Trending Topics:

Who will be the last neoconservative?

on 71 Comments
David Brooks

David Brooks

Robert Kagan is a neoconservative. He signed all the Project for a New Century letters telling George W. Bush that Israel’s war was America’s war and we should invade Iraq and replace Saddam and bring democracy to the Middle East. I can’t find those letters on-line any more. It appears that the PNAC site has been suspended. Some regretful neocon has evidently been scrubbing those letters from history. (Ala Lady Macbeth, “Out damn spot.”)

And Kagan is pivoting. He has a good piece up at the Washington Post saying that the U.S. should not be supporting the military government in Egypt.

Those in the Obama administration and Congress who favor continued U.S. military aid to the dictatorship in Cairo insist that although such aid may run counter to American ideals, it does serve American interests. I would argue the contrary, that American interests are being harmed every day that support continues.

Far from aiding the United States in the struggle against terrorism, as the Egyptian military dictatorship and its supporters claim, the military’s brutal crackdown on Egypt’s Islamists is creating a new generation of terrorists.

Kagan even distances the U.S. from Israel, saying that Israel has supported authoritarian regimes across the Arab world, and that’s its problem.

Kagan is getting off the neoconservative bus because it’s doing a bus plunge off a mountain road. Iraq is catching up with the war planners at last. People in D.C. don’t want to hear from neoconservatives.

Who will be the last neocon? Maybe David Brooks of the New York Times. He still believes. On Friday he was on NPR saying that the US needs to continue to run the world, and keep up the global stream of goods and services, or everyone’s prosperity will suffer:

We’ve got a death by a thousand cuts problem, where no individual problem around the world, whether it’s Ukraine or Iran or even the Chinese throwing their weight around in the oceans over there is worth a massive overall response. Nonetheless, you take all these things together and they really degrade the world order, the order that we’ve counted on for the free movement of peoples and goods. And you just sense this degradation of this whole system that we really do rely upon. And I’m not quite sure how we build that system back up. But there’s no question the world order is fraying, and along with it the prosperity and the security of lots of small nations as they get threatened by larger regional nations.

The problem with his theory is that “a massive overall response” means a meaningful threat of military action. And very few American politicians now want to invade another country halfway around the world– certainly not Syria or the Ukraine.

As Brooks concedes, even the Republican Party are abandoning his philosophy of the threat of force. Explaining why the Republicans are all still harping about Benghazi, he said:

And my analysis would be they want to attack the Obama foreign policy but they don’t themselves believe in any affirmative foreign policy, and any use of American power abroad. And so, this is a sort of a way to do that and please Rand Paul followers.

Those Rand Paul followers are broadly representative of an opposition to the use of force. Neocons believe in the use of force. Or they used to. Happily they’re getting lonelier by the minute.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

71 Responses

  1. just on May 4, 2014, 11:52 am

    Ah Phil– they are just ‘going to ground’.

    Sadly, there’s always going to be more hiding under rocks, waiting to slither out @ any time and rally.

    I wish it weren’t so. That MIC, etc…..potent, addictive stuff.

  2. Kathleen on May 4, 2014, 12:06 pm

    Whoa the PNAC website suspended. Copied a fair amount of their stuff long ago. Now if I can find it. Spent a couple of years back in 2003, 2004 trying to read everything on that site. The blueprint for where the Bush administration (and yes Hillary Clinton too would be headed) was headed in foreign policy was all right there.

    They made it so easy to follow their plans.

    As to who will be the last neocon..there are plenty. Bill Kristol, James Woolsey, Micheal Ledeen, Makovsky, Ros Lehtinen, Cheney, Boxer in some ways, Bolton, Schumer, Hillary Clinton.. Terry Gross for heavens sake….come on there are plenty of neo-cons out there. Tom Friedman continually pushes mis information about Iran. Many of the neo cons are all stationed in the think tanks in D.C. Scooter Libby etc. Would make for a great piece providing a more recent update of where they are. Wurmsers, Feith, Addington, Luti, Hannah etc etc. If Clinton gets in I truly believe she will do everything in her power to follow the neocon lead in the middle east. She will be a neocon in the highest position in the world…. again.

    One neocon takes a small hit. Condi Rice

    • Krauss on May 4, 2014, 12:13 pm

      They are a class without a people and without a base. That was always the case. The post-9/11 world presented a transient shred of public opinion but they quickly destroyed that.

      Notice the pure hatred Brooks has for Rand Paul, like all neocons.

      Paul’s economic theories are kooky, but his foreign policy represents a more rooted, and much more genuine conservative strain of thinking.

      The GOP still hasn’t cleansed its media of the neocons, that process is still years off, but it will come.

      Brooks was never really a conservative anyway. More like a neoliberal centrist Democrat. He was only loosely aligned with the GOP due to foreign policy, informed by his Zionism. That’s the story of almost every neocon. The same is true for ex-Hollywood lawyer Jennifer Rubin and New York liberal John Podhoretz, people who are only in the GOP because of Zionism. A fifth column if there ever was one.

      • Donald on May 4, 2014, 1:04 pm

        “Brooks was never really a conservative anyway. More like a neoliberal centrist Democrat.”

        Neoliberal centrist Democrats tend to be right of center, pro-corporate pols who have been trying to shift the Democratic Party away from its New Deal liberalism. When Brooks writes about domestic policy, he’s usually trying to get people to blame the poor and their habits for their own poverty, and he objects to any blame being given to the 1 percent (or the 1 percent of the 1 percent). Almost everything he writes on domestic/economic matters is in defense of rich conservative elites, implying that they have the wealth they have because they earned it. He tries to disguise his intent by couching it in grand philosophical terms, but he never arrives at any conclusion that would make a Wall Street type feel uncomfortable.

        Brooks also despises populism of any sort, left or right. His ideal would be a country run by Mitt Romney clones.

    • on May 4, 2014, 5:19 pm

      hey kathleen- you seem like our resident expert on the neos. why don’t you start your own site about this.
      how bout the letters that the boys from PNAC sent to clinton, like in “bill”.

