Trending Topics:

Neoconservatism is ‘vindicated’ in fawning ‘NYT’ piece on power couple of Kagan and Kristol

on 70 Comments
Robert Kagan, from the Hertog Program

Robert Kagan, from the Hertog Program

I just don’t get it. Today when we should be hearing from Juan Cole and John Mearsheimer, leading intellectuals who were right about the Iraq war to begin with, the New York Times has chosen to run a fawning profile of neoconservative Robert Kagan. Some of this reads like the Onion:

And who better to lead a cast of assorted hawks back into intellectual — and they hope eventually political — influence than the congenial and well-respected scion of one of America’s first families of interventionism?

His father, Donald Kagan, a historian of ancient Greece, is a patriarch of neoconservatism. His brother, Fred… etc

Jason Horowitz’s profile uses as its peg a “a much-discussed essay” by Kagan in The New Republic called “Superpowers don’t get to retire.” Yes; neither do neoconservatives. Horowitz allows Kagan to both evade the neoconservative label (he prefers “liberal interventionist,” of course) and predict that Hillary Clinton would have a “neocon” foreign policy. Probably right about that.

The piece justifies itself on gossipy grounds because Kagan is part of a power couple (Victoria Nuland at the State Department). But the real power couple here is Kagan and Bill Kristol, leaders of the de-funct/bunked Project for a New American Century, which pushed a muscular foreign policy all over, including the catastrophic invasion of Iraq.

Horowitz informs us that they have now been vindicated:

Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed “more willingness to rethink” neoconservatism, which he called “vindicated to some degree” by the fruits of Mr. Obama’s detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe.

Horowitz fails to reflect any criticism of Kagan from the powerful coalition that neoconservatives fostered in opposition to its adventures: leftwingers and realists. Andrew Bacevich embodies this combination, and last week published an inspired attack on Kagan at Commonweal, saying that his essay is based on a “fictive past.”

Bacevich summarizes Kagan:

“If a breakdown in the world order that America made is occurring,” Kagan writes, “it is not because America’s power is declining.” The United States has power to spare, asserts the author of The World America Made. No, what we have here is “an intellectual problem, a question of identity and purpose.” Feckless, silly Americans, with weak-willed Barack Obama their enabler, are abdicating their obligation to lead the planet. The abyss beckons.

Writing in the New York Times, columnist David Brooks hails Kagan’s New Republic essay as “brilliant.” A more accurate appraisal would be slickly mendacious. Still, Kagan’s essay also qualifies as instructive: Here in some 12,700 carefully polished words the impoverished state of foreign-policy discourse is laid bare. If the problem hobbling U. S. policy is an intellectual one, then Kagan himself, purveyor of a fictive past, exhibits that problem in spades….

Bacevich points out that the great world order that Kagan adores was actually three spheres of self-interested powers. And– notice the reliance on leftwing thinking– the U.S. sphere was hardly enlightened:

much like the Soviets in Eastern Europe, Washington asserted the prerogative of policing its own sphere of influence. When it did so—overthrowing regimes not to its liking in Guatemala, Iran, and South Vietnam, for example—the “promotion of a liberal world order” did not rank high in the list of American motives.

So too with the roster of despots, dictators, and kleptocrats that the United States assiduously supported. From Batista and Somoza in the 1950s to Musharraf and Mubarak in the past decade, a regime’s adherence to liberal values seldom determined whether or not it was deemed a worthy American ally.

Such matters do not qualify for inclusion in Kagan’s celebration of American global leadership, however. Guatemala he simply ignores…

Notice Bacevich’s focus on ethnic cleansing in Palestine and on genocides in the American sphere of influence. Again, left-realism:

Other disruptions to a “world order” ostensibly founded on the principle of American “global responsibility” included the 1947 partition of India (estimated 500,000 to one million dead); the 1948 displacement of Palestinians (700,000 refugees); the exodus of Vietnamese from north to south in 1954 (between 600,000 and one million fled); the flight of the pied noir from Algeria (800,000 exiled); the deaths resulting directly from Mao Tse Tung’s quest for utopia (between 2 million and 5 million); the mass murder of Indonesians during the anti-Communist purges of the mid-1960s (500,000 slaughtered); the partition of Pakistan in 1971 (up to 3 million killed; millions more displaced); genocide in Cambodia (1.7 million dead); and war between Iran and Iraq (at least more 400,00 killed). Did I mention civil wars in Nigeria, Uganda, Burundi, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Sudan, Congo, Liberia, and Sierra Leone that killed millions? The list goes on.

Kagan mentions none of those episodes. Yet all occurred during the Cold War, when the United States was, in his words, “vigilant and ready to act, with force, anywhere in the world.”

By what standard does a system in which such things occur qualify as a “world order”? With the United States reacting passively to human misery on an epic scale (where not actively abetting the perpetrators), what is the operative definition of “global responsibility” that squares with U.S. behavior? If, as Kagan argues, “the American project has aimed at shaping a world different from what had always been, taking advantage of America’s unique situation to do what no nation had ever been able to do,” then how can it be that such awful events persist?

The answers to these questions are clear. First, to the extent that a postwar liberal order existed, it was fragile, tentative, and incomplete. It was a club. Membership criteria were strictly enforced. Residents of the Anglosphere were in, of course. So too were certain favored Europeans….

And Bacevich is merciless on the dynamic duo of Kristol and Kagan:

Back in 1996, in a famous Foreign Affairs article co-authored with William Kristol, Kagan identified “benign global hegemony” as the proper basis for U. S. policy. It was incumbent upon the United States to exploit its Cold War victory. Armed with a combination of “military supremacy and moral confidence,” Washington needed to put existing and potential adversaries in their place. The idea was “to make clear that it is futile to compete with American power.” Permanent dominion was the goal. To settle for anything less, Kagan and Kristol wrote, was to embrace “a policy of cowardice and dishonor.”

