More than ten years later, we seem finally to be escaping the neoconservative captivity. Has the Times ever been so direct about neoconservative power and the push for war with Iraq? From Kurt Eichenwald’s op-ed in the Times saying that the Bush White House was deaf to warnings from the CIA about imminent attack by Al Qaeda:
Weeks later, on June 22,  the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.
But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat. Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day.
In response, the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.
Walt and Mearsheimer said that the neoconservatives were a crucial element in the push for war with Iraq, and that they represented the Israel lobby. Now the Times is getting round to that awareness. Writes Sullivan, “If Romney is elected in November, these same, evidence-blind, war-mongers would be back running US foreign policy”
(Thanks to Voskamp.)