      • on May 4, 2014, 5:37 pm

        btw-thinking there will be a “last neo” is not only wishful thinking, its borderline psychotic.
        everybody thought they were gone forever after “their” war, adopting the original playbook of israeli jew oded yinon back in the 1980’s calling for israel to fragment all their arab neighbors into weak unthreatening, controllable, and subserviant little “statelets” and then revising it under the PNAC gameplan to deceptively have america do israel’s dirty work by being the ones to take out saddam and fragment iraq, then syria, lebannon, libya, palestine, and their(israel) grand prize, iran, went awry.
        everybody thought they wouldn’t dare show their faces again.
        meyrav wurmser, neopsycho wife of david”the worm” wurmser, tried to distance herself many years ago from them.
        yes the neos have come a long way from the heady days after the PNAC ordered invasion of iraq in march 2003 which saw chief PNACer and world ruiner richard”the prince of darkness” perle congratulate himself constantly on their controlled news outlets about what a great job he and his fellow PNAC microbes did in halting the murderous saddam from wreaking havok on america and the world.
        then, like an inoperable malignant cancer, they came back, and they will always be here, in some shape or form, i’m terribly afraid to admit.

      • Kathleen on May 4, 2014, 5:38 pm

        that will not be happening. Know I have copies of those letters and other material from the PNAC embedded in my account somewhere. Will take some time to find. Also linked to those letters and that site endlessly when I was obsessed with reading a great deal there.

        Most of my linking to the PNAC site was when I was trying to get FDL’s Jane Hamsher and team to pay attention and take stands on the I/P issue

  3. Krauss on May 4, 2014, 12:10 pm

    Is the decline of Zionism in America and neoconservatism unrelated? Hardly, because neoconservatism was in large part started by former Marxist Zionist Jews who didn’t trust the left to hold the line on Israel in the 1970s, in the aftermath of the ’67 occupation.

    Secondly, Brooks argument is really weak. He confuses a world order with an American-led world, which are hardly the same thing.

    American power peaked, I’d say, in the 50s and the 60s. In the 1950s, it could basically replace the leader of Iran without too much of an effort. That’d be impossible even by the 1990s, when the FSU fell and America was this monolithic hegemon.

    And during the 2000s, when American went on a rampage, was that an “orderly world”?

    If anything we will see more order, not less, as the American imperial class, which David Brooks and people like Tom Friedman both belong to, can no longer reasonably call for intervention everywhere(and by everywhere I really mean mostly in the Middle East to whoever Israel is not on friendly terms with).

    The tragedy of modern democracies, of course, is that the warmongers who are absolutely indirectly responsible for the carnage that they advocated get to walk off scott free, without any punishment, and get interviewed by radio stations like NPR where they get the red carpet treatment as if nothing happened.

    • Citizen on May 4, 2014, 2:37 pm

      It’s not just NPR. Chris Hayes, most left of the left on MSNBC, just had on Josh Block, Mr AIPAC himself, discussing Kerry’s apartheid drop; Fox News has Bolton and Krauthammer on almost daily, delivering the neocon line (Kerry should resign).

  4. Kathleen on May 4, 2014, 12:37 pm

    Could not find Libby at the Hudson Institute any longer. But Doug Feith, Fukuyama, Shulsky,

    Bolton, Donnelly, Kagan, Rubin, Perle, Gary Schmidt, Wolfowitz, Yoo many of the neocons still standing, pushing from their safe think tank caves inserting their agenda wherever they can. End up on talk shows like NPR’s Terry Gross, Diane Rehm show. You can bet some of these folks or younger neocon versions of their mentors ( with same middle east agenda ( will end up on the Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy teams. They are in stalled positions but I don’t believe for long.

  5. brenda on May 4, 2014, 12:39 pm

    “It appears that the PNAC site has been suspended. Some regretful neocon has evidently been scrubbing those letters from history.”

    it matters not. Those PNAC letters are embedded in a special loop in our brains. We will never forget those flucking neocons and their wonderful plans for Israel — with friends like these…

    Phil, thx for WaPo link, I will read it with interest. Also, why are you no longer posting my comments?

    • Citizen on May 4, 2014, 2:39 pm

      @ brenda
      PNAC has reconstituted itself under another name–I forget what it is. FPI?

      • Kathleen on May 4, 2014, 5:44 pm

        Yep here is a piece about that face changing. I am almost sure you could still find the PNAC site just a few years ago. New face of PNAC

        The site:

        Up at the FPI site

        What Are We Talking About When We Talk About Apartheid?

        Kerry and others talk in terms of demographics, but it’s a question of rights
        By James Kirchick|May 2, 2014
        “The apartheid regime in South Africa consisted of a white minority ruling over a non-white majority, and it is this feature that those who invoke the specter of apartheid over Israel cite as evidence for their claim. If Israelis and Palestinians do not reach a two-state solution, they warn, then a Jewish minority will eventually rule over a non-Jewish majority in the area spanning from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Jeffrey Goldberg quoted his own 10-year-old New Yorker article on this point:

        By 2020, the Israeli demographer Sergio Della Pergola has predicted, Jews will make up less than forty-seven per cent of the population. If a self-sustaining Palestinian state—one that is territorially contiguous within the West Bank—does not emerge, the Jews of Israel will be faced with two choices: a binational state with an Arab majority, which would be the end of the idea of Zionism, or an apartheid state, in which the Arab majority would be ruled by a Jewish minority.

        The problem with the logic is that relative population size has nothing to do with whether or not a system can be described as “apartheid.”

        In Afrikaans, the word “apartheid” literally means “apart-ness,” or “the state of being apart,” and it describes the legalized system of racial discrimination imposed by South Africa’s National Party government that ruled the country uninterrupted from 1948 until 1994. Apartheid consisted of two forms. “Petty” apartheid encompassed the every day humiliations meted out to South African blacks and, to a lesser degree, mixed race and Indian people. Segregation in trains, buses and bathrooms, the prohibition of miscegenation and interracial marriage, and the imposition of pass laws that restricted movement, were just some of the legal measures undertaken to render non-white South Africans second-class citizens. “Grand apartheid,” meanwhile, was much more ambitious in its terrifying vision, aiming for the broad-scale separation of the races. Under this scheme, non-white South Africans living in areas designated for whites were forcibly removed to rural outposts, the eventual goal being the creation of “tribal homelands,” or “Bantustans,” nominally sovereign states that were in reality puppet governments whose pseudo-independence went unrecognized the world over.”

  6. Kathleen on May 4, 2014, 12:44 pm

    Ok so now convicted felon Scooter Libby is the Senior Vice President at the Hudson Institute.