Even before September 11, 2001, Kagan was among those fixing their sights on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as the place to validate this approach. The events of 9/11 reinforced his determination along with his sense of self-assurance. Writing with Kristol in April 2002, he declared flatly that “the road that leads to real security and peace” is “the road that runs through Baghdad.”

George W. Bush took that road. Yet much to his considerable chagrin, Bush discovered that it led to rather considerable unpleasantness. As it dragged on, the Iraq War exposed as hollow any American aspirations to global hegemony. Left behind when U.S. troops finally withdrew was their reputation for military supremacy. Meanwhile as reports of prisoner abuse, torture, and the killing of noncombatants mounted, American moral confidence lost its luster. As for the Iraqis themselves, although few Americans are inclined to take notice, today they enjoy neither security nor peace.

On all of these matters, Kagan chooses to stay mum. That is his privilege, of course. Yet in exercising that privilege he forfeits any claim to be taken seriously.

Yes but somehow the Times is taking him very seriously.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

70 Responses

  1. Boomer on June 16, 2014, 2:21 pm

    Disturbing, infuriating, disgusting, dishonest, but not surprising. It isn’t only the NYT, of course. ABC, NBC and CBS routinely present people from the administration of the junior Bush as if they were objective authorities, often without identification of their previous roles and recommendations. The big media constantly showcase a limited number of people and viewpoints, carefully curated. Before the internet, this was less obvious, especially for those of us in the 99% who don’t rub shoulders with the movers and shakers.

  2. surewin on June 16, 2014, 2:42 pm

    This has probably been noted here already, but John Cassidy’s recent piece in the New Yorker is another significant critique of the neocons and the invasion of Iraq:

  3. Empiricon on June 16, 2014, 2:51 pm

    First Tommy-boy “Suck on this” Friedman, now this?? Why would anyone subscribe to the NYT anymore? Reading the NYT is like smoking in the 50s: it’s the popular thing to do but very damaging to the health of the nation. Those who really think about it realize how unhealthy it is and so don’t.

  4. Walker on June 16, 2014, 2:52 pm

    I just don’t get it. Today . . . the New York Times has chosen to run a fawning profile of neoconservative Robert Kagan

    What do you mean, you “just don’t get it”? This is what the Times is, and has been for decades. It’s published and mainly controlled by warm Jews who feel a personal connection to Israel. It has a tendency to feature and also protect people who also feel that connection and/or a connection to their own Jewish roots. I don’t get why you don’t get it.

    This reminds me of a previous fawning profile in the Times. It was written by Bill Keller about Paul Wolfowitz, and the sycophancy was practically surreal. It was published when Keller was in competition for Managing Editor at the Times. I thought when I read it “He’ll get the job”, and of course he did.

    • seanmcbride on June 16, 2014, 3:28 pm


      Other than the fact that Robert Kagan is Jewish, Jason Horowitz is Jewish, David Brooks is Jewish, William Kristol is Jewish, neoconservatism is predominantly a Jewish movement, the New York Times is a Jewish newspaper, etc., it would be unfair and impolite to notice a Jewish angle on the publication of this perfectly ludicrous article in a newspaper which played a leading role in pushing the United States into the Iraq War — a policy from which only Israel has benefited.

      • on June 16, 2014, 6:46 pm

        “Other than the fact that Robert Kagan is Jewish, Jason Horowitz is Jewish, David Brooks is Jewish, William Kristol is Jewish, neoconservatism is predominantly a Jewish movement, the New York Times is a Jewish newspaper, etc., it would be unfair and impolite to notice a Jewish angle on the publication of this perfectly ludicrous article in a newspaper which played a leading role in pushing the United States into the Iraq War — a policy from which only Israel has benefited.” This paragraph is so incisive that I have to present it again.

        The people at the Times who solicit and support this distortion of reality, are doing it because they think that it is good for Israel when America follows this strategy. It is that simple. Hillary will likely select Kagan, Nuland and similar neocons to sit at her right hand – then the Zionist money will surely flow. Hillary will not be good for the USA. We need to find an alternative.

      • Shingo on June 16, 2014, 10:40 pm

        Hillary will likely select Kagan, Nuland and similar neocons to sit at her right hand – then the Zionist money will surely flow.

        You forgot to mention Dennis Ross, who she’ll probably appoint Secretary of State.

      • Mooser on June 17, 2014, 11:28 am

        “You forgot to mention Dennis Ross, who she’ll probably appoint Secretary of State.

        And you don’t think that after all the hit records, acting in movies, a solo career in the top night-club venues, she doesn’t deserve it? Frankly, I think our Foreign Policy could use a lot more stopping in the name of love, before we break the world’s heart.
        Go ahead, call me a Jewish supremacist, but I think any one of the Shangri-las could do a good job too.

      • James Canning on June 17, 2014, 2:14 pm

        Let’s remember here that Hillary Clinton wanted to stop the growth of the illegal colonies if Jews in the West Bank, and that Dennis Ross helped convince Obama not to support Clinton on this score. Disastrous intervention by Dennis Ross.

      • Shingo on June 16, 2014, 10:41 pm

        Hillary will not be good for the USA. We need to find an alternative.

        Agreed, the democrats need a wake up call from their own version of the Tea Party.

      • RoHa on June 16, 2014, 8:27 pm

        “unfair and impolite ”

        And undoubtedly anti-Semitic.

      • tokyobk on June 16, 2014, 9:47 pm

        Hey, Sean McBride, just curious, what percent of people prominently writing and publishing critically about US Foreign Policy, Israel and Zionism do you think are Jewish? More or less than .2%? Among Americans, more or less than 2%?

        And, what makes the New York Times “Jewish”?

      • annie on June 16, 2014, 10:29 pm

        More or less than .2%? Among Americans, more or less than 2%?

        definitely more.

      • tokyobk on June 16, 2014, 10:53 pm

        Annie, yes more. Much more. And, while the majority of Jews are pro-Israel, and while mainstream Jewish organizations are (for the moment) firmly wed to Zionism, my strong guess is that Jews are as over-represented in the Israel-critical and pro-Palestinian rights movement as they are in, for example Neoconservatism.

