collapsed starting from the upper floors and proceeding downward. The original explanations seemed valid to me but when I saw there was some controversy, I again became interested. I’ve read government reports, several detailed articles about the various theories, listened to some of the transcripts, etc. I’ve discussed most of this in great detail in earlier threads where the 9-11 issue arose.

        I hold no brief for the government in this; there were a lot of mistakes made leading up to 9-11 that were avoidable. I also don’t think all the billions spent since have made us safer. Instead, we’ve given up some key civil rights on the altar of homeland security. That is a huge loss.

        I accept the results of the 9-11 investigation, including the NIST reports on WTC1-2 and WTC7 because they seem plausible and were done by both government structural engineers as well as a team of very distinguished engineering consultants. I’ve looked at the counterarguments and I haven’t been impressed. For instance, people typically say that WTC 7 suffered no damage and had only a small fire so it shouldn’t have come down. That’s not true. WTC7 suffered massive lower floor damage from debris from the WTC collapse closest to it (about 100 feet away). The small fires that initially started grew much larger and burned most of the day unfought due to the lack of water pressure and the fact that the building had been totally evacuated. The collapse was predicted by one of the fire chiefs on site. A major US engineering magazine published a long article describing why the building collapsed. NIST published a full study of the collapse of WTC7 including an analysis of whether it could have been brought down by controlled demolition. These explanations (and there are more from a variety of credible sources, including the private sector) seem genuine and valid to me.
        Now compare that with the alternative explanations, the government conspiracy theories. I would have to believe that a major portion of the US government, including the executive branch, the FAA, Norad, the CIA and even the Israelis (let along private controlled demolition companies, the NYPD, and countless others) somehow concocted a monumental false flag operation to bring down the towers to justify an invasion of Iraq. To accomplish this they would have had to send huge teams of controlled demolition guys into all three buildings over several weeks in which they wired hundreds of floors, opened up huge sections of drywall to gain access to beams that need cutting and weakening, placed massive amounts of demolitions, etc. — all without the knowedge of the thousands of people working in and using these buildings which are occupied 24-7. Miraculously, not one of these thousands, many or most of whom survived, has come forward expressing their concern about all the work being done in the 10 years since the 9-11. Nor have any of the thousands of government workers in a wide variety of agencies come forward to reveal this conspiracy.
        I could go on and on as I have in previous threads you can review. It simply doesn’t add up. This becomes immediately obvious if you attempt to create a complete factual scenario for the conspiracy. I urge you to try it. You will end up with a scenario so bizarre that even Hollywood wouldn’t touch it. The problem is nobody on the conspiracy side wants to do that. Instead they pick and choose different events and offer a counter-factual explanation: Like WT7, NORAD, free fall, no steel buildings ever destroyed by fire, etc. When plausible, factually consistent explanations for each of these is offered, the explanations are ignored, or ridiculed and then the same lame argument are repeated, again and again. Again, its like arguing religion.
        Another example (my last): Ari and others allege that NORAD was intentionally weakened on 9-11 by an exercise that transferred most of our interceptor aircraft to Canada and Alaska. In fact, it was not an exercise but a deployment in response to a Russian long range bomber exercise being conducted in the arctic area. The deployment was immediately cancelled once 9-11 started and even the Russians cancelled their own excercise as well.
        The aircraft tranferred were not ones used for NORAD US air defense. Pre 9-11 NORAD kept 14 aircraft (F16s, I believe) in ready status to protect the entire US. None of these were sent north and all were available on 9-11 (they are manned by air force active reserve units). More importantly, finding and shooting down the 4 hijacked airliners was a near impossible task for a variety of reasons. First, there was very little warning. second, the plane transponders were turned off making identification by ATC almost impossible. Finally, it takes quite awhile from the time an emergency is identified to notify FAA, who notifies the military, who then scrambles the jet which then has to find the aircraft in question. A good example in the Payne Stewart incident in which his plane lost oxygen, killing all aboard, but the plane continued on autopilot until the fuel ran out. This plane had its transponder on yet the first interception didn’t occur for well over an hour.
        All of this is readily available in various government reports and transcripts. Its no mystery and there was no NORAD conspiracy to divert intercceptor aircraft away from the US.
        So, I hope this helps explain my position as well as my frustration and anger when forced to readdress issues or claims that have previously been dealt with. This is not an example of two competing scientific claims. Instead, it is more akin to attempting to defend evolution in the face of claims by creationists. You can never win the argument because it is a religion to them.
        I made it clear at the beginning of this 9-11 discussion that I was not going to repeat all the 9-11 arguments I had made in prior 9-11 threads and I referred people to those threads which are easy to search. Yet, I venture to say none of those who have expressed their anger at me for my views have actually done that. Instead, I’ve been labeled arrogant, condescending and, incredibly, even anti-Semitic! Anti-Semitic? Incredible!
        So there you have it. Earlier in this thread I offered to continue the dialogue but only if I was first presented with a complete alternative theory of what happened, including all the evidence in support of that theory. I believe anonymous is taking me up on that offer. Feel free to join in. I will respond as time permits.

        Gil Maguire

      • IranContraClanDidNineEleven
        January 2, 2012, 6:13 pm

        Gil Maguire,
        You asked for engineers and scientists who dispute the official story, I provided you with a link to patriotsquestion911.com

        You asked for a plausible alternative thesis, I suggested getting acquainted with USAF Lt Colonel Robert Bowman, who in addition to being a fighter pilot, is also a Nuclear Engineer and the former Head of Advanced Space Programs Development for the United States Airforce. His scientific creds are more than enough to make a reasonable person pause at his dismissal of the official story as impossible, but beyond that he was also a highly decorated and highly connected military officer who puts forward his own thesis, involving criminals in the Bush administration as well as Israel. In your incredibly long reply you made no mention of the scientists, firefighters, architects, engineers or the military intelligence officers who question the official story of 911 and chose to repeat the same thing about how it’s a distraction and how you “accept NIST” on the WTC7 controversy “because they seem plausible and were done by both government structural engineers” and “a team of very distinguished engineering consultants.”