    Lewis Libby

    Senior Vice President
    John Lee
    Areas of Expertise

    East Asia & the Pacific
    Foreign Policy
    Terrorism & Radical Ideologies
    Middle East & North Africa
    Defense Strategy
    National Security

    Lewis Libby is Senior Vice President of Hudson Institute. He guides the Institute’s program on national security and defense issues, devoting particular attention to U.S. national security strategy, strategic planning, the future of Asia, the Middle East, and the war against Islamic radicalism.


    How f—ed up is this?

  7. Kathleen on May 4, 2014, 12:57 pm

    Looking for the whereabouts of David and Mevrav Wurmser
    “Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) is a registered 501(c)3 non-profit organization. According to the group’s website, it is “…the first unabashedly pro-Israel and pro-American think tank and policy shop on Capitol Hill…” and describes itself as focusing on, “…Israel’s unique role as being the eastern outpost of Western democratic values, holding down the fort against a rising tide of radical Islam, and the enormous strategic benefit it brings to the United States, contributing substantial intelligence and hard-earned tactical advice in the war on terrorism.[1]

    The organization holds seminars on topics related to the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli Conflict[2][3] In 2008, these seminars were sponsored by the Adelson Family Foundation under the title “Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Policy Seminar Series”.[4]

    • traintosiberia on May 4, 2014, 9:03 pm

      Interestng status of an avowedly pro Israeli organization , tax exemption and involvement of the representatives.
      But Univeristy of Chicago is getting rid of the Institute of Confucious .Apparent reason is that the money from China furnishing the institute is influencing the institute and the fact that some of the Chinese teachers have to conceal any association with the Falung Don out of fear that if exposed ,they might lsoe the job.
      Chicago Tribune 05/04/2014

  8. Kathleen on May 4, 2014, 1:00 pm

    Plenty of neocons standing. They have plenty of opportunities to push their agenda

    Sending a Bunker-Buster Message to Iran
    The U.S. has bombers in storage that Israel needs. A timely loan might get Tehran’s attention.



  9. seanmcbride on May 4, 2014, 1:08 pm

    It would be nice to think that neoconservative beliefs are disappearing from the American scene, but I would keep an eagle eye on statements made by members of the following neocon outfits over the coming months to be certain:

    # neoconservative organizations
    1. AEI (American Enterprise Institute)
    2. American Thinker
    3. Commentary
    4. CSP (Center for Security Policy)
    5. David Horowitz Freedom Center
    6. ECI (Emergency Committee for Israel)
    7. FDD (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies)
    8. Federalist Society
    9. Fox News
    10. FPI (Foreign Policy Initiative)
    11. Frontpage Magazine
    12. Gatestone Institute
    13. Henry Jackson Society
    14. Heritage Foundation
    15. Hoover Institution
    16. Hudson Institute
    17. JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs)
    18. Manhattan Institute
    19. Middle East Forum
    20. National Review
    21. NED (National Endowment for Democracy)
    22. Newsmax
    23. RJC (Republican Jewish Coalition)
    24. UANI (United Against Nuclear Iran)
    25. Wall Street Journal
    26. Washington Post
    27. Weekly Standard
    28. WorldNetDaily
    29. ZOA (Zionist Organization of America)

    Probably the most influential and potentially dangerous neocon on the current scene is a Democrat: Hillary Clinton. Many people believe she will be the next president. (And make no mistake: she, like quite a few leading Democrats, has been consistently pushing forward the neocon agenda with its aggressive militarism up and down the line, with no apologies.)

    Increasingly the Benghazi controversy appears to be opening a window on yet more neocon projects, including covert ops directed at Libya and Syria — pure Clean Break stuff. Our current meddling in Ukraine reeks of neoconservatism.

    • bilal a on May 4, 2014, 2:52 pm

      Ideas have a political economy. Read the annual reports of Lockheed and BP and you will realize that there will always be neoconservatives because of market demand.

      War is good for the Oil business, High priced oil is good for the War business. Israel is good for both.

    • libra on May 4, 2014, 3:58 pm

      seanmcbride: Our current meddling in Ukraine reeks of neoconservatism.

      Indeed it does and who’s the leading medddler? Why, none other than Ms. Victoria Nuland. Or perhaps more pertinently in this context Mrs. Robert Kagan. A fact Phil overlooked in his eagerness to tell us “People in D.C. don’t want to hear from neoconservatives.”

      At Mondoweiss we are all too familiar with the “Not-a-Zionist”. Is Kagan the first “Not-a-Neocon”?

      • seanmcbride on May 4, 2014, 8:45 pm


        Indeed it does and who’s the leading medddler? Why, none other than Ms. Victoria Nuland. Or perhaps more pertinently in this context Mrs. Robert Kagan. A fact Phil overlooked in his eagerness to tell us “People in D.C. don’t want to hear from neoconservatives.”

        Neocons: aggressive and power-hungry bullies who miscalculate every situation, who ruin everything they touch and who never accept responsibility for their disastrous policy failures.

        It has become a matter of urgent necessity to drive them out of the US government, both major political parties and the mainstream media before they do any more damage.

        They appear to have been the prime movers behind current dangerous developments in Ukraine, which could easily escalate into a world war.

  10. Don on May 4, 2014, 2:00 pm

    For those interested in accessing the PNAC web site, Mr. Peabody’s Wayback Machine is very handy…

    Just input the address…

    As far as I could tell from a quick glance, the entire site has been archived.

  11. DICKERSON3870 on May 4, 2014, 2:13 pm

    RE: “Who will be the last neocon?” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: If foreigners are included, I’m betting on Tony Blair!*

    * SEE: “This war on ‘Islamism’ only fuels hatred and violence”, by Seumas Milne,, 4/23/14

    [EXCERPT] The neocons are back. That toxic blend of messianic warmongering abroad and McCarthyite witch-hunting at home – which gave us Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo and the London bombings – is coursing through our public life again. Yesterday the liberal interventionists’ hero, Tony Blair, was once more demanding military action against the “threat of radical Islam”.

    Reprising the theme that guided him and George Bush through the deceit and carnage of the “war on terror”, the former prime minister took his crusade against “Islamism” on to a new plane. The west should, he demanded, make common cause with Russia and China to support those with a “modern” view against the tide of political Islam.

    But he also demanded military intervention against Syria – backed by Russia – along with more “active measures” to help the armed opposition, which is dominated by Islamists and jihadists. It’s a crazy combination with an openly anti-democratic core: the Middle East peace envoy also warmly endorsed the Egyptian dictatorship, along with the repressive autocracies of the Gulf.