        If you want to say Neoconservatism is a “Jewish movement” because Jews helped create its ideology, well ok, then, as I have said here before, it was Jews in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century who developed much of the intellectual foundation for both universalist and religious non and anti-Zionism. Western non-Jews were not usually debating Zionism in the first terms until very recently.

        So a more wide minded conclusion might be that Jews have in the last few hundred years been disproportionately prominent in political and intellectual i.e. capitalism and communism and socialism, and as publishers and disseminators of information in print and later media.

        But, I don’t think Sean McBride is leading towards a general statement about Jewish intellectual output.

        I suspect from this and earlier posts, though am happy to be wrong, that Sean is fighting the Long War, for which Israel is just the latest of an eternal and essential presence.

      • Cliff on June 16, 2014, 10:46 pm


        The NYT is pro-Israel because it is an Establishment rag. It’s also staffed by a lot of pro-Israel Jews who have family in Israel.

        On the Israel/Palestine issue, the NYT is undoubtedly a ‘Jewish’ paper in the sense that it reflects mainstream American Jewish opinion/political agency on Israel.

        Sean is using some blanket terminology – which is wrong. But he’s really not far off.

        Also, I hope you’re prepared to also ask why other demographics are the way that they are.

        Or do you choose to ignore demographics because it may not feed your self-image when it comes to Jewish identity?

      • tokyobk on June 16, 2014, 11:05 pm


        Your parsing is correct and it is exactly what makes the statement that the NYT is -Jewish- incorrect. “in the sense” is different than in essence. And Sean seems very interested in Essence. Btw, Is Mondoweiss Jewish?

        My self image? Kind of irrelevant.

        I simply believe that there are those for whom the Jewish part of all this is the candy, the hit, the fix. This is true even if you pin most of the blame on Israel for invoking the same series of images and symbols.

        Because of events in Israel/Palestine there is a free pass to come out of the shadows of polite society with the Jews, Jews, Jews; Then. Now. Always. The terms need to be softened occasionally but not always.

        The best part of equality and peace in that region will be peace and equality in that region. A bonus, though, will be those supposedly fighting against Jewish power (almost always player-hating nationalists of various stripes) will have to crawl back into the corner.

      • MRW on June 17, 2014, 2:11 am

        I simply believe that there are those for whom the Jewish part of all this is the candy, the hit, the fix. This is true even if you pin most of the blame on Israel for invoking the same series of images and symbols.

        Because of events in Israel/Palestine there is a free pass to come out of the shadows of polite society with the Jews, Jews, Jews; Then. Now. Always. The terms need to be softened occasionally but not always.

        No. Gentiles are just fed up with genuflecting to the revolving terminology standards Jews set for non-Jews, the curlicues, and filigree, of turns of phrase acceptable in one decade, but not in another. Even Tony Judt was not immune from attack and harem for violating The Canon. It wasn’t me who established that henceforth Israel is to be known as the Jewish state. It was Netanyahu at his UN Wylie Coyote performance. A state of Jews, right? But if we say here, “The Jews this…and the Jews that” —and not the permissible to you “The Israelis this…and the Israelis that”—you run down the aisle with your blue and white flag acting all offended and intimating anti-Semitism is secretly harbored in the minds and hearts of everyone around you who might disagree with you, or only has time for verbal shorthand.

        By your language police standards, we’re not allowed to say “The Jews in DC,” or the shorter “The Jews,” the way we can say “The Dems in DC,” “The Repubs in DC,” “The Christian Zios,” or “The Presbyterians.” Because, why? You don’t exist? You don’t organize spectacularly and specifically as Jews to get Jewish things done through congress and inserted into foreign policy? You don’t brag that you’re the richest, smartest group in the USA, and that you control the media and reign supreme in finance? Oh, yeah, and science too?

        So park this sanctimonious and tedious shit and realize we Americans are raised in non-Hebrew schools to separate church and state, and some of us take it seriously. And that we have the right—it’s called public debate, and civic duty—to object to arguments, positions, and actions taken that do not serve public purpose. And if a Jew is doing it, too fucking bad.

      • Cliff on June 17, 2014, 10:28 am

        Why cant i reply to MRW directly?

        Excellent comment MRW. You encapsulate the angst of the zeitgeist in that single comment.

      • James Canning on June 17, 2014, 1:54 pm

        I suggest being more specific. NYT tends to play down the oppression of Christians and Muslims by Jews, whether in Israel or in the occupied West Bank.

      • W.Jones on June 17, 2014, 2:32 pm


        I don’t feel entirely comfortable with the discussion about whether things are Jewish or not or whether people are Jewish or not, because I don’t want to go down the path of categorizing people based on ethnicity or religion.

        If we want justice and human rights in the Holy Land, is this an important topic to discuss?

        Please correct me if I haven’t, but my perception is that in my long list of comments I have tended to avoid sensitive, perhaps less upstanding issues about Jewish culture and religion in general, unless it relates to nationalism, Christianity, or the IP conflict. Part of the reason is because I am not Jewish myself. “How is it my role to criticize others?” I might ask. Well, when it comes to those three things I just mentioned, we have a stake in it. So if someone is committing human rights abuses, you and I have a right and duty to speak out against it courageously, completely disregarding whatever ethnicity or religion the abuser may have.

        You ask “Is Mondoweiss Jewish?” Certainly it is, as Wikipedia says. This is reflected in having M.Ellis write a column on MW from a religious angle. By the way, Mondoweiss being Jewish is something that I find attractive and interesting about it, rather than it being a negative.

        I must strongly disagree when you write:

        Because of events in Israel/Palestine there is a free pass to come out of the shadows of polite society with the Jews, Jews, Jews; Then. Now. Always.

        This is the view of nationalists and people who are blocked off by a tragic, enormous wall, who strongly fear what is foreign, alien, strange, hostile.

        The reason why I believe that this impression is in error, Toky- and by the way I do appreciate your writing here -is because if you look at the political groups who are leading the way on the issue, they are those who care about human beings and who take a radical stand against racism. Standing before this fact, doubts and suspicions toward Solidarity activists must flee, Toky!