        Are the creds of those in the video I linked to you narrated by Ed Asner not also incredibly distinguished?

        “I’ve looked at the counterarguments and I haven’t been impressed”

        What is your background in the hard sciences? I’m not asking for you to kiss the ground that Bowman or Jowenko or whoever walk on but the fact that you (a lawyer I think) are so confident in the Govt stoy and so “unimpressed” by the very distinguished scientists who dispute the Official story leaves me dumbfounded. I showed the WTC7 controversy/video/layout/whatever to a few family members with backgrounds in chemistry and engineering and they came away unable to explain how WTC7 could collapse without the use of explosives.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        January 2, 2012, 6:52 pm

        @ Gil: I accept the results of the 9-11 investigation, including the NIST reports on WTC1-2 and WTC7 because they seem plausible and were done by both government structural engineers as well as a team of very distinguished engineering consultants.

        Gil,

        Please take 30 more minutes to review these vids. They relate to a critical analysis of the WTC7 report by NIST and were put together by a high school physics teacher. (You may scoff — a high school physics teacher! — but a) this is high school physics and b) he explains the problems very well.) You will see clips of the author (and others) asking the NIST panel questions. It is embarassing. Their body language speaks volumes. Seriously, I am embarassed for these poor guys.

        Please watch these and tell me if you still think the NIST report has a shred of credibility. -N49.

        link to youtube.com
        link to youtube.com

      • W.Jones
        January 2, 2012, 7:59 pm

        “all without the knowedge of the thousands of people working in and using these buildings which are occupied 24-7. “ Apparently there are some people who worked in the tower who say there were strange renovation type activities going on in the preceding time period.

        I agree there would be more people, you would expect, who would be in the know, so to speak, and would talk about this. So I don’t have a serious opinion myself, and I don’t have some special smoking gun evidence either. But again, fear could be a factor keeping some people from talking.

        BTW, the Vietnam war was based on a flase flag op.

      • Shingo
        January 2, 2012, 11:27 pm

        Irishmoses,

        First of all, the government had NOT laid out a full version of their story – much of it remains classified. Thr head of the 911 Comission has admitted that the report is flawed.

        Src

      • American
        January 2, 2012, 11:46 pm

        What people are saying Gil is that if you aren’t a pilot or an engineer with a lot of expertise in those fields then you don’t have the knowledge to judge what is plausible and what isn’t.

    • anonymouscomments
      January 2, 2012, 11:16 pm

      irishmoses-
      We have the government version of the 9-11 truth and all their evidence. What we don’t have is your full version of what happened on 9-11 and all the evidence you think supports your version.

      It’s time to lay it all out for us; start to finish. Enough of the sniping and nit picking. If you think you got a conspiracy, tell us the whole story and give us all the details on how it works.

      Before I go forward with this, I think you had better conceptualize the very basics of a false-flag, and what a reasonable burden of proof is. A false-flag (FF) is not performed in such away that the public will be able to “tell us the whole story and give us all the details on how it works.” If that is your standard, you will never get such a definitive and exacting story, wrt 9/11. The complete story of 9/11 will never be known. See what I just said? NEVER be known, completely, with a high level of detail and confidence in the details.

      However, the sum total of all the information- coverups, lies, unlikely/impossible claims, evidence indicating how the false-flag was implemented, clear political motives and the implementation of a preconceived political agenda which required the FF (the main point of a FF; basically one of the motives), culprits that fit the MO as patsies/double-agents/surveilled fall guys, and loads of circumstantial evidence, etc. do overwhelmingly indicate it was a FF. You have to weigh a great deal of information, together, to take a full reckoning of 9/11.

      But rest assured, there are various things which are a veritable “smoking gun”. However, there is naturally going to be a government “explanation” offered and/or a 9/11 debunking community rebuttal (the gov remains silent on some things it cannot lie about “convincingly” or deflect with sloppy “logic”; with the 9/11 debunking community, honest partisans [like you?] and assumedly some actual plants can help, as they will attack these positions blindly due to their pre-existing, firmly held position, and tools of the trade [you are a lawyer right?]). This does not mean their rebuttal is convincing, or even very plausible. All they need to do is sow doubt for the person who is prone to buy the gov story. Gov story supporters (subconsciously) seem to grasp for something which allows them to “dismiss” a given “issue”, however tenuous, then files it away as “debunked”, and moves on to the next issue…. They fail to realize that for any single “issue”, an inventive mind or a secretive and lying gov or a good lawyer *wink* (joke) can poke a hole in it for them, even if it is just a pinhole of doubt. The hole is all they need to move on. At the end they have a stack of 9/11 issues, some with pinholes in them (some ludicrous, and rightly DISMISSED). They seem to line up the pinholes, and peer through…. “see, the gov story stands!”.

      Also, you need to be an informed, reasonable skeptic of the government. They would obviously have a *plausible cover story*, and they would support that with government supplied evidence, canned investigations, plants, etc. I don’t expect you to be a student of intelligence agency operations, and how a false-flag would be expected to be executed, but you should have a handle on how dark gov actions can get, how bold and murderous, and how large (being here on MW, I guess you should have some perspective; Israeli examples include the lavon affair and the USS liberty [USS liberty I think could be a failed joint US-Israeli event; where enough US power players assented to the basics in advance, but surely we covered it up after, which might have been pure politics from our side, but a solo Israeli false-flag]).

      All this said, we can go forward. But please understand what can be expected. Some of your stated expectations are not reasonable, and I want to be clear about that. Namely, “the whole story and give us all the details on how it works.” But 10 years later, the important things are solidifying/solidified.
      ————-
      Also, on your suggestion, I just reviewed your comments, and I am somewhat pessimistic, given the demeanor and “logic” used. More than 10% (26 out of 244 comments) contain the word “conspiracy” in them (and other 9/11 truth related posts were not even pulled). For someone who wants to avoid 9/11 thread “hijackings”, you have played your own disproportionate role in 9/11 posts (arguing your own conclusion [which I feel is sincere, but has far too much hand-waving, and blind acceptance of gov evidence/analysis], trying to shut down debate, and acting rudely dismissive towards those who have valid issues with the official story [that you do not address substantively, if at all; usually you just link to the propagandistic debunking911.com site...]).