    Quite why the views of a man whose military interventions in the Muslim world have been so widely discredited, who has been funded by the Kazakhstan dictator and is regarded by up to a third of the British public as a war criminal, should be treated with such attention by the media isn’t immediately obvious. But one reason is that they chime with those of a powerful section of the political and security establishment. . .

    SOURCE –

    ALSO SEE: “Tony Blair believed God wanted him to go to war to fight evil, claims his mentor”, By Jonathan Wynne-Jones,, 5/23/09
    Tony Blair viewed his decision to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a “Christian battle”, according to one of his closest political allies.
    LINK –

    • RoHa on May 4, 2014, 8:36 pm

      Tony Blair isn’t a foreigner. He’s British.

      And I notice that for all his Christian battle ideas, I didn’t see him doing any actual fighting in Kosovo. He left that to the British Army.

      He did have the sense to back up General Jackson when Jackson refused to confront the Russians at Pristina airport.

    • DICKERSON3870 on May 5, 2014, 1:33 am

      P.S. Bernard-Henri Lévy would also be a good possibility as to “the last neocon” (assuming that foreigners are eligble).

  12. American on May 4, 2014, 2:22 pm

    ” Those in the Obama administration and Congress who favor continued U.S. military aid to the dictatorship in Cairo insist that although such aid may run counter to American ideals, it does serve American interests”’>>>

    Notice the neocons *Never Tell You Exactly How* funding Egypt aids US interest—they just use the jingo of ‘aids US interest”–no specifics given–cause there arent any.
    The US started aid to Egypt only when Carter set it up as part of the Israel peace deal.

  13. Citizen on May 4, 2014, 2:46 pm

    And, how about—you ready for this? Mr. New Wave Independent conservative Rand Paul. Check out his new Stand With Israel bill calling for cutting off aid to Palestine.

    Some pundits are saying Randy Paul was so anxious to get AIPAC dollars for his POTUS campaign he didn’t look closely at the fact Israel would have to pay for its occupation (instead of mostly the US taxpayers) if his bill was enacted and implemented….

  14. biorabbi on May 4, 2014, 3:05 pm

    The last neoconservative found standing will be carefully catalogued.

    His religion will be duly noted if it is of the Mosaic derivation.
    His fealty to Israel will be noted.
    His loyalty to the United States will be made suspect.
    His shifting, pernicious nature will be explored.

    Is that about right?

    • libra on May 4, 2014, 5:45 pm

      Stop teasing biorabbi, tell us their name.

    • seanmcbride on May 4, 2014, 5:59 pm


      The last neoconservative found standing will be carefully catalogued.

      His religion will be duly noted if it is of the Mosaic derivation.
      His fealty to Israel will be noted.
      His loyalty to the United States will be made suspect.
      His shifting, pernicious nature will be explored.

      Is that about right?

      Most of the leading neoconservatives have been Jewish nationalists and Likud Zionists with a passionate attachment to Israel (Greater Israel, more specifically). Think Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Daniel Pipes, William Kristol, David Frum, etc.

      Do you really think you will succeed in covering up these conspicuous and irrefutable facts with the antisemitism smear? Be prepared to be justly ridiculed if you go down that path.

      Leading neocons have left a long and rich documentary trail behind themselves for decades in publications like Commentary. They have always been given to making grand pronouncements about “the Jews” and “the Jewish people” while mixing together Judaism with Zionism.

      Neoconservatism from its very start was an Israel-centric (Greater Israel-centric) political movement — in truth a Jewish ethno-religious nationalist political movement. Deal with it. Please do not insult our intelligence.

    • a blah chick on May 4, 2014, 7:01 pm

      “Is that about right?”


    • ziusudra on May 6, 2014, 4:50 am

      Greetings biorabbi,
      All bio may not be kocher.
      PS We thought, we’d ne’er see the end of McCartyism.
      The style of Conservitisim & Zionism is waning.
      Nothing changes, they go up & down.
      Re-enter Paul Buynan, Jesse James.

  15. HarryLaw on May 4, 2014, 5:13 pm

    David Brooks did not like Obama pulling out of the strike on Syria or his handling so far of the Ukraine issue has taken to goad him by calling into question “his manhood” This after Bubba Clinton warned Obama about ‘looking like a total wuss over Syria’. It would appear most US politicians favor war,war instead of jaw, jaw.

  16. traintosiberia on May 4, 2014, 6:02 pm

    “Kagan even distances the U.S. from Israel, saying that Israel has supported authoritarian regimes across the Arab world, and that’s its problem”

    This statement shines the daylight on the racist and hubristic claims that Israel is the only democracy in an area that cant develop democracy out of the cultural and religious values. It also punctures the assertions that the Arab World is not ready for democracy. It also shreds the claims that the democracy does not fight with democracy when the bullying could be carried out by supporting the non democratic organizations.
    May be thats why Egyptian military was talking to Israel behind Morsis back, and Israel was dreaming of the return of another Hashemite as Iraqi overlord anointed as King.

  17. brenda on May 4, 2014, 6:52 pm

    The Robert Kagan column in the Washington Post is stunning. Shocking. I felt the ground shifting under my feet:

    “Many members of Congress also believe that by backing the Egyptian military they are helping Israel, which, through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has actively lobbied Congress for full restoration of military aid.” (isn’t this an acknowledgement that AIPAC is acting as direct conduit for a foreign government?)

    “To Israel, which has never supported democracy anywhere in the Middle East except Israel, the presence of a brutal military dictatorship bent on the extermination of Islamism is not only tolerable but desirable.”

    un-flucking-believable. unbelievable but real. this from a neocon Israel-firster. Is the world coming to an end or what? People have lost their jobs, their careers, their life as they knew it for saying this kind of thing in public.

  18. James Canning on May 4, 2014, 7:12 pm

    The neocons clearly played a key role in bringing on the crisis in Ukraine.

  19. Keith on May 4, 2014, 8:00 pm

    PHIL- “The problem with his theory is that “a massive overall response” means a meaningful threat of military action. And very few American politicians now want to invade another country halfway around the world– certainly not Syria or the Ukraine.”

