Trending Topics:

Wilkerson says Graham and McCain ‘border on being traitors’ for allegiance to Netanyahu


Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, was interviewed by Jessica Desvarieux on the Real News about domestic opposition to a deal with Iran:

Wilkerson: All Iran has to do is limit its enrichment to what would be normally done under a civilian program, under probably at the outset and for a couple of years (maybe five) very rigorous inspection and immediate access to anywhere by the IAEA until Iran has substantiated to the international community that its program is purely civilian, in exchange for substantial sanctions relief. The outlines of a deal, indeed, the specifics of a deal have been there for some time.

DESVARIEUX: And who would be opposed to a deal like that? And why?

WILKERSON: First and foremost, Prime Minister Netanyahu and his extremely right-wing government in Tel Aviv. If you’ve seen what they’ve laid down as their deal parameters, if you will, it leads off with no enrichment at all, that is to say, they do not want any nuclear program whatsoever in Iran. And then you come to this country and you find Netanyahu’s allies in people like Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham from my home state, and others who are bordering on being traitors, in my view, because they won’t let this president have room to achieve a diplomatic solution. They’re all angry now that he didn’t bomb Syria, that he in fact, in conjunction with Putin, came up with a deal that may be extremely challenging to implement. But nonetheless it’s kept the bombs from dropping, which is a good thing. And so they’re moving on to Iran, with Graham even saying he’s going to move for legislation to authorize the use of military force against Iran in the next four to five months. So these people are bordering on being traitors. …

Desvarieux: [D]uring [Chuck Hagel’s] confirmation hearing, you heard a lot about his remarks in the past about how the GOP and Congress actually really is under the intimidation–or being intimidated, I should say, by AIPAC and other lobbying groups there on the Hill who are very pro-Israeli politics and things of that nature. Do you feel like them coming out with these types of remarks and proposed legislation is just really feeding to that whole argument?

WILKERSON: Absolutely. When Chuck Hagel was being asked by Senator Graham during his confirmation hearing to cite one time, one time that Israel had been influential on U.S. policy, all Senator Hagel had to say was “You, now, Mr. Graham”. That’s all he had to say. Of course, he could have cited Ronald Reagan’s inability to sell F-15s to Saudi Arabia, to give AWACS to Saudi Arabia, and so forth, all of which AIPAC and the Jewish lobby in this country stopped. So Israel has an enormous impact on U.S. foreign policy, but it’s beginning to be so detrimental to U.S. foreign and security policy that people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, with their hands out to the Jewish lobby for more donations to their PACs and so forth, just simply need to shut up and go back into the dark shadows from whence they emerged.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

32 Responses

  1. just
    September 22, 2013, 10:25 am

    How refreshing. I would beg to differ with Col. Wilkerson– those two bums are traitors, and so are the other bums on the Hill that are beholden to Israel and AIPAC. They, and their agenda, are the foremost threat to our national security.

    Who knew that the biggest threat to America would come from within? And for McCain to write an op-ed in Pravda arrogantly criticizing Putin is extreme hubris and should not be tolerated by the American people… same for him meeting with the “rebels” in Syria.

    • RoHa
      September 22, 2013, 8:07 pm

      Treason would be nothing new for McCain, given his Vietnam days.

  2. Citizen
    September 22, 2013, 10:44 am

    McCain and Graham are just plain selfish whores, and so are all the congress critters who push support for Israel right or wrong, and whether or not it it’s really in the best interest of America–or Israel, long term. The Jewish congress critters are more like the Rosenbergs or Pollard in that they really believe in allegiance to a foreign entity.

    Let’s not forget Mooser’s coin: Ziocaine. Or Kool-Aid as its more generically known in areas not involving Israel. The truth is the human brain has a horrible defect, evidenced by Zio-bots daily:

    The Most Depressing Discovery About the Brain, Ever

  3. Justpassingby
    September 22, 2013, 10:49 am

    “..Wilkerson: All Iran has to do is limit its enrichment”

    ….and there Wilkerson showed he doesnt know anything about this conflict.
    Besides who were not a traitor to Israel when it comes to the Iraq war Mr Wilkerson? Not yourself and Bush?