      You have repeatedly linked to only ONE source, debunking911.com, which is quite transparently biased (we can get into that as once we start, after you go to them on some point). You also reference the NIST report once, which is laughable… already dealt with partly here link to mondoweiss.net
      Other than that you reference occam’s razor at least 2x, which is a very hand waving way to dismiss the entire IDEA OF A FALSE FLAG (of course this is incorrectly and too liberally applying the theory, but those who have nothing substantive to say, are prone to make generalizations about it being “too complex”, “impossible”, or defying Occam’s razor). By applying “Occam’s razor”, simplistically, incorrectly and/or too liberally, the gov can get away with any false-flag. As the gatekeeper of commonly accepted evidence, their story would always be fairly “simple”, but a large false-flag is by its nature complex, requires some assumptions, is hard to believe, and is partially opaque due to the lack of available and official information.

      In fact, this might be why you are so biased. You seem unable to conceive of a false-flag being pulled of, and everything flows from that. I am quite surprised you have researched it much, considering your bias, but then again I am not so sure you have done much reading, outside of debunking911.com.

      I got to this too late today, but I wanted to cite my concerns upfront. Tomorrow I should be able to lay out big issues in some organized way, and the gist of the false-flag execution. When we drill down on one area, maybe you will see some errors in the debunking911.com site, or the general debunking line.

      But maybe, we will just present our “sides” and others can see what they think (and chime in).

  17. pabelmont
    December 31, 2011, 7:14 pm

    In USA’s oligarchic politics, things are always done due to a “confluence” or “convergence” of interests. BIG-OIL, BIG-ARMS, BIG-MILITARY (maybe not the same, but emphasizing empire), BIG-ZION. And no-one BIG in opposition that I know of (tax-payers? BIGs no longer pay significant taxes).

    Many think there would have been no Iraq War without the persistent contributions of the neocons and that they would not have had the energy to EXIST (as an identifiable group) or to be persistent in that way without their profound allegiance to Israel’s imperial ambitions (or security needs, as people often say).

    So, in my opinion, a convergence of interests but also the “engine” of the neocons pushing for war according to a plan made in Israel’s interest years earlier by neocons.

    Would there have been an Iraq War had there been no neocons? I think not. And had the neocons (as people rather than as an identifiable group) not been fierce fighters for Israel? again, I think not.

  18. Kathleen
    December 31, 2011, 7:28 pm

    Kampeas is full of it. The Jewish neo cons were part of the up front team that created, cherry picked and disseminated the false pre war intelligence. Main line war thugs. Wolfowitz, Feith, Ledeen, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Kristol, Mlller, Pollack, Frum….Stephen Hadley….key players. On trial at the Hague with Cheney, Bush, Bolton, Rice, etc

  19. PeaceThroughJustice
    December 31, 2011, 8:24 pm

    There is actually very little difference between the positions of Kampeas and Phil. Kampeas writes that the administration wanted a war and “tailored the sales pitch to the target.” So the media got WMD, liberals got the Kurds (Hitch got that assignment), and “Jews got the threat to Israel.” But isn’t that exactly what we’re talking about? (Leaving aside for the moment the intellectually interesting question that Phil wants to ask of just how the different hawks in the administration arrived at their pro-war positions.)

    The fact that Kampeas can write that American Jews were sold on the basis that it was good for Israel, while at the same time arguing that there was no Israel Lobby, might seem to be a contradiction. But you would be overlooking a key assumption in the worldview of people like Kampeas: JEWS HAVE NO POWER, EVER! To be Jewish is to suffer passively from that fundamental building block of the universe, “antisemitism,” and victims can’t hold power. The whole difference between Kampeas and Weiss boils down to this assumption, which is at the very center of the idea of Zionism.

  20. DICKERSON3870
    December 31, 2011, 11:11 pm

    RE: “So Jewish neoconservatives and their Jewishness are two degrees removed from being the cause, according to his formulation. But even he is wrong.” – Kampeas speaking of the Economist blogger M.S.

    SEE THIS VIDEO: The war party, Panorama, BBC, 18 May 2003
    They brought us war against Iraq – what do the hawks in Washington have in store for us now?
    Panorama investigates the “neo-conservatives”, the small and unelected group of right-wingers, who critics claim have hijacked the White House.
    Throughout the war with Iraq, Steve Bradshaw was with the neocons in Washington – discovering whether they’re really trying to run the world the American way.
    VIDEO (49:29) – link to video.google.com

  21. DICKERSON3870
    December 31, 2011, 11:14 pm

    RE: “It reflects a belief that Jewish actions don’t have agency in history. No, it is the rulers, the czars, who move history. We are bystanders or victims.” ~ Weiss

    ANOTHER TOTALLY EXCELLENT EARLY WINTER EVENING’S MUSICAL INTERLUDE, brought to you by the proud makers of new Ziocaine X-treme®:

    “…I was gambling in Havana
    I took a little risk
    Send lawyers, guns and money
    Dad, get me out of this, hyeah
    ~
    I’m the innocent bystander
    Somehow I got stuck
    Between the rock
    and a hard place

    And I’m down on my luck
    Yes I’m down on my luck
    Well I’m down on my luck
    ~
    I’m hiding in Israel
    I’m a desperate man
    Send lawyers, guns and money
    The shit has hit the fan
    ~
    All right
    Send lawyers*, guns and money
    Huh! …”
    ~ Warren Zevon

    Warren Zevon on Nightmusic (VIDEO, 03:16) – link to youtube.com

    * lawyers for “lawfare”

  22. jimmy
    January 1, 2012, 12:01 am

    It has bothered me as to why the US public voted out gore (good economy) and in a moron (bush) and an absolute warmonger and disgusting human ..cheney…

    The Bush administration was determined to invade Iraq.