    Perhaps this is why drones and special operations forces have been emphasized? Utilizing all of the tools of full spectrum dominance, it seems to be the case that while conquering and occupying a nation is too expensive and problematic, simply destroying potential future competitors is quite viable. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, all destroyed or in the process of being destroyed. Afghanistan is the model for the Ukraine. Substitute neo-Nazis for Mujahideen and the similarity is hard to miss. Brzezinski utilized the Mujahideen to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan to protect their southern flank, now his acolytes in the State Department are utilizing neo-Nazis to draw the Russians into all or part of the Ukraine to protect their western flank. And make no mistake, the neo-Nazis were put in charge of the security services of the Kiev putschists, and form the core of the forces attacking the anti-Kiev rebels in Eastern and Southern Ukraine. They control the new National Guard forces established and trained by US/NATO which are independent from the regular police and army.

    Let us not put too much emphasis on labels of our own creation. The tactics of dominance have been updated, however, the objectives remain essentially the same. The empire has morphed into a global corporate/financial empire, with an interpenetration of financial and business interests. There are three potential obstacles to global neoliberalism: Iran, Russia and China. All of the more minor ones like Yugoslavia, Libya or Syria have been dealt with through destruction. The empire is on the march against Russia. Ukraine is being destroyed, and the neo-Nazis will be used to disrupt the Russian border. A potential Russian/German entente has been averted. If Russia capitulates, Iran will likely fall into line and China will be contained. Or, there could be a nuclear war. In any event, the ease with which US/NATO destabilized the Ukraine bespeaks of raw power in the fullest sense. And don’t underestimate the use of financial power to secure imperial objectives.

    As for the neocons, what is in a name? Militarism is alive and well, now joined by financial warfare. If one wishes to argue that the ineffective militarism of the neocons has now been replaced by the more effective covert destabilization of Obama, you may have a point. George W. Bush was disruptive to empire, Obama much more effective in securing imperial objectives.

    We live in dangerous times, and I foresee worse to come. Cheers.

  20. wondering jew on May 5, 2014, 1:31 am

    Listening to some Republican on the news who was saying that Obama is on the same page as the hardliners regarding economic “weapons” that can be utilized against the Russians for the trouble they are making in Ukraine, but the obstacle to such economic sanctions is that they cut both ways and the Europeans who have many more economic ties to Russia than the US does, are not so eager for even economic sanctions. The pretense that the world can do nothing other than go to war is false. There are other options that are not mentioned as steps short of military moves. The war against Iraq was a mistake, but the pusillanimous attitude even towards economic sanctions against Russia is a symptom not of discretion being the better part of valor but a symptom that businessmen don’t really give a damn about Ukraine and the new post cold war world order.

    When you, Phil Weiss, spend all your time complaining about neoconservatives but fail to enunciate a clear point of view regarding the Russian bullying of Ukraine, you are putting yourself on the side of those cynical European businessmen. Because of your complaint about how the neoconservatives messed up Iraq (and the US economy as a result), getting rid of the neoconservatives is a priority whereas the freedom of Ukraine is of little importance to you. (Nor Assad’s behavior towards the people who live in Syria, which I hesitate to add because all antiZionists will call me cynical, but nonetheless I add it. There is zero concern for the Syrians evinced here. As long as Israel, the Zionists and the neoconservatives lose, that’s what counts and the Ukrainians or the Syrians, who cares about people on the other side of the world?)

    • Citizen on May 5, 2014, 1:46 am

      @ yonah fredman

      Do US taxpayers give $8.5 M per day to Ukraine or Syria? Do either of those countries have the US UN SC vote in their pocket? Does US underwrite either of said country’s debt? How enmeshed is the US military-industrial-security complex with either Syria or Ukraine?

      Don’t you care about the large Russian demography in Ukraine? Aren’t they people on the other side of the world too?

      • hophmi on May 5, 2014, 4:33 pm

        “Do US taxpayers give $8.5 M per day to Ukraine or Syria?”

        Let’s see. Around $2 billion in three years to Syrian refugees. That works out to above $2.74 million a day.

        Last month, the US pledged a billion dollars to Ukraine, and if things get worse there, that number will go up.

        And of course, we have spent around $1.7 TRILLION dollars on Iraq and will spend much more. No #BDS movement against the United States.

        We also have bases in the Middle East. Any guess what they cost every year (to keep safe American interests in the Arab world, which means their dictators)? A new aircraft carrier costs about $12 billion.

    • RoHa on May 5, 2014, 2:40 am

      “the Russian bullying of Ukraine”

      Could you spell out what this bullying consists of? As I see it, the elected government of Ukraine decided that an economic deal with the Russians was better than a deal with the EU. The government was overthrown in a (American inspired and supported?) coup. A bunch of dubious unelected chancers took over the government. They were a threat to the Russian base in the Crimea. The Crimeans (with Russian support) chose to be part of Russia rather than Ukraine.
      Russian speakers in other parts of Ukraine are rebelling against the new government. No doubt the Russians are giving similar support and encouragement. Perhaps this support, and the demands, do constitute bullying.

      But why do you assume the European position is based on business cynicism? It is not so clear to me that Russia is so entirely in the wrong, and the Kiev government is so entirely in the right, that sanctions against Russia are justified. Perhaps the Europeans share my doubts.

    • Ellen on May 5, 2014, 3:47 am

      Yonah, Yonah, how is it that you allow yourself to be such a tool?

      As you pulled out whataboutery for an argument, let’s go there. This site is not about the Ukraine, but while you are at it, do not forget neocon designs on the Ukraine and expansion of NATO into former USSR states. What do you think the US would do if Russia or China or even KSA would entrench themselves in Mexico as the US was actively doing in the Ukraine? We all know.

      As for Syria: the neocon game plan was always to get into Syria on its way to Iran. Irak was part I and failed. The US has paid dearly and uselessly lost thousands of youthful lives and blown billions. It is an acknowledged disaster.

      We meddled in Syria, lighting matches to existing tensions and conflicts, thinking Assad would go down in weeks. (think back to the early news reports on this civil war.) Well, that has backfired too.

      You say there is zero concern for Syria “evinced” here. We are talking about the failing neocon blue print, which includes a design on Syria and what has now resulted in the unfolding human tragedy in that country.

      The neocons and Israel did not get their US war with Syria under their plan for Middle East regime change. Instead they got the horrible disaster of Irak and the out of control tragedy of Syria. A trap of neocon design the American people now refuse to step into.

      Cynically evoking this in the context you use — no concern for Ukraine’s freedom or the people of Syria — is disgusting.