        That is, when it is charity organizations, NGOs, humanitarian groups, the CCR, NLG, ANSWER, the left wing of liberal churches, peace groups, etc. etc. who play the leading role in advocating for a swift end to the tragedy of Palestinian suffering, a heart attuned to equality must recognize that the love of people’s rights and equality is that from which opposition to Israeli brutality stems.

        Further, the fact that it is militaristic groups , neoconservatives, apocalyptic “Christian Zionists”, etc. who support the State in order to crush Muslim peoples should give you another guidepost as to where people’s motivations come from on this issue. Conquering, dominating, religious nationalism is inherently conservative or reactionary.

        This does not mean that no one criticizes the Israeli state out of prejudice, but they are rare conservatives when it comes to America. A broken clock is right twice a day when it comes to one nationalist group criticizing another.

      • Woody Tanaka on June 17, 2014, 3:10 pm

        “Because of events in Israel/Palestine there is a free pass to come out of the shadows of polite society with the Jews, Jews, Jews; Then. Now. Always.”

        LOL. Nope, sorry. It’s about the human rights. Nothing more. (Sorry, but the Jews are, I guess, about as interesting as any other group of people and I guess Jewish people probably think otherwise, (and I have no problem allowing for some harmless self-aggrandisement) but this notion that the Jews are just so interesting that non-Jews just sit around obsessing over them (for good or bad) is just kind of loopy.)

      • seanmcbride on June 16, 2014, 11:46 pm


        The New York Times is owned by a Jewish family (the Sulzbergers), has heavily promoted Jewish nationalism (Israel and Zionism) in recent decades, has prominently featured Jewish neoconservatives and neoliberals (crypto-neocons) on its op-ed page, played a key role in pushing the United States into the Iraq War (under neocon prodding and by means of deception), and just published this inane article by Jason Horowitz, which provides Robert Kagan an opportunity to whitewash the crimes of the neocons, while trying to goad Americans into yet another disastrous Mideast war.

        Do you have a problem with the accuracy of any of the above statements? And are you trying to imply (quite crudely) that there is something antisemitic about noting the obvious?

        Some of the neocons and neolibs who have been provided major platforms at New York Times in recent decades: A.M. Rosenthal, David Brooks, Judith Miller, Thomas Friedman, William Kristol and William Safire.

        I can’t recall members of any other ethnic or religious nationalist groups or movements being given significant space at the Times — can you? What we’ve got here is not just a pattern, but a pattern that is rather shouting at one, don’t you think?

        The immediate question: who at the Times made the decision to publish the Horowitz article on Kagan and why? Perhaps that is a question you would prefer not be asked. Which would raise yet another question: why does this topic ruffle your feathers?

      • on June 17, 2014, 2:40 am

        The above is exactly what I think about the NYT. Though when I say it I feel that I risk being called an antsemite. I see the NYT as having a vastly disproportionate number of editors and journalists who are Jewish. The result is that there is an inherent sanitation and aggrandizement of everything Jewish and Israeli to the extent that the truth is often ignored or distorted and the themes that best promote or advance Israel are prominent in every section of the newspaper. To me, who was brought up with the UK papers and other European publications, this bias is staggering to the point of being laughable. It is truly an elephant in the room of giant proportions. The fact that the media do not comment on this has become a preposterous aberration of American intellectual life. I am pleased to see that in these posts to Mondoweiss we are really opening up the bag of worms.

      • James Canning on June 17, 2014, 2:01 pm

        Some of the Sulzbergers are Christians. Episcopalian (Anglican)

      • tokyobk on June 17, 2014, 5:00 am

        The Sulzbergers are Jewish by heritage. They and the Ochs were highly assimilated German Jews who name their kids Jr. which is more assimilated than having a Christmas tree. They are about as Jewish as the current Rothschilds unless you believe Jewish is a race.

        Setting that aside, I have no problem with what you wrote above and had you written it the first time I would not have commented. But that not what you wrote. You called the Times a Jewish paper which it is not, not even with Jewish ownership or a disproportionate number of Jews even in leadership.

        I also have absolutely no problem with any question.

        The topic ruffles my feathers because I think in general Jews attracted to civil rights in Israel issue do a lousy job of (or don’t care about) recognizing what is topical and even handed criticism of the Jewish community and what is promotion an eternal suspicion that existed before Israel and will exist after Israel.

        I don’t bother most of the posters here no matter how vociferous their criticism of Israel or even how critical of the Jewish community as long as it is specific and has a context other than those F’n Jews are at it again.

      • seanmcbride on June 17, 2014, 9:23 am


        That was a measured and reasonable comment, as are most of your comments.

        With regard to the “Jewishness” of the Sulzbergers (and the New York Times), four points:

        1. Many secular (even atheistic) Jews have been militantly pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist on purely ethnic grounds, not explicitly religious grounds — David Ben-Gurion is a leading example.

        2. The fact that the Sulzbergers keep hiring Revisionist/Likud Zionists and Jewish neoconservatives to hold forth on the op-ed page of the New York Times indicates that at least a few influential Sulzbergers are passionate about Israel and Jewish nationalism. It would be interesting to know more about who they are and how they operate behind the scenes.

        3. The New York Times has also published quite a few articles that have been critical of Israel and Likud Zionism (by Anthony Lewis, Thomas Friedman and others) — but that is part of an intense debate that is going on “within the family,” so to speak — Jews arguing with Jews over Jewish issues. But the problem with this is that Mideast politics (including Israeli politics) is an issue that powerfully impacts all Americans — we all need to participate in the debate.

        4. Compared to the Washington Post and Fox News, the New York Times is relatively enlightened on these issues — but not nearly enlightened enough.

      • James Canning on June 17, 2014, 2:59 pm

        I think most of the Suzbergers are Christians.