    I know that statement is after the election…however…there is a lot more at work here than I think we will ever know for sure….

    however those that finance these people know what they are thinking…and usaully have media influence to boot..so they can get help get someone elected that will do them and their interests favors….

    many many things dont add up in this guy kampeas’ mind…

    • MRW
      January 1, 2012, 2:26 pm

      jimmy, as the resident ex-right-wing republican here, let me tell you why Bush was voted in, because I voted for him.

      Bush was Ron Paulyish in the 2000 debates. Let me use shorthand and not actual quotes or points: he promised in a folksy way (9/2000) not to invade other countries or dictate what they should do, which was supposed to be an antidote to Clinton’s warmongering ways. Bush promised that we should all prosper by minding our own business. Choosing Cheney was seen among our crowd as Bush’s recognition that he knew our crowd might think him wet behind the ears, so he put in a grown-up we all trusted as second in command. None of us knew Cheney was Darth Vadar. We thought he was a successful oilman who minded his p’s and q’s, and would offer gentle-behind-the-scenes sensible advice from his years working for Ford and Bush I.

      There was no indication to any of us that these two and their inner circle would become what I realized: scoundrels and traitors. And we certainly didn’t think the neocons were a problem.

      • PeaceThroughJustice
        January 1, 2012, 8:46 pm

        I think you’ve got it right, MRW.

        Here’s the classic clip from the 2000 campaign–
        “The George Bush You Forgot”

      • American
        January 2, 2012, 2:43 pm

        Well I was a semi conserative off and on for some years– but voted all over the place all my voting life—voted for Kennedy, for Nixon, for Bush I, for Clinton, for Kerry, for no name in the last election.
        I didn’t vote for Bush Jr. simply because he struck me as a clueless boy with a daddy complex who would be run by his advisors and would shun his more experienced Papa’s advice to prove he was his own man.
        If Bush Sr. had been willing to interfer and set Jr. straight instead of letting Jr. ‘be his own man” I don’t think we would have had most of the mess we have now.

  23. Jeffrey Blankfort
    January 1, 2012, 12:02 am

    I am a little late responding to this thread but I would like to make a few points that I don’t believe have been made yet.

    The first is that Clean Break co-author Douglas Feith, who was appointed Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in July 2001, set up the Office of Special Plans under Abe Shulsky, another Jewish neocon, the job of which was to produce the evidence of Saddam’s WMDs that the CIA was unwilling or unable to do. The role of OSP was absolutely critical in providing the false propaganda that allowed the war to take place. At the same time, another co-author, David Wurmser, was appointed Cheney’s Middle East Advisor and Richard Perle, a third co-author, was chairman of the Defense Policy Board. And let’s not forget Scooter Libby. He was Cheney’s chief of staff.That’s called having all the ducks in place. Both Perle and Wolfowitz were frequently credited in the main stream media with orchestrating the war.

    Cheney, BTW, who had opposed taking out Saddam while serving under GHW Bush in 1991 had afterward been embraced by the neocon JINSA which had previously given him its annual Henry J Jackson Award. According to Colin Powell, the war was the responsibility of “the JINSA crowd” in which Perle was a major player.

    More significant than images of “dancing Palestinians,” following the attack, whenever they were taken, was the arrest of the “dancing Israelis,” which is how a group of Israelis was described, several of whom were identified by name as Mossad agents in the Forward (3/15/02) as working for Urban Movers, a Mossad front based in New Jersey, happened to be across the river in New Jersey ready with a video camera to film the falling towers and why, as reported by a woman who reported them to the NJ police, they appeared to be celebrating the event? When later arrested, they reportedly told the police, in so many words, ‘we’re not the ones you want, you want the Palestinians.’

    This story was largely covered up by the mainstream media as was their detention for 2 1/2 months in a NJ jail before they were sent back to Israel. Appearing on Israeli TV, they were asked to explain their presence across from the WTC with their video camera. “We were there to record it,” was their response although at the time there was no suspicion that it was an act of terrorism. If they were questioned by the FBI as to what they were doing spying in the US, let alone their clairvoyance and possible involvement in 9-11, it has never been made public nor was their arrest included in the 9-11 commission’s cover up report.

    The owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, who reportedly gave the order to “pull” Building Seven, is a close friend of Netanyahu’s. Since there was only a small fire in Bldg. 7, which was at a distance from the two towers, there would have had to have been explosives pre-planted in the building in order to bring it down.

    More than 2000 engineers and architects have signed a statement calling for a new investigation of the collapse of the WTC, because they do not believe that the two planes hitting the towers could have brought them down and the destruction of Bldg. 7 would seem to cement their case.

    If there is any conspiracy tale involved it is the one that was circulated by the Bush administration that has been totally accepted by longtime critics of US policy, such as Chomsky, who seem ready to question only the small lies.

    What is quite likely is that the team of hijackers was infiltrated at some level by Mossad agents who had the explosives in place, ready to be detonated, when the planes hit. Getting them in there would have been no problem if the owner, Silverstein, had been in on the plan.

    I do believe that Bin Laden was aware of the original plot which was simply to hijack the planes on the basis of a recorded statement he made shortly afterward, which I saw on TV, in which he said that the hijackers had no idea what was going to happen to them. Although I was a skeptic at the time, I later learned that the technology exists that would have allowed someone on the ground to guide the planes into the WTC. Whether that is true or not, there are so many unanswered questions, many of which have already been raised by others here, e.g., the NORAD stand down, that a new investigation of that day’s events is in order but we know it will never take place.

    What the government has done instead, apparently, is infiltrate the 9-11 “truth movement” with individuals who have come up with some really ridiculous theories designed to discredit anyone who questions the official conspiracy theory.

    • MRW
      January 1, 2012, 3:17 pm

      Jeffrey,

      One of the benefits of living outside the NE news corridor on 9/11 was that I saw/heard about the “dancing Israelis” about 30 minutes after the NJ troopers caught them on the turnpike–did you know the IDF did a dance in a West Bank street two years ago so that Google searches take you there now if you query ‘dancing Israelis’?