      • wondering jew on May 5, 2014, 4:20 am

        Ellen, what a pile of mediocrity you have included in your response. If Phil agrees with you regarding Ukraine, he should say so. That is an attitude that I have heard from Stephen Cohen, a Russia expert, and so it is valid. But to play games and pretend that one can talk about the neo cons and the very obvious weakness of American foreign policy and not state flat out what one feels the US should do about Ukraine, is laziness. And to leave it up to a loudmouth like you, to state the Stephen Cohen position is abdicating responsibility by this web site.

        Regarding Syria, I do not know what should have been done and what should now be done regarding Syria. I take Noam Chomsky’s interpretation of events offered recently as a reasonable point of view. Assad’s regime is one of the worst in the world and the demonstrations against him three years ago were crushed cruelly and the development of an armed conflict to replace brutally repressed street demonstrations is a natural development. I am pleased that you can draw a line between neoconservatives and the Syrian policy and feel that this is all that needs to be stated. You thus put yourself firmly as anti Israel and also put yourself firmly as apathetic to freedom. I can assure you that I do not have a firm grasp of what needs to be done in Syria or what should have been done three years ago and I suspect that Israel prefers a civil war there or Assad in power weakened by civil war there to Al Qaeda taking over there. I am not convinced of Israel’s good intentions regarding Syria and the troubles that have turned life upside down for millions and killed hundreds of thousands. Yet, when you show your hand that all you need to do is show the neoconservatives for what they are and not make one intelligent or intelligible statement regarding the oppression that the Assads have imposed on the Syrian people for decades, shows you for an ideologue without an ounce of feeling for the Syrian people or for freedom. Great, we know that you oppose the neo cons. Do you have any opinion of your own that you can express regarding the Syrian people? Regarding the Assad’s dictatorial ways? Haven’t seen it or heard it yet. A pile of mediocrities.

      • Ellen on May 5, 2014, 5:07 am


        You are reaching for the “you suck” card in a disingenuous debate: name calling — “loudmouth” like me; and assertion of what I am — anti Israel, apathetic to freedom. While you are at it,why don’t you call me a baby molester or pedophile to top it off?

        As for asserting that I have no opinion of my own. I do not even know who Stephen Cohen is, and I hardly read Chomsky.

        This is not the thread to rant on about the degree of Assad family oppression and control of the Syria populace, nor do I have the pretensions to think I am qualified to go on about that, let alone the self delusions to believe I understand what should be done.

        Why do you twist and move the subject?

        And again based on your arguments that are also repeated elsewhere in more simple and different language (like Fox News) why is it that you allow yourself to be what appears an obvious tool?

      • wondering jew on May 5, 2014, 6:28 am

        Ellen- You may or may not suck. But your mode of argument sucks. You call me a tool and then object to my language? Gimme a break.

        I am trying to assess the situation. I believe that Obama is a weak president in general who was elected without sufficient experience. His sole accomplishment seems to be Obamacare and that is a big fucking deal (quote Joe Biden), but regarding foreign policy he is a washout. I realize that the over extension of the US in the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has made the US electorate wary of its government’s role as policeman of the world and I feel that largely he is representing the will of the US electorate insofar as they really wish the rest of the world would just take care of itself. Insofar as he represents the will of the people he is a success. Insofar as the world is incapable of policing itself, he is a washout.

        That is my assessment. I consider myself to be aligned with the New Republic rather than Fox news.

        How the US can evolve to give up the policeman job, I don’t know. I realize that is the will of the majority of the American people and I really don’t know how to get from here to there.

      • LeaNder on May 5, 2014, 9:15 am

        Great, we know that you oppose the neo cons.

        yonah, I read a couple of books about the neocons, when I was confronted with the US discourse on the topic. I am assuming that over here they were simply called Bush administration hawks at the time. And strictly Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Rumfeld and why not Karl Rove, the Comptroller would easily fit into what I objected to.

        Can you tell us how you define freedom or bringing freedom to the world at large today? To what extend is it only about opening up new markets? And to what extend could regime change be about opening new markets for the production of the military complex too? In some countries “regime change” could be financed with oil, as Wolfowitz famously suggested at one point. The US army for hire by any type of exiled elite dissenters out there? Or the US army as degrading into something like the French Foreign Legion, with the difference that now American soldiers have to serve American elite and foreign exile interests? I have Iraq in mind in this context.

        If I would pick out the issue that interested me most from reading about the larger context of “neoconservative desires”. It would be their specific ideas and ideologies in the field of religion. I am admittedly assuming without further evidence that this is exactly the point that created Marc Ellis, the dissident, not only of Israeli politics, but also the larger field of American pro-Israel elite desires. My core assumption is, without ever having looked into the topic as much as I would like to, that the pro-Israel “American interest elite” is much more “American” than “Jewish” at its core.

        Last but not least, to what extend do you think this longer NATO strategy could be related to Ukrainian complaint about corruption? No connection at all?

      • seanmcbride on May 5, 2014, 9:50 am

        yonah fredman,

        Since you have organized your politics around ethnic and religious nationalism, and around your own narrow ethnic self-interest, it’s difficult to believe that you actually care much about Syrians, Ukrainians or any other ethnic outgroup.

        Ethnic nationalists tend to view ethnic outsiders as enemies or temporary tools to be used and discarded — as pawns on the grand chessboard.

        Regarding the mess in Ukraine: that is yet another failed neoconservative project — just like the Iraq War. There is little that we can do about it now — the mistake was in provoking Russia to defend its vital interests in the region.

      • hophmi on May 5, 2014, 11:04 am

        “Ethnic nationalists tend to view ethnic outsiders as enemies or temporary tools to be used and discarded — as pawns on the grand chessboard.”

        Did you ever hear of realism, Sean? Because you just described it, and it’s how most countries, particularly large ones, operate with respect to small countries. They form alliances of convenience. Actually, a lot of small countries operate like that too. They have to operate that way to survive.

        Israel has a developing relationship with China now – do you think the Israelis see the Chinese as an enemy? How about the Greeks and Cypriots, with whom Israel has formed a strong partnership to help develop natural gas reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean?

        “Regarding the mess in Ukraine: that is yet another failed neoconservative project ”

        Yes, it’s the neoconservatives, who control the universe. It has nothing to do with the aggressive stance Putin has long had on these issues and his quest to restore Russia’s sphere of influence in the FSU. Or with Europe’s reliance on Russian gas. Or with the presence of a large Russian community in Ukraine that is this generation’s version of the Sudeten Germans. No, it’s the neocons (insert scary ghost noises here).