  4. Citizen
    September 22, 2013, 10:49 am

    McCain is a chip off the old block, his daddy, who covered up the intentional attack on the USS Liberty in conspiracy with Johnson who did so angling for more support from the Jewish Establishment for his flagging heinous war in Vietnam. Graham is cut in an old mold, the crafty southern cracker.

  5. Amar
    September 22, 2013, 10:51 am

    Wilkerson has his facts wrong. Reagan did manage to sell the F15’s and AWACS to Saudi despite lobby opposition at the time.

    • Hostage
      September 22, 2013, 3:49 pm

      Wilkerson has his facts wrong. Reagan did manage to sell the F15′s and AWACS to Saudi despite lobby opposition at the time.

      No Reagan wanted to give the AWACS to Saudi Arabia, but was required to sell them instead. He only got congressional approval when he agreed to certify that steps had been taken to protect the technology from the Saudi Arabian flight crews.

      Likewise neither Reagan nor Bush Sr. could ever sell F-15s equipped the way the Saudis wanted them, i.e. the same models, systems, and weapons we provided to Israel. There were always years of delay and major confrontations over that issue.

      • RoHa
        September 22, 2013, 8:19 pm

        This was why Saudi Arabia bought Tornado fighters from Britain, and is now buying Typhoons.

    • dbroncos
      September 22, 2013, 9:02 pm


      The dust up over the AWAC’s deal with SA exposed the Lobby to such an extent that there were bumper stickers circulating at the time that read, BEGIN OR REAGAN.

  6. Donald
    September 22, 2013, 12:15 pm

    Treason has a specific legal meaning, or so I’m told–use it for that. People who use it in other ways are just being demagogues, even if they are otherwise right on the issues.

    One reason I don’t like it–it’s usually used against lefties for opposing US foreign policy and against lefties who show some measure of sympathy for an official enemy or even just sympathy for victims of the US. If we do go to war against Iran, you can be damn sure that any American who, say, visits Iran to see the destruction caused by our bombing will be deemed a traitor. People who think that the US and Israel should be joined at the hip are wrong, and they advocate for immoral policies and there are plenty of abusive terms one could accurately throw at them, but do their actions fit the definition of treason? No.

    • just
      September 22, 2013, 12:44 pm

      Yep– treason does have a legal definition.

      The actions of some of our elected officials are “not helpful” to our foreign policy or national security is too tame, imho.

      I personally find it traitorous, and do not want to whitewash it anymore. Perhaps you would find the synonyms for treason more palatable:

      “disaffection, disloyalty, duplicity, lese-majesty, mutiny, perfidy, sedition, subversion, traitorousness, treachery”

      • Donald
        September 22, 2013, 12:58 pm

        I’d prefer to use terms that describe the evil more directly. McCain and Graham are warmongers and if there is a war with Iran, in a more just world they’d be tried as part of a government that committed the crime of aggression. “Treason” doesn’t cut it with me, because it presupposes one particular notion of what is good or bad for a country. You’ll never get agreement on that. Much of US history has been a history of land theft, ethnic cleansing, genocide, slavery, support for dictators, unjust wars, etc… Some of our most honored Presidents have been war criminals. Some of our most noble dissidents have been called traitors or have actually urged a form of “treason”. William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution a pact with Hell and burned it in public.

        So no, just because some lefties have started embracing the term as a way of attacking the neocons doesn’t mean I’m going to follow along. The word has a long history of use by demagogues and IMO can’t be redeemed–its only use should be in a courtroom, regarding very specific carefully defined actions.