      That day, I also heard about the two white vans (turnpike and GW Bridge, both with boxcutters, cash, and explosives…dogs sniffed for the latter), the pristine passport ejected from the hijacker who hit the south tower that landed (as originally reported, later amended to another location) unscorched in a trash can on the NW corner of Chambers and West Broadway–they were specific about the corner and I know the corner well–and two Flight 93 planes at the Cleveland (?) airport, one in the general area and another in a restricted area: with video of both planes on a split screen. I saw Jamie McIntyre (Pentagon correspondent) report live that he was on the scene within minutes and he reported no plane hit the Pentagon: there was no tail, plane parts, or any indication it was a plane. I saw helicopter footage of the plane that went down in Shanksville; the local NBC reporter onboard commenting that there was just a hole, no plane parts, which she found odd. All this and more I saw on 9/11, and I saw WTC 7 go down in the late afternoon.

      BTW, we actually had that technology to fly planes remotely in WWII. Navy planes used it.

      The high-fiving dancing Israelis were set up on top of the van in the woman’s parking lot before the first tower fell.

      • slowereastside
        January 1, 2012, 6:28 pm

        And most of the steel from the WTC buildings –the evidence– was quickly shipped off to China and India before any thorough examination. WTF?

      • flyod
        January 1, 2012, 7:52 pm

        google dominic suter urban moving

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        January 3, 2012, 1:27 am

        MRW,

        I had heard about the reports of the two vans, boxcutters, explosives, etc, but hesitated to put more in my comment than I could vouch for having seen in the media myself. I haven’t pursued what happened at the Pentagon nor in Pennsylvania for the same reason, although had a plane hit the Pentagon–apart from a picture of one approaching the Pentagon which does exist (or was fabricated)–we would have seen that and evidence that it was a plane that had caused the damage.

        There is also the confirmed report of the Indigo [Israeli] messaging service, published in Ha’aretz and the WashPost of a call that came in two hours before the attack, warning that it would take please. No follow-up there either.

        For me, the demolition of Bldg. 7 demolishes the government conspiracy tale. That the mainstream media has kept a lid on the story is reminiscent of the JFK assassination after which the media was apparently asked by the government, for national security’s sake, not to publish stories questioning the theory of the lone gunman, and the MSM obliged, at least that was the case in the SF Bay Area.

        In the aftermath of 9-11 there were at least four confirmed reports of Israelis, posing as movers being arrested in diverse areas of the US–Illinois, New Mexico, and Maryland, where they tried to enter a military base. On each occasion, local police turned them over to the FBI and that was the end of it, apparently.

        Israel has long had an office of its Defense Ministry in downtown Manhattan at 800 2nd Ave. to coordinate military aid that could be found in the phonebook. I wonder if it also doubles as Mossad’s US headquarters?

    • anonymouscomments
      January 1, 2012, 8:56 pm

      Jeffrey,

      Glad such an authoritative voice here echoes mine. I think we both have similar conclusions about the events. But I do suggest you consider some things, to better refine your high level outline.

      What is quite likely is that the team of hijackers was infiltrated at some level by Mossad agents who had the explosives in place, ready to be detonated, when the planes hit. Getting them in there would have been no problem if the owner, Silverstein, had been in on the plan.

      The Mossad role is very unclear, from my analysis. I think they had the intel, most assuredly. Counterpunch FYI link for anyone interested; Israelis were tailing the hijackers, conducting massive spying in the US in the pre-911 period, and possibly caught documenting the event itself (chutzpah!)-
      link to christopherketcham.com
      And I consider it quite likely Mossad actors played a supporting role, but I’ve found nothing that indicates this persuasively, or tangibly. However, the fundamental role of elements of the USG is the part which is more undeniable.

      Essentially, you have to consider the magnitude of the false-flag, and operationally what made it all possible. The readily available public knowledge about the various events before 9/11, of 9/11, and of course the aftermath, make it clear that it was, largely, a USG based op.

      When I say “the USG” I mean unsavory elements in the CIA, and select required players throughout the USG power structure (people in the military, some elected officials, FBI, etc.), and there is likely nothing very monolithic about these players (ethnicity, national loyalties, motivations, etc.; I am saying it is not just “the Jews” and/or “Zionists”, but diverse, with diverse “winners” and diverse ideological and/or tangible motivations).

      I was going to go into detail, but I assume you can work out (or likely already know) the ways the USG had to play major roles… major things that come to mind are CIA-pushed issuance of visas, FBI being backed off, over a DOZEN training exercises held on the day of 9/11 (which mirrored the attack in many ways, and made it possible for it to “succeed” logistically), timely alterations of the chain of command in response to a hijacking months before 9/11 (why NORAD was unable to intercept any of the planes, deep into the hijackings, as Rumsfeld was “not available”), the squeaky clean hijacker cover story which was assembled ASAP, etc.

      Basically, the bad parts of the CIA and Mossad are often friendly. And there is no way Mossad could have run the whole op, say, putting a fast one over on the clumsy USG. USG involvement is required, and in many logistical/response/stage-setting roles, primary. There is some room for intrigue, and players could have altered actions, or one-upped factions in execution, or dictated maleable political ends. It would be complex, and also highly compartmentalized, so who the hell knows specifics.

      But in the end, I think it is proper to call it a USG job. It is also reasonable to call it a CIA-Mossad joint operation (or US-Israeli false-flag), but the evidence is not as strong for me for this one (so to stay safe, I call it USG job, or inside job). However, if you call it a Mossad job, it likely just means you haven’t gone too deep into the evidence, or what roughly had to occur on 9/11.

      This is dicey territory, as some who pin it all on Israel/Mossad/Zionists are anti-Semites, but more importantly, they are (IMHO) incorrectly analyzing the nature of the events (generally it is an honest mistake, due to limited depth on it). I am not at all including you in this, AT ALL. But I wanted to point this out to you, as you might want to dig deeper, and also watch out as people might throw your analysis back at you, if you do not include the USG role/greater nuance.

      Of course, there is the larger question about what power centers bear responsibility for pushing the whole 9/11 event. Here one could implicate Zionists, Mossad, and Israel, as the defining factor (I do not do this myself; I’m agnostic and do not know enough; Alan Hart fingers the Israelis as the impetus). However, there were undeniably diverse interests at play, and I do not feel comfortable with fingering any particular “ends” or factions with the blame. It just seems way too opaque.