      • Citizen on May 5, 2014, 11:33 am


        I agree with your comment. Compared to what the US government would do if the shoe was on the other foot, Putin’s been a saint. (And so has Iran).

        Any way, US political leadership has been doing its best to ruin the US economy and stir up hate in the wide world–for the benefit of Israel (& US political leaders’ personal life styles, as well main media’s.

        China’s about to overtake US GNP. Russia is working to change the dominance of the US dollar world-wide. US sanctions are draconian, to say the least. US economic warfare may end up as more than a double-edge sword.

        US leadership is very short-sighted. That’s the nature, most especially, of current US leadership. Nothing will change as political finance system keep getting.

      • wondering jew on May 5, 2014, 7:50 pm

        sean mcbride- I don’t consider my politics the beginning or the end of my consciousness. At the very least, being a fan of cinema, I am able to go from a POV shot, my POV, to an overhead shot that entails more than my individual perspective. My presence here on MW is primarily political rather than fan of cinema, so therefore it makes sense that you pigeonhole me here for your own specific political purpose. But I exist beyond this page and beyond my perspective on the specific history of my tribe. I am a student of history,a mortal, if not moral human on this planet. apparently the print on the page doesn’t allow you to treat me like a human, but only as a political opponent.

      • seanmcbride on May 5, 2014, 8:27 pm

        yonah fredman,

        I don’t consider my politics the beginning or the end of my consciousness.

        Are there any political issues you care more about than or as much as Jewish nationalism (Israel and Zionism)?

        I am not a white, Christian, Anglo, Irish or European nationalist. Some political issues I care about: overpopulation, the environment, pollution, global warming, climate change, alternative energy technologies, radical wealth inequality, Wall Street corruption, impacts of artificial intelligence and robotics on the workplace, genetic engineering.

        I have been drawn into the great Mideast debates because I noticed that ancient ethnic and religious feuds in that region based on biblical myths could draw in the United States and trigger a global catastrophe.

      • Walid on May 5, 2014, 4:42 am

        Ellen, in your listing of American failures, you forgot an important one in 2006 that was supposed to be a takedown of Hizbullah to pave the way into Iran. A big failure by the US when Israel had wanted out after one week but Condi wouldn’t have any of it because at the time she had the bit in her teeth about regime changes and the “birthpangs of a new Middle East being born”, or something equally vicious along those lines.

      • Ellen on May 5, 2014, 7:18 am


        Between other work I have to do here…

        I did not ever call you a “tool,” but asked why it is that you (who seem to be thoughtful and intelligent) allow yourself to appear as such? Not that you are.

        I certainty did not object to your language. You are reading something that is not there. I indicated that you express the same arguments heard on propaganda outlets such as Fox News, but with more sophisticated language. Yet the message — in a different dress — is the same.

        Such as repeated here again Insofar as the world is incapable of policing itself, he is a washout. If you mean by this that he is acting weak to the outside world, this is a repeat of a senseless meme we hear over and over by propagandists. Tough talk and reaching for the gun (acting like Putin?) does not make for a strong leader. (But having the back of your citizenry sure does help!)

        Am no fan of Obama, but the guy does play the long game no matter what we think of him, his intentions and abilities.

        To be honest, under the US system of government and what it has become, I am not sure if any president has the ability to lead if he or she wants to stay in power or get anything done. A US President does not really have that much power.

        To think that the US has a policeman’s job is ridiculous. It is swallowing the koolaid. The US — like all nations — has only self interests. And these interests change and evolve.

        And back to Syria: If Assad were one of the guys out there fighting and protecting the perceived US interests of the moment, you can be sure he would be one of our “good guys” no matter how horrible he is to his own people. The US has a history of aligning itself with some really bad guys but they were/are our bad guys. Remember, “Hussein used to by our man in Baghdad, until, that is, he stopped doing what we told him to do. ” (I am quoting the private words of a former State department official.)

        I have no alignments. Do not consider myself “left” or “right” or pro or anti anything. The world is too complex and moves to fast to be simplistically taking sides.

        Have a good day-

      • Citizen on May 5, 2014, 8:55 am

        @ Ellen

        A less known instance of fairly recent vintage, is that Iran helped the USA’s initial sally into Afghanistan, making it successful to the extent it was; the Bush Jr regime then promptly thanked Iran by peddling Frum’s notion Iran was part of “the Axis of Evil.”

      • James Canning on May 5, 2014, 2:31 pm

        Walid, I agree Israel wanted to smash Hezbollah, and that Dick Cheney and other American warmongers saw it as a necessary prelude to any US attack on Iran. But, did Condoleezza Rice actually insist Israel continue the insane level of destruction in Lebanon?

      • Walid on May 6, 2014, 8:22 am

        Yes, James, after a week of insane and senseless destruction, Olmert figured that it had been “enough” but was prodded into keeping it up by the US, that was bankrolling it, by Gulf monarchies and by anti-Hizbullah Lebanese politicians. At the time when Rice was in Israel at the end of July, Pravda wrote:

        “… Israel’s Ministry of Defense told the Vremya Novostei newspaper that after these negotiations, the USA will grant Israel another week of active military action against Hezbollah in Lebanon. During this time, the White House will block all diplomatic activity, (including Russian), directed against the military operation.”

        At the height of the bombing of Lebanon, the pro-US government of Prime Minister welcomed with open arms, hugs and kisses, Condi Rice. As soon as it started, the US kicked-off the airlifting of replacement arms, which subsequently caused a big stir in the UK because American planes doing the rearming refueled in the UK, which was against local laws,

        Israel enjoys free munitions from the US that it uses in its wars on Lebanon and the Palestinians. It also enjoys free aviation fuel for its air force and free fuel for all its other military equipment. These freebies are not part of the annual $3 billion that’s always being discussed.

        Before the pre-planned Cast Lead started, ships with 300 containers of munitions left American ports and arrived and were unloaded at Ashdod, Israel on March 22, 2010. There’s understanding in place between the US and Israel concerning the US stockpiled munitions and other arms in Israel; Israel has carte blanche to use any of the US stockpiled munitions at its discretion, free of cost, and when it does, the US proceeds to replenish what was used by Israel. Free planes, free munitions, free fuel; it explains why Israel doesn’t hold back when it starts since it has a zero expense at making war.