      • seanmcbride on June 17, 2014, 12:01 am


        Nothing in my comment remotely implied that neoconservatives represent all Jews or are quintessentially Jewish. For instance, the fact that Likud or JINSA (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) are Jewish organizations doesn’t in any way suggest that all Jews support them — most of them don’t.

        But it is also a fact that many neoconservatives *claim* to speak for “the Jews” and “the Jewish people” — all of them.

        You need to find some talking points with teeth.

        You wrote:

        If you want to say Neoconservatism is a “Jewish movement” because Jews helped create its ideology, well ok…

        They did more than help create its ideology — Jews with a pro-Likud agenda have dominated the neoconservative movement from its inception to the present day. Simply review the back pages of Commentary to study the details.

        Btw, if anyone wants to pursue threads that are closed on Mondoweiss, feel free to do it here:

        They all remain permanently open. Comments are posted instantly.

      • Mooser on June 17, 2014, 11:36 am

        “And, what makes the New York Times “Jewish”?”

        Hold up there, Tokyobk!! How can we answer that question before we answer the question “what makes Jewish “Jewish”? Once we answer that, we can tell if the NYTs is “Jewish”.

        First of all, has anybody eaten at the NYTs cafeteria? How big are the portions, and what does the food taste like?

        Oh, and Mr. McBride has, more than once, listed the essential qualities of Jewishness. Look in his archive for the shorter lists.

      • seanmcbride on June 17, 2014, 12:34 pm


        Hold up there, Tokyobk!! How can we answer that question before we answer the question “what makes Jewish “Jewish”? Once we answer that, we can tell if the NYTs is “Jewish”.

        The leading Jewish organizations in the United States — self-identified as Jewish and relentlessly preoccupied with Jewish issues — are gathered together under the umbrella of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Their collected public statements offer some insight into what “Jewishness” means in the minds of Jewish establishment leaders. Deciphering their statements is not rocket science.

        What is their core message? — Jewishness is synonymous with a passionate attachment to Israel and Zionism (Jewish ethno-religious nationalism). Of course some Jews disagree — but they are not controlling the public conversation on this issue at media outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post.

        Christopher Vecsey recently wrote a book on Jewish issues at the New York Times:

        [book; author=Christopher Vecsey; title=Jews and Judaism in The New York Times; date=2013; publisher=Lexington Books; Amazon=]

        I may even get around to reading it. But I am already intimately familiar with the treatment of Israeli issues at the New York Times. Mondoweiss has covered the subject in depth over the years. That treatment is highly biased and clearly motivated by a great deal of emotion.

      • James Canning on June 17, 2014, 2:53 pm

        Programme is to make American Jews feel badly if they are not sufficiently “supportive” of Israel.

      • seanmcbride on June 17, 2014, 12:49 pm


        Mondoweiss on the New York Times:

        [Google; intitle:”new york times””new+york+times”]

        — nearly 50 articles with “New York Times” in the title.

        (This site doesn’t seem to be able to parse that legal Google search URL.)

      • W.Jones on June 17, 2014, 2:48 pm


        There are some good restaurants around here owned by Greeks. They have a few nice Greek dishes on their menu, but it’s generally American food, with a few Italian dishes mixed in. Some of them have a few pieces of Greek art, but it looks like an everyday restaurant, and just go under the name of the neighborhood’s “Diner”. Can it be called a “Greek” restaurant?

        Another important question is Why does it matter? Are your restaurant choices going to be guided by whether it is Greek or not? Well, if you want Greek food, it’s helpful, but if not, it is not worth thinking about.

        When it comes to political issues, it can be helpful to see what someone’s background is, but it doesn’t mean that you will know for sure. many hispanic Americans want liberal immigration policies, but some do not. When it comes to things like the media and foreign policy, perhaps people’s backgrounds can play a role, but it should not be considered to be set in concrete like a poor Greek restaurant owner captured by his competitors, the Lord save him!

        Wouldn’t you agree?

      • W.Jones on June 17, 2014, 3:16 pm


        I noticed your discussions with Sean in the past. You may wish to note my “Anecdote” below. I tend to shy from talking about cultural discrepancies because I like to avoid the world of generalities and stereotypes. Sean, on the other hand, is very much a “free thinker”, interested in digging into philosophical and cultural “bricks” and understanding their design.

        For myself, I focus more on egalitarian ideologies like Christianity and Marxism, as well as systems of inequality and abuse. I could suggest that you and Mondoweiss may want to apply critical thinking to your culture to answer some of the issues Sean is raising. For example, within the perspective of Judaism, how should one address the challenge of Israeli nationalism as an ideology?

        Much of what I have seen on Mondoweiss, including from M.Ellis, in this regard, has been effective exposure of the inequalities of the Israeli political system. However, I don’t see as much of a systematic explanation of why it is wrong at the ideological level. So when J.Slater asserts that a safe haven is necessary and would justify making a system, that has been shown to be oppressive, it appears that the most questioning of this assertion has been in the comments section. More importantly, what is the response of Judaism to Zionism, besides approval of it? There is the very conservative response of Neturei Kartei, and there is the AJC’s Reformed response. Perhaps there are other responses that have been made too?

        So when Sean asserts that Judaism and nationalism are intertwined, then it may be helpful to “untangle” the two in a systematic way. Has there been a latent element of nationalism in Judaism, which found its expression in Israeli nationalism? What about ancient Israel’s nationalism and theocracy and how Biblical Israel remains central (rightly in my mind) in Judaism? What about Bar Kochba, the invasion of the Holy Land in the 7th century, and other attempts to retake the land for one community other the centuries?

        These are sensitive questions, ones that can demand overhauling or rethinking commonly held assumptions. The process, I believe is actually a redemptive one. I also believe that one can do this from the perspective of ancient Judaism itself, but only in a loyal and very critical way. Daniel Boyarin made one such attempt. Whether you accept Christianity’s claims or not, I do believe, as Braverman and Hostage have suggested, that it has found a way to address issues of ethnicity from a universal and loyal standpoint, and to the degree that it does so, it should be considered helpful.