      Of course after the event, we all know about AIPAC/likud sway and the neocons. So we can implicate “pro-Israel” players very clearly, when the topic is US policy in the ME post 9/11, and specifically Iraq and (in time?) Iran….

      [In the end I am saying that many people feasted at the 9/11 table... that is very clear. Was it the Israelis and Zionists (Jewish and gentile) who came up with the dinner party idea? Maybe, but hard to ever determine, and the table was so large, I'd be lying if I ignored the other people who knowingly ate, who couldn't care less about Israel.]

      • Charon
        January 2, 2012, 3:31 am

        anonymouscomments, I agree with you. It’s also not a popular topic around here for obvious reasons. I don’t mean to sound cold, but I seriously think I/P is far more important. Dwelling on 9/11 is dwelling on the past. Expose the criminals responsible for this global Israel-first status quo and you expose any sort of 3rd party involvement in 9/11. No need to speculate a conspiracy, it’s not relevant. Bringing it up just gives others a reason to smear us. If such a thing is true (as I believe it is) it isn’t just Zionist intelligence agencies. It was more than that.

      • anonymouscomments
        January 2, 2012, 4:09 pm

        charon-

        i understand the various reasons why it is unpopular here. and i want to keep it on this thread, and will only bring it up sporadically, when relevant. i don’t want it “debasing” the view of MW to readers and/or commentators; and i consider that a valid fear. but we are bravely honest on these pages if we are rational, factual, and nuanced… 9/11 should not be out of bounds. however, 9/11 should not become a focus or diversion.

        we all are keen on knowing WTF is going on in the world, and getting to the bottom of things. we cannot honestly look at US policy over the last 10 years, and for the next 10++ years (the rest of our natural lives…), without 9/11 looming VERY large. if we fundamentally misunderstand the event, we are likely to do an improper or narrow analysis of post-9/11 policy, especially when considering who shoulders the most blame for the iraq war.

        i am sure some readers and some commenters have not formed an opinion, or accepted the official story without ever being exposed to the *rational and supported* alternative theory, which took years to really fall out. seeing the facts once in awhile, or for the first time, might be very good for them.

        but this comments sections is now “tainted” so i’ll let loose here. will not bring up for a good while, anywhere else. understand the atmosphere and concerns.

      • Jeffrey Blankfort
        January 3, 2012, 2:06 am

        I was not saying or trying to imply that 9-11 was carried out by Mossad alone although I would say with some certainty that it was at the very least aware of the attack in advance. If it was involved, which I suspect to be the case based on its long history of getting away with covert operations in the US. including the theft of enriched uranium which Grant Smith of IRmep has documented, it would have to have been in close collaboration with important elements in the US military and the Executive Branch, which would have had to initiate it. Some of the latter may have been involved with no idea of what the final result would be.

        Was it just by coincidence that the Pearl Harbor like event that PNAC had thought necessary to get the American people to support a war against Iraq occurred when it did?; that NORAD had a stand down while the air force was engaged in training exercises to counter a terrorist hijacking at the same time?

        Why were the stories of the Israeli agents arrested on the morning of the attacks suppressed by the media after initial reports and why was there no mention of their arrests in the report of the 9-11 commission? You might ask Carl Cameron, whose damning 4 part series on Israeli infiltration of the American security infrastructure, was pulled by the Fox network leaving the majority of Americans in the dark about how deeply Israeli technical and security firms have insinuated themselves into American society.

        And speaking of that, was it just a coincidence that the security at all the airports from which the 9-11 hijackers allegedly took off, as well as the Paris’s Orly airport from which shoe bomber Richard Reid departed and the Dutch airport that launched the underwear bomber was provided by the ICTS, an Israeli company that was founded by former agents of the Shin Bet? In the US, it operated under the name Huntleigh. Here’s what Wikileaks says about it:

        “It was established in 1982, by former members of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency, and El Al airline security agents.[2][3] The company’s shares are traded on NASDAQ under the symbol ICTS.[1]

        “The firm and its subsidiaries specialize in aviation security services, operating airport checkpoints and electronic equipment, such as x-ray screening devices and manual devices, and verifying travel documents.” Isn’t it curious that the ICTS’s name never came up in any of the stories about 9-11, that no one asked the logical question, “Hey, who was in charge of security?”

      • hophmi
        January 3, 2012, 2:32 pm

        “If it was involved, which I suspect to be the case based on its long history of getting away with covert operations in the US. i

        Who cares what goes on in your conspiracy-theory-laden mind?

        “Was it just by coincidence that the Pearl Harbor like event that PNAC had thought necessary to get the American people to support a war against Iraq occurred when it did?

        YAWN.

        “Why were the stories of the Israeli agents arrested on the morning of the attacks suppressed by the media after initial reports and why was there no mention of their arrests in the report of the 9-11 commission?

        Because they had nothing to do with anything.

        “And speaking of that, was it just a coincidence that the security at all the airports from which the 9-11 hijackers allegedly took off, as well as the Paris’s Orly airport from which shoe bomber Richard Reid departed and the Dutch airport that launched the underwear bomber was provided by the ICTS, an Israeli company that was founded by former agents of the Shin Bet?

        GIANT YAWN.

        You’re motivated by hate.

      • anonymouscomments
        January 6, 2012, 4:09 pm

        JB: believe me, i think it is a given they knew, and almost impossible that israeli’s were not involved. in fact, i think they likely took a lead on physical acts on US soil in advance of 9/11, as they would have more freedom to operate and would make the cover-up easier from the US side.

        i just think people should note the US role, if they stress israeli foreknowledge/actions. i do not think we disagree, i just was pointing out that omission on this topic can be misleading, or subject to attack.

  24. traintosiberia
    January 1, 2012, 12:13 am

    Hopefully , one of these days Kampeas will provode us with the dates , the names and the offices of The Kurdish people who and when they came to feed OSP, came to FOX and NYT and Right Wing Radios to cheer up the somnolent crowd into war frenzy against Iraq befeore 911 and after. Did they also ring up Mr Wesley Clarke immidiately after 911 while he was talking on CNN trying to make him blame that Iraq was responisble? Did any Kurdish leader put pressure that Saddam need to be removed . Mr K alternatively can provide the names of the persons and of the agencies that promoted the case of the Kurds and Sunnis.