      • LeaNder on May 5, 2014, 8:04 am

        Great comment, Ellen. I noticed your comments before. But I think at least once, I should tell you they stick out positively for me.

      • Ellen on May 6, 2014, 7:15 am

        Gosh LeaNder, thank you. Gleichfalls!

    • LeaNder on May 5, 2014, 7:34 am

      Obama is on the same page as the hardliners regarding economic “weapons” that can be utilized against the Russians for the trouble they are making in Ukraine, but the obstacle to such economic sanctions is that they cut both ways and the Europeans who have many more economic ties to Russia than the US does, are not so eager for even economic sanctions.

      Yonah, your premise that only the Russians are making trouble is misguided. The Western orientated demonstrations have enormously changed its face. Initially it was mainly civil society, la bourgeoisie, if you like. By now militarized factions face each other on both sides. Considering the Ukrainian economy, where exactly does the money come from?

      Again, your picture, that it were only “the Russians” that are causing this civil war scenario is biased. But so, seems Western media to a large part. Putin the new devil.

      If there is sponsorship from the East (Russia) there clearly seems to be also sponsorship from the West. Why did warrior McCain immediately show up over there? (the transatlantic angle? Isn’t that at its core military?) Interestingly both camps East and West demand something is done against corruption.

      The Ukrainian society was always divided between more Eastern and more Western orientated parts. For centuries it was a part of Russia. Why is it based on this simply fact so hard for the EU to deal with Ukraine as something like a bridge state, orientated or open both towards Russia and towards EU? Where do “American interests”, the larger NATO scenario come in here?

      It definitively wasn’t too wise to offer Ukraine an association contract that beneath its economical veneer has one main item on its agenda: NATO expansion. The next country that is supposed to sign an EU and thus NATO association is Georgia, if I get matters correctly. Look at the only other language this Wikipedia article is available in, besides English. Apparently this is a Russian interest too. Thus NATO is circling Russia, both West and South. Trying to prevent Russian influence in its neighbor states. Could that be the reason Obama calls Russia only a regional power already? Does he know the plans? Maybe better than we do?

      The irony is, what happens in Russia now. Putin’s support is higher than it ever was, and under the cover of this support he can introduce legislation he couldn’t have before. It would have produced resistance.

      On the other hand over here in Germany the voices get louder that demand an armament build-up. Interestingly both left and right. Now strictly that is something that has been demanded for decades in the US corridors of power.

      Looks more like a solid road towards expansion of influence, with its worst possible scenario war and confrontation than about “freedom” to me. But we know by now that standard tune. The less defined the better.

      I guess on this the neocons are solidly connected to a more widely shared American empire/American interest philosophy. Concerning Russia, weren’t they coined the “crazies in the basement” at one point in the US? Now US empire, from a pro-Israel perspective is surely something to be desired too. No?

      Anders Fogh Rasmussen, according to someone I consider belonging into the right conservative camp over here, is someone: who doesn’t quench fire with water, but with gas. …

    • adele on May 5, 2014, 8:11 am

      Where was/is your concern for the neo-conservative’s barbarian invasion of Iraq (aka, the Cradle of Civilization) and it’s destruction?

      Marhaba Ya Iraq:

    • ziusudra on May 6, 2014, 5:10 am

      Greetings yohna fredman,
      …Russian bullying of Ukraine……
      The Ukraine has, since the demise of the Soviet Union, been allowed sovereignty, left in peace by Russia. Received high discounts of energy from Russia. Has a contract with for the Russian naval base in the Crimea, etc.
      The new Ukraine steps up after pushing in austerity on all claiming: this is the price of freedom! Russia jacks up the energy Price from 1000 cu mts. of 100$ to 485$ !!! Russia annexes the Crimea! Europe doesn’t want them in the EU or NATO! The US grins, yes, but they got rid of their Russian Dictator, & we distablized another sorveign Country. We remember the Price of getting ride of Saddam in Iraq some 10 yrs later?

  21. charlesfrith on May 5, 2014, 2:16 am

    Isn’t Vicky Noodleman and her 5 Billion dollar Ukraine Coup a Neocon?

  22. mikerol on May 5, 2014, 1:59 pm

    Brooks seems to fool a lot of folks with his sociologeese, occasional piece of sentimental crap, he sort of frightens me because I think he’s so insidious he is nearly evil.

  23. surewin on May 5, 2014, 3:05 pm

    I noticed the references to prosperity by the U.S. source interviewed by Nahum Barnea and by David Brooks here. These references are aiming in different directions but both seem to be the same tactic, namely to threaten or inspire fear.

    The interview source said “Israel is not China. It was founded by a UN resolution. Its prosperity depends on the way it is viewed by the international community.”

    Brooks said “…the order that we’ve counted on for the free movement of peoples and goods…that we really do rely upon…” Phil paraphrased Brooks’ comments as “saying that the US needs to continue to run the world, and keep up the global stream of goods and services, or everyone’s prosperity will suffer.”

    It’s just interesting to see this tactic used on both sides now. Brooks is speaking to the mostly-American NPR audience saying, in his own euphemistic way, that the public should support a reassertion of the Pax Americana in order to ease the pain they’re feeling in their wallets lately. Of course, this isn’t why Brooks is making the argument. He doesn’t give a rip about the American public.

    The reference to prosperity by the interview source, however, is particularly interesting. After a frustrating period of time working on an Israel/Palestine solution, a U.S. State Department source who must have had the approval of Kerry and Obama, and who might have been Kerry himself, starts talking about Israel’s prosperity being at stake. That strikes me as cutting pretty close to the bone.

    I don’t think the “peace process” is over, although it might not continue to look like a peace process. A very significant part of the American establishment, a network of people whose power is deeper than that of the Cheney/Rumsfeld network, decided a while ago to make some changes to American policy with regard to Israel. It is not about Obama and/or Kerry trying to secure their personal legacies. And this establishment is not going to “give up” because Israel refuses to cooperate.

    The interview was not a parting shot coming at the end of the latest peace effort. The pressure will continue, and I don’t think that a Democratic successor to Obama will switch sides. And if, God forbid, Jeb Bush succeeds Obama, I don’t think he will take us back to the days of Cheney and Rumsfeld, either.

    • Citizen on May 5, 2014, 8:15 pm

      What are you selling? Do you see any difference re Israel between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton? I don’t. Please clarify. Thanks.

Leave a Reply