        In conclusion, I would not consider Sean’s free thinking to be hostile (he is not), but rather a positive challenge of restoration or reform. Unless you really want me to, I might not chiefly focus on it myself, for the reasons I mentioned.


      • Keith on June 17, 2014, 5:20 pm

        MOOSER- “what makes Jewish “Jewish”?

        An interesting question with many different answers. Something Jews like to discuss among themselves, but get overly defensive when discussed by Gentiles. Surely tribal solidarity is a key component.

      • W.Jones on June 17, 2014, 2:02 pm

        An Anecdote

        I have a young, nice acquaintance, who had been raised in a household with a very one-sided view of IP Land and now takes an egalitarian dissident view on it, but is not deeply informed about the political scene. He said to me recently that he thinks that if Palestinians took the route of Ghandhi, then the media, particularly liberals in it, would pick up on it and portray them correctly.

        I then thought of the liberals in the media who are key figures on IP issues. I thought of the New York Times with Bronner, Roger Cohen, Thomas Friedman, J.Rudoren, and I thought of Jeffrey Goldberg at the New Atlantic. For that matter, I could think of Eric Altermann at the Nation. Rachel Maddows, Chris Matthews, etc. are not really trendsetters on the topic. I then said to him: “Look at who the trendsetters are in the media on this issue, they are not going to change and take a position against the Israeli political system’s inherent inequality because they are dedicated to it personally.” I then listed their names, thinking of their own ideological connections to the Israeli system, as Mondoweiss has mentioned.

        My friend reacted with surprise, saying “You can’t just say that because they are Jews that they will not have a humanitarian viewpoint!” First of all, I did not even realize that I had just listed about six Jews. I only listed the leading liberal media figures on the topic who came to mind. If we were talking about conservative media figures I would have mentioned Glenn Beck, which means that I am not trying to single anybody out based on their religious background.

        I replied: “No, I am just looking at who the leading media figures are on this topic. Thomas Friedman said that US soldiers should go ‘house to house’ in Iraq”. My friend agreed that this kind of talk was like ethnic cleansing.

        Now, I would like to open this up for discussion among people, like myself, who don’t believe in stereotyping.
        Does this mean that I was missing something about people’s personal backgrounds that my friend picked up on? Is it healthy or useful to write or think about whether someone is Jewish, particularly when it comes to controversial issues? My guess is that it may be a small factor to consider when thinking about people’s biases. Perhaps R.Cohen really does have a bias when it comes to writing about a State dedicated to his background, not so differently than I might have a positive bias about a predominantly Christian society. Yet I also don’t believe that other writers, including myself, should carry this idea like a millstone. If a jury is all Jewish, and the defendant is Palestinian, there is a high likelihood of prejudice. But does that mean that each juror, when presented with contrary evidence would reach a bad decision? I don’t believe so.

        There are notable Jewish individuals like Richard Falk, the UN rapporteur, who do not let such biases get in their way and describe Palestinian suffering in more striking detail and with far more courage than very many other Americans or Europeans would.

      • Woody Tanaka on June 17, 2014, 4:56 pm

        I think one would have to be a fool to think that there is not a significant chance that on average Jewish people will not favor Israel or to think well of it, but you can’t say that any particular individual will feel that way simply because he or she is Jewish.

        But I also don’t think it much matters, because I think that the larger issue is that Israel is perceived as a Western, even a “European” country, and if history is any guide, the Western media and political elites are more than happy to frame disputes concerning such countries in ways that countries outside of that “club” don’t merit. I think that’s the key problem.

      • W.Jones on June 17, 2014, 8:02 pm


        Your first paragraph is correct.

        Your second one deserves closer analysis. Mussolini headed a western Italy, yet its conquest of Ethiopia and Africa, I tend to think, was not viewed favorably. Likewise, “Western” Germany’s advances over its “Eastern” neighbors was viewed negatively. Political elites in the US also took a negative view of western countries’ invasion of “Eastern” Russia in the Crimean War. Why? Because of the array of alliances and competitors.

        Were the US to be closely allied with Middle Eastern oil producers for, say, economic reasons, and were the Israeli state to more independent of the US, those elites might take a less positive view of it. Take for example Eisenhower’s opposition to the Israeli war on Suez. Thus, a key factor is not so much whether a country is western as whether the two countries are allies.

        At this point it is a good question: Why is there such a close alliance with the State? Is it simply because of the many benefits that the state brings? Perhaps that is also a discussion meriting more thought?

      • Woody Tanaka on June 18, 2014, 10:08 am

        You raise some interesting points, but I think that Hitler’s Germany and Mousolini’s Italy prove the rule because there was the definite charge that those states’s ideologies and operating principles were the rejection of Western Civilization. Nevertheless, I think that the status of the state as being “Western” is one that does occur, but I should have phrased it in a way to suggest it as one factor rather than THE factor.

      • W.Jones on June 18, 2014, 12:48 pm

        I don’t have any argument with what you are saying W.Tanaka, except that I doubt the Axis counted as a rejection of Western power. But that is not really one of the main issues we are discussing.

        By the way, I like a lot of your posts.

  5. just on June 16, 2014, 3:19 pm


    Is this how the NYT tries to appear relevant? A parade of dangerous fools? Lauding these terrible ‘experts’– those whose agenda remains the PNAC nightmare that they never really shelved.

    Friedman, Blair, Kagan, Kristol– all Islamophobes. When will we hear from Pipes/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rice and Rumsfeld?

    (I ran out of steam– there are simply too many to list).

  6. chet on June 16, 2014, 3:21 pm

    Scene — a NYT editors meeting re a response to the Kagan article.

    Editor A – “Who are we going to use for Kagan?”

    Editor B – “We’ve got Horowitz – that guy we hired from WaPo – obviously he’s drunk the neo-con koolaid so he can be expected to “accentuate the positive” and “eliminate the negative” …

    Editor C – “And there’s the added bonus that he won’t make any unfortunate references to the Kagan connection to PNAC and its involvement in pushing the Iraq war on behalf of Israel”.

    Senior Editor – “Done. The perfect choice”.