    These same media also ignored conveniently the evidences of Iraq not being a threat or not having any WMD. ( This raises the question if I am planning to destroy somebody for a reason X which I know does not exist, then what is my reason to fight him and to destroy him. )This is again akin to situation to Iran.Media knows Iran does not have a programme that is a threat to US or Israel. But it drums up the same rhetoric . The result is a country that suffers other than Iran is US from lack of buisness. So why do they do it? Pletak of AEI has aparently spilled the bean. An Irainan state free of sanctions with the potential to build a bomb anytime ( Like Japan, South Korea, Brazil ) they want, will end th hegemony of Israel. It wont curtail any power of US.
    Is it for the democracy? Is it for the Azeris or for the Sunnis? If that is the case ( its better to have this confusion sorted out now , so that we know when the dust settles after Iran war who and what lobby and whose interest were involved) then why continue sanctions that hurt and kill common Iraianin and give lip service to democracy in Israel or Saudi arab and Bahrain?
    A peacuful resolution of Iraq conflict was rebuffed by the West at the behest of israel whose FM (1991) Mr Levy claimed that Israel would attack Iraq if the West failed to do so.
    If a peaceful resolution that keeps Iran intact as a country were the aim then why the Brazilian-Turkish offer was ignored and deplored, why the Iranain offer in 2003 that was so favorable to US was rejected ? Aagin did the Kurds or the Sunnis do it? Is the oil lobby doing it? Is the military doing it? No. None of them. Oil industry would be happy to do buisness with them and militray-industrial -complex will be happy to do business with them.
    Mr K is engaging into play of words and introduction of confusion by bring issues that have no relation to Iraq war.

  25. Pixel
    January 1, 2012, 12:22 am

    A great conversation to have instigated, Phil. Fabulous!

  26. jewishgoyim
    January 1, 2012, 1:20 pm

    The Clean Break Report is the smoking gun. The idea that so many people working WITHIN the Bush administration had signed this report but most of all THAT EVERYBODY KEPT MUM ABOUT IT has been for me the real shocking thing in this story.

    Why on Earth didn’t the mainstream media take a thorough look at Wurmser, Perle, Feith and the clean break report at the time?

    That pro Israel activists took part in the executive in fomenting the war is one thing. It can always happen, I guess. The real, absolutely shocking things is that the subject was “verbotten”. That left me with a very strange impression. To this very day.

    • Philip Weiss
      January 1, 2012, 1:43 pm

      great point. it is a fear of touching on the issue of the jewish presence, for fear of antisemitism. and meanwhile, everyone is pointing a finger, and wondering what the heck is going on

      • teta mother me
        January 1, 2012, 9:17 pm

        Feith has got to be a sociopath, and C Span has got to have a zionist mole pulling at least some strings around C Span programming/guests.

        Dana Priest appeared on C Span to discuss her research and book about the out of control intelligence operatives and operations that have sprouted up since 9/11. She was interviewed by Feith! Feith had the brass penduli to challenge Priest on her assertions that reporters have the right and even responsibility to report on untoward actions being carried on by government. link to c-spanvideo.org

        Feith created a hypothetical — that government information published by a reported resulted in harm coming to an American citizen — and persisted in trying to make Priest concede that a reporter should be subject to imprisonment for such an action. Priest, god love her, held her ground, said the scenario was extremely unlikely — the only instance Feith could come up with was of WWI vintage.

        I call Feith a sociopath because only someone disconnected from reality –the reality that he played a part in getting US involved in a war that cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives — could possibly point a finger of culpability at Dana Priest and not feel disabling guilt.

      • Philip Weiss
        January 2, 2012, 10:35 am

        brass penduli is well worth stealing

      • anonymouscomments
        January 11, 2012, 2:21 am

        sorry i just noted this comment. not sure what you are indicating, but the original comment is noting that 9/11 was premeditated, not extreme luck. and the premeditated murder was not iraq, but the civilian massacre that made that trillion dollar premeditated mass murdering spree possible…

        if they were all gentiles, the # of people pointing to *one* of the motives for premeditated mass murder (9/11) would be just as small. maybe a few more jewish americans would be on to it though (but not a meaningful change in the landscape).

        the events of 9/11, and the aftermath, have many people’s fingerprints on it. i don’t care that many of them are jewish, i care that i see the finger prints, and i can’t wash them out of my mind.

        and the gun is still in the hand. libya… syria…. even sudan now….

        iran is the ignition point though…

        and i don’t know if/when they intend to light it. colonels i know in the military don’t want to go there, but the political class and media decide the US fate now. so the gun is in the hand of the elites, and iraq took more bullets than they hoped. are they reloading? are they waiting for the barrel to cool off a bit? i feel like the shot felt around the world is coming off in 1-2 years.

    • Charon
      January 2, 2012, 3:47 am

      Why not still take a thorough look at those guys? They’re still alive. And a lot of their buddies are using the same rhetoric for Iran that was previously used on Iraq. Emphasis on rhetoric because that’s what it is. These people are liars under the impression that they are intelligent. They are ignorant morons with low IQs and a primitive hive mind which thinks it knows what justice and logic means. Wolfowitz especially. The sooner others realize how smart we are, the better chance we have at over throwing these ignorant biological robots.

    • hophmi
      January 3, 2012, 2:29 pm

      “That pro Israel activists took part in the executive in fomenting the war is one thing.”

      It’s not “one thing” because thew idea is based on the faulty premise that their stand on Israel had anything to do with their stand on Iraq.

      • Shingo
        January 3, 2012, 8:59 pm

        It’s not “one thing” because thew idea is based on the faulty premise that their stand on Israel had anything to do with their stand on Iraq.

        Of course it did. They even said so in their own words.

  27. jewishgoyim
    January 2, 2012, 6:16 am

    Well Phil, I’m glad you think there is a point here because it is a cornerstone of what I thought during this period. The cover-up was even more stunning than the underlying facts (which were pretty damning).