      • American
        September 22, 2013, 2:14 pm


        You are a moralist and idealist, but sadly in the real world, those forces are not what usually ‘prevents’ death and destruction.

        ritzl is right in saying…..” to use the “traitor” card to head off hostilities. Rightly or wrongly, get out in front of it with a proactive framing. ”

        Because preventing requires you to be “proactive”. And what is the strongest accusation you can make against a leader or politican that will rouse the masses against them?…traitor, treachery, perfidy, sedition, subversion, etc..

        The evidence against them is clear, so the bottom line becomes are you willingly to stand by and let them continue their ruin and destruction or do whatever you have to or can do to stop them?

        And in the outcome of what they are doing it does not matter if some see themselves as patriots or not—-the bad results are the same—it may be ‘imperfect” but is ‘more fair’ for those who are ‘wrong’ to pay the price for being wrong than to have others pay that price for them.

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        September 24, 2013, 8:56 am

        Donald, William T. Vollman in a recent ‘Harpers’ article refers to these types (although in the context of the serial snoopers of the intelligence apparatus) as ‘unamericans’, a noun being the opposite of ‘americans’. in other words, they pretend to be patriots, but everything they do and believe is the mirror opposite of the positive American myth of justice and equality.

    • ritzl
      September 22, 2013, 12:55 pm

      Good points Donald. Personally, the way to avoid the “enemy sympathizer” trap is to use the “traitor” card to head off hostilities. Rightly or wrongly, get out in front of it with a proactive framing. Particularly now, where more war is broadly viewed as not in the interest of almost all US constituencies, including the military, and there is some receptiveness “out there.”

      • Donald
        September 22, 2013, 1:01 pm

        I see your point and can understand it, but don’t wish to follow for the reasons I outlined above.

        I also don’t want to threadjack, or anyway no more than I already have–the rest of the post is worth discussing, so I’m going to bow out.

    • MRW
      September 22, 2013, 6:05 pm

      Treason, from the Legal Dictionary. I think Wilkerson was working with some of this info.

      The betrayal of one’s own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

      The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king’s will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.

      Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

      The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, julius and ethel rosenberg were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.

      Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty.


      • American
        September 22, 2013, 8:45 pm

        ‘Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution’

        Which is outdated and does not reflect modern political realities.
        We need new laws and defintions of what constitutes a ‘crime against the country’.

  7. James Canning
    James Canning
    September 22, 2013, 1:41 pm

    Bravo, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson. Aipac and its stooges in the US Congress are trying to enable Netanyahu to bring another catastrophic war to the American people. To benefit Israel.

  8. James Canning
    James Canning
    September 22, 2013, 1:44 pm

    Should one note here that Iran has offered a number of times to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent? And that, thanks to the Israel lobby, the US has ignored those offers?

  9. quercus
    September 22, 2013, 5:23 pm

    I just wonder what kind of “dirt” somebody has on McCain and Graham that they are such willing accomplices in all of this.

    • marc b.
      marc b.
      September 24, 2013, 9:13 am

      what kind of “dirt”

      why, dirty dirt of course. I paraphrase Edward Hermann’s theoretical question: ‘why do turds rise to the top in America?’ in my opinion, no one (or very few) becomes a senator without being hopelessly compromised to begin with. there is a rigorous selection process ensuring loyalty to the status quo. if someone gets offended when you say, ‘they’re all crooks’, then they don’t understand a fundamental part of the process to begin with. it’s like getting offended in response to you saying, ‘all prostitutes are promiscuous’.

      this is how the media mechanism is described:

      Herman and Chomsky quickly dismiss the standard mainstream critique of radical media analysis that accuses it of offering some sort of “conspiracy” theory for media behavior; rather, they argue, media bias arises from “the preselection of right-thinking people, internalized preconceptions, and the adaptation of personnel to the constraints” of a series of objective filters they present in their propaganda model. Hence the bias occurs largely through self-censorship, which explains the superiority of the U.S. mass media as a propaganda system: it is far more credible than a system which relies on official state censorship, although in performance the dominant media serve the agenda of the elite every bit as much as state organs do on behalf of the ruling bureaucracies in Eastern Europe.

      the only quibble I have with this analysis is that I think it places too much emphasis on the process being centralized in the private sector, ignoring the public-private partnership that is necessary for an efficient propaganda machine.