  7. Feathers on June 16, 2014, 3:29 pm

    C Span is one barometer I use.

    Last week C Span Washington Journal gave a microphone to Michael Rubin, then Kimberley (Mrs. Fred) Kagan, who discussed ISIS in Iraq and proposed US reactions.

    Callers to C Span are becoming emboldened. During the Kagan appearance, one caller said, “How about a different perspective from these neocons who got us into the mess in the first place? We’d like to see Juan Cole, from University of Michigan…”

    Low and behold, this morning Washington Journal hosted Hillary Mann Leverett.

    She was brilliant, as usual — fortune favors a prepared mind; she did not lose her composure when a caller from Florida said, “How can you suggest working with Iran when Iran has sworn —sworn to destroy Israel!” Leverett calmly and intelligently refuted the assertions of another caller that US military intervention has consistently been “a force for good,” and turned that claim into an endorsement of the key thesis of Hillary and husband Flynt Leverett’s recent book, Going to Tehran: Why the US Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran; namely, that US leaders must follow Nixon’s footsteps in going to China in 1972.

    Mann Leverett took advantage of an opportunity to gently disparage (without naming them) “experts” who have never been to the countries they pronounce upon, in contrast to her own experiences as a student in Egypt, a scholar, and a foreign service officer who has actually sat face to face and listened to what the Other Side had to say. She called those faux experts “not only counterproductive but dangerous.”

  8. American on June 16, 2014, 3:47 pm

    More revolting by the day.
    But the NYT zio/neo rag will be good for a thousand footnotes when W&M or whoever write the ‘day after’ book on the demise of the USA.

  9. libra on June 16, 2014, 4:08 pm

    “I just don’t get it.” muses Phil. “For the New York Times to run itself today as if diversity doesn’t exist. It’s as bad as the WASPs back in the Stone Age! I must call Adam, Scott, Professor Ellis, Lizzy and Professor Slater to ask whether they’ve ever come across anything quite like this before.”

    • Mooser on June 17, 2014, 11:40 am

      I can only stand back and admire a man who lacks the cynicism to understand what is going on. He is much, much closer to the angels than I will ever be.
      Or maybe his questions are Socratic, like my kitchen cabinets. Had to pay extra for the hemlock.

  10. Kay24 on June 16, 2014, 4:22 pm

    I guess The New York Times has lost all credibility when it comes to the Iraq war.
    Didn’t Judith Miller play a part selling that war through the “prestigious” New York Times. Here is Jon Stewart giving a great introduction to Miller and the NYT.

    • just on June 16, 2014, 4:43 pm

      judy, judy, judy did more than sell the war……

      “On September 7, 2007, she was hired as an adjunct fellow of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a neo-conservative free-market think tank. Her duties included being a contributing editor for the organization’s publication, City Journal. On October 20, 2008, Fox News announced that it had hired Miller.[36] As part of her Fox News duties, she often appears as a panelist on their media analysis show Fox News Watch.”


      From HP 6/13/14
      “In a turn of events that could signal the departure of all irony from the world, Fox News brought on contributor Judith Miller to discuss the media’s coverage of Iraq.

      That would be the same Judith Miller whose credulous, false reporting about Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction made her perhaps the most infamous example of the press’s failure in the run-up to that war.

      She criticized the American media for playing the “blame game” in Iraq instead of perceiving, as she said she had, the growing threat of ISIS, the militant group currently sweeping through the country.

      “Did the media buy the line from the administration?” host Eric Shawn asked Miller, perhaps missing the gigantic elephant in the room.”

      • Kay24 on June 16, 2014, 5:07 pm

        I really wish someone in the media would keep showing clips of the war mongers, every one of them, assuring the American people that Iraq had WMDs, that they would pay for their own war, about mushroom clouds,
        that we would be greeted like liberators, that it would be a short war,
        telling us about false intelligence, and everything they lied about.
        It would remind the American people, once again, who started this endless, expensive war, and the unnecessary loss of lives.

  11. Nevada Ned on June 16, 2014, 4:31 pm

    After Fred Kagan, what next?

    Coming up soon: Henry Kissinger, discussing why US foreign policy was a big success, especially the Vietnam war.

    • MRW on June 17, 2014, 2:21 am

      Uhhh, not so fast, Nevada Ned. Read this:
      or search for the entire interview with Stephen Cohen on Thom Hartmann on RT. Great show.

      Here’s the link:

    • LeaNder on June 17, 2014, 8:51 am

      Well, no doubt the NYT mirrors the larger US West coast Power Elite’s outlook, not just on Israel. No doubt it was a dominant warmongering cog for the WOT warriors. On the other hand there was almost no opposition media wise, it feels.

      What I am not so sure about is, is it simply a fawning profile of MartianRobert Kagan, or if it is an informative article for the reader.

      It gives us a little context of events? For instance what influenced Obama’s West Point speech. And strictly it picks up on a debate that was triggered by the New Republic. Some may remember the core theme of the neocons in whose mind it constantly was 1938 again:

      Kagan: worldwide advance of autocracy and retreat of democracy—taken individually, these problems are neither unprecedented nor unmanageable. But collectively they are a sign that something is changing, and perhaps more quickly than we may imagine. They may signal a transition into a different world order or into a world disorder of a kind not seen since the 1930s.

      Does it simply pick up on that article to spread it more widely. Or is it going to trigger a larger debate? Was it already known that Kagan influenced Obama’s recent speech at West Point? Is war-weariness an intellectual problem only? what do the people with military background have to say about that?

      We also learn that for whatever reason an earlier signatory of PNAC 1997 wisdom does beg to differ: Donald Kagan. And whoever wants to, now can go on and read both Kagan’s New Republic article and compare it to Obama’s speech to find out what he may have in mind with this:

      (Their father apparently did not get the memo, calling Mr. Obama’s speech “pathetic” and saying of the president, “We should not underestimate the possibility of extraordinary ignorance.”)

      Whose exactly?