    I would object when you say “everyone”. “Everyone” is a lot of people. Very few people knew then, very few people know now. Walt & Mearsheimer, Justin Raimondo, Phil Weiss, Glenn Greenwald (I can only guess for him) and a few others were following the action. Which leads to another, more general and more nerve racking question: if such significant and “in plain sight” influence can be erased from journalism (which some say is “the draft of history”), then what can one really believe? There is an element of trust that is lost there.

    Also, if Jews enjoy (understandably so) a special status among ethnic groups because they were mass murdered during WWII, isn’t there a tacit understanding that types such as Wurmser, Feith, Perle or “Kristol & Kagan”, agitating for war in a way that you’d only expect in an antisemitic pamphlet in the 30s, would be strongly disavowed by the community? That they would be viewed from within as “clear and present dangers”?

    It looks like on the contrary, even Jews who despised what Feith & co were doing are trapped in their vast majority into enforcing orthodoxy because they are so scared that such a talk about Jewish influence could become public discourse. In this subtle way, the Jewish community is trapped by some dudes at the top: “Now that Feith & co have done that, we’d better stick together because we all remember what happened last time the cat of the conversation about Jewish influence was out of the bag.” But was there ever a mandate for Feith & co from the people who feel now more or less obligated to to close rank? Of course not!

    That’s where Mondoweiss comes into play, fearlessly and subtly exposing the influence of the Israel Lobby. Promoting good faith and understanding rather than fascistic orthodoxy and idiotic conformity. But then, and I’m not in Phil’s shoes so I can only guess in part, at the cost at losing your gig in the mainstream and be somewhat isolated in the community or met with hostility.

    • Philip Weiss
      January 2, 2012, 10:31 am

      i think that’s accurate. the majority deferred to the neocons for a variety of reasons. now that’s ending. hallelujah. it will redeem the jewish community, somewhat. but zionism itself must be interrogated by jews who have had the guts to look at the killing of mustafa tamimi, a brave man who was merely trying to defend his village’s right to its water (in a way far less violent than say john brown, who is today an american hero). with mustafa tamimi’s murder, on top of thousands of other expansionist killings…. not in my name!!!!

    • American
      January 2, 2012, 3:45 pm

      “It looks like on the contrary, even Jews who despised what Feith & co were doing are trapped in their vast majority into enforcing orthodoxy because they are so scared that such a talk about Jewish influence could become public discourse. In this subtle way, the Jewish community is trapped by some dudes at the top: ”

      Yes—we need to change the langauge of our zionism discussion. We need to start talking about “Jewish Radicals” as opposed to normal or moderate Jews in the same way we talk about “Radical Muslims” as opposed to normal or moderate Muslim.
      If this was the way the problem of/ conversation about the Israel Lobby and it’s supporters was being framed by those now mentioning it, like Friedman & others, I guarentee you zionist heads would be exploding and the lobby would start imploding.

  28. Oscar
    January 2, 2012, 1:57 pm

    A brave and magnificent essay. Kudos, Phil. Don’t let the neocons obscure the history of PNAC and The Office of Special Plans.

  29. hophmi
    January 3, 2012, 12:55 pm

    Ron Kampeas conclusively demolishes Phil Weiss’s theory, as so many have already. Phil Weiss and other true believers here stick to it, because, as usual, conspiracy theorists do not let facts get in the way of a good theory.

    Of course, you, not Ron, selectively quotes the Economist.

    The full context:

    “Yes, it would be ridiculous, and anti-semitic, to cast the Iraq war as a conspiracy monocausally driven by a cabal of Jewish neocons and the Israeli government. But it’s entirely accurate to count neoconservative policy analyses as among the important causes of the war, to point out that the pro-Israeli sympathies of Jewish neoconservatives played a role in these analyses, and to note the support of the Israeli government and public for the invasion. In fact any analysis of the war’s causes that didn’t take these into account would be deficient.”

    Positing that a cabal of neoconservative Jews are responsible for the war is exactly what goes on here.

    As Ron says, your premises have no validity.

  30. hophmi
    January 3, 2012, 2:33 pm

    Look at the comment section of this post Phil. Your readers are a combination of 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Jewhaters. Is this the discussion you were aiming for, Phil?

    • anonymouscomments
      January 3, 2012, 4:29 pm

      hophmi-

      People questioning the 9/11 government story, and discussing *well supported* theories of foreknowledge, complicity, or an active US and/or Israeli role is not the norm on MW. And only a few of use are discussing that here.

      Your readers are a combination of 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Jewhaters.

      You do know such a declarative statement is abjectly false (and BTW, as you are an avid reader and poster; are you a conspiracy theorist, or a Jewhater?). It seems only a minority of the posters suspect or conclude the USG is seriously lying about 9/11, which does not even qualify one as a “conspiracy theorist”. This is more or less in line with the prevalence of such opinions in the wider world (likely less). See my post here-
      link to mondoweiss.net
      If it somehow troubles you, ignore it and move on to your next thread hijacking. Especially as I will be posting more on it here.

      Admittedly, *some* of us believe there was a conspiracy, so I’ll grant you undeserved slack on that gross hyperbole. However, would you please point out the Jewhaters/Jewhating? I am much closer to the Jewish half of my family, and I believe Jeffrey Blankfort is Jewish. But Jewishness is not a viable defense, and the main point is that I simply don’t see any Jewhating here…

      Yawning and asserting things is a very poor substitute for actually having a point or any substance to your slander.

      Get some sleep.

  31. IranContraClanDidNineEleven
    January 3, 2012, 2:54 pm

    Hophmi said:
    “Your readers are a combination of 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Jewhaters”

    Alan Sabrosky is Jewish, Robert Bowman is not a Jewhater. Both of them have credentials out of this world in the fields relevant to this discussion, you’re an out and out propagandist with zero field intelligence experience, zero pilot skills, zero nuclear engineering skills but you do have a whole lot of lawyer subterfuge and you’re decent at what you do. That being said, should I believe them or should I believe you?

Leave a Reply