  10. MRW
    September 22, 2013, 6:17 pm

    Typo in your piece, Phil and annie. ;-)


    all Senator Hagel had to say was you know, Mr. Graham

    should read:

    all Senator Hagel had to say was: You. Now. Mr. Graham

  11. DICKERSON3870
    September 22, 2013, 6:57 pm

    ● RE: “So Israel has an enormous impact on U.S. foreign policy, but it’s beginning to be so detrimental to U.S. foreign and security policy that people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, with their hands out to the Jewish lobby for more donations to their PACs and so forth, just simply need to shut up…” ~ Wikerson

    ● FROM BLOOMBERG.COM, 9/4/13:

    [EXCERPT] . . . The pro-Israel community contributed $14.5 million to federal campaigns for the 2012 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s more than the $11.1 million in donations by the defense aerospace industry, one of the biggest and most consistent political contributors.” . . .

    SOURCE –


    Pro-Israel contributions

    Top Senate Recipients Funded

    Recipient | Amount

    Mark Kirk $925,379
    John McCain $771,012
    Mitch McConnell $430,925
    Carl Levin $346,478
    Robert Menéndez $344,670
    Richard Durbin $327,212
    Kirsten Gillibrand $326,937
    Mary Landrieu $296,409
    Benjamin Cardin $267,542
    Harry Reid $261,708
    Bill Nelson $259,250
    Charles Schumer $248,149

    Top House Recipients Funded

    Recipient | Amount

    Ileana Ros-Lehtinen $238,685
    Eric Cantor $209,410
    Bradley Schneider $161,784
    Steny Hoyer $143,775
    John Boehner $129,925
    Tammy Duckworth $127,350
    Nita Lowey $116,800
    Bill Foster $108,219
    Debbie Wasserman Schultz $105,250
    Eliot Engel $94,150

    SOURCE –

    • pabelmont
      September 23, 2013, 3:09 pm

      From these numbers, looks as if Chuck Schumer (one of my NY senators) is a TRUE-BELIEVER (FROM-THE-HEART-ZIONIST-UBER-ALLES) and not someone who needed to be PURCHASED. There are some of these, after all.

      Are the PURCHASED pols ALL traitors? Or is it merely business as usual in Washington (and elsewhere)? Are they traitors if they are PURCHASED by the big-BANKS? Big-DEFENSE?

      Perhaps the difference, here, is the gradually encroaching realization (or TREND, or FAD) that war (and especially war with Iran) is BAD for America.

      Perhaps, today, there is active opposition to war from AMONG the BIGs, to oppose the pressure in favor of war (BIG-ZION, maybe BIG-DEFENSE). I’d love to know which were opposing war, if any. And if not, then where is the anti-AIPAC, anti-war-with-Iran coming from?

  12. Kathleen
    September 23, 2013, 12:00 am

    Wilkerson knocked it out of the park. Told them to “shut up” He is not taking any more nonsense after he and Powell fell for the false intelligence and made asses of themselves and then became part of the team soaked in the Iraqi people’s blood. Criminal. At least Wilkerson has basically gotten down on his knees and apologized and almost asked for forgiveness. He seems genuinely sorry for their part in that crime

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      September 23, 2013, 6:47 pm

      Wilkerson indeed witnessed the conspiracy to set up illegal invasion of Iraq, by duping G W Bush and Powell.

  13. charlesfrith
    September 23, 2013, 3:36 am

    The Israelis and Saudis are on the same team. They don’t trust each other but collude in death and misery where it props up their control systems.

Leave a Reply