      Is here anyone that will be convinced by it, or does someone now consider to vote for Hillary Clinton next time? Any NYT reader that wasn’t a true believer before? Or could it help produce some skeptics in the Democrat camp who try to make sure she won’t be elected? Does anyone think an article like that can change American war-weariness, so they march to Washington and demand that Obama immediate interferes in the Ukraine and in Iraq?

      Mr. Kagan, 55, prefers the term “liberal interventionist” to the neoconservative label, but believes the latter no longer has the stigma it did in the early days of the Obama presidency. “The sort of desire to say ‘Neocon! Neocon! Neocon!’ has moved out a little bit to the fringe,” he said.

      Some readers may recall efforts of the earlier Euston Manifesto crowd aimed at getting the European left into their camp. Apparently the ideology is still firmly in place. It was an effort by Martian circles to get the European left into the larger neoconservative camp. Here in Germany only the anti-Germans surfaced prominently as signatories, and strictly they were ardent supporters of Bush and WOT long before.

      Has a slight shape shifting feel and touch to it. No? As it shows that apparently they want to at least cut the connection to the older term. Hoping that people don’t notice? Does it help that he is after all married with a Democrat, who checks whatever he publishes? Someone who surfaced in a controversy herself recently?

      Fawning? I don’t think so.

      Concerning Jason Horowitz, how man space was he given in the print edition?

      • seanmcbride on June 17, 2014, 12:55 pm


        Well, no doubt the NYT mirrors the larger US West coast Power Elite’s outlook, not just on Israel.

        What is “the larger US West coast Power Elite”? I can’t parse that phrase or concept.

        The attitude of the New York Times on Israeli issues appears to be very much proactive and emotional — not dictated by any outside powers. This is an in-shop culture.

  12. traintosiberia on June 16, 2014, 5:23 pm

    Apparently ISIS is eying west after the victory in Iraq.

    NYT can easily write “and who better to lead a cast of assorted jihadist back into ground zero— and eventually social recognition and political influence — than these war -hardened multinational hoard of new warriors whose immediate predecessors have lost all authority following relentless pursuit by US forces and all legitimacy after the destruction from Pakistan to Libya ?

    NYT is rooting for the return of the neocons. Judith Miller might bring charges of gender-based discrimination against NYT for being excluded . Wait for
    PNAC -2 will be released and be shortlisted for best position paper by NYT.

  13. Shingo on June 16, 2014, 5:50 pm

    And who better to lead a cast of assorted hawks back into intellectual — and they hope eventually political — influence than the congenial and well-respected scion of one of America’s first families of interventionism?

    When I read that I thought it was the kind of sarcasm you’d hear from a skit by Bill Mahr or Rachel Maddow.

  14. James Canning on June 16, 2014, 6:00 pm

    Robert Kagan and other warmongering neocons brought on the catastrophe for the US known as the Iraq War.

  15. Shingo on June 16, 2014, 6:09 pm

    Moonofalabama has this interesting tid bit where Kagan gives Hillary Clinton what should be the kiss of death to her campaign.

    A (sympathetic) New York Times profile of neocon Robert Kagan has this on Clinton II:

    But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.
    “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

    Want more wars with terrible outcomes and no winner at all? Vote the neocon’s vessel, Hillary Clinton.

    • ToivoS on June 17, 2014, 5:43 am

      Yes that endorsement of Hillary by Kagan should be widely circulated.

  16. piotr on June 16, 2014, 9:19 pm

    “His father, Donald Kagan, a historian of ancient Greece, is a patriarch of neoconservatism.”

    I tried a joke that neoconservatists have a chip on the shoulder because of the Battle of Carrhae and other defeats inflicted on the Romans by Parthians and Persians, dream to restore the glory of Alexander, and what to find another victory at par with Gaugamela. Perhaps it is not a joke at all.

  17. gayjewjap on June 16, 2014, 9:43 pm

    Now that we are witnessing the horrifying events unfold in Iraq…I really hope that there is a special place in hell for everyone who cheered on this unimaginable war crime. Then to see these characters busily congratulate themselves leaves you absolutely dumbfounded and speechless.

  18. LarryDerfner on June 17, 2014, 6:00 am

    All these neocon chickenhawks call for war, and Andrew Bacevich, who fought in Vietnam and whose son, Andrew Jr., was killed fighting in Iraq, calls for peace. But who gets written up in the NYT and who doesn’t, and who gets listened to and who doesn’t? Good luck, America – you deserve it.

  19. just on June 17, 2014, 8:00 am

    “As Iraq descends into chaos again, more than a decade after “Mission Accomplished,” media commentators and politicians have mostly agreed upon calling the war a “mistake.” But the “mistake” rhetoric is the language of denial, not contrition: it minimizes the Iraq War’s disastrous consequences, removes blame, and deprives Americans of any chance to learn from our generation’s foreign policy disaster. The Iraq War was not a “mistake” — it resulted from calculated deception. The painful, unvarnished fact is that we were lied to. Now is the time to have the willingness to say that.

    In fact, the truth about Iraq was widely available, but it was ignored. There were no WMD. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The war wasn’t about liberating the Iraqi people. I said this in Congress in 2002. Millions of people who marched in America in protest of the war knew the truth, but were maligned by members of both parties for opposing the president in a time of war — and even leveled with the spurious charge of “not supporting the troops.”

    2) Journalists and media commentators should stop giving inordinate air and print time to people who were either utterly wrong in their support of the war or willful in their calculations to make war. ”


    • MHughes976 on June 17, 2014, 8:40 am

      We were lied to, but that’s not the whole story. We either believed the lies too readily and uncritically or decided to hope against hope that the plan would somehow work to the Iraqis’ benefit, that there would be some sort of liberation from tyranny. The second is perhaps worse. Who could not really see that Colin Powell’s rhetoric was, at very least, hollow? So in the UK it’s not just Blair’s fault, it’s mine.

      • James Canning on June 17, 2014, 6:03 pm

        I was tempted to throw a shoe at Colin Powell when he was putting on his BS show at the UN. Pass the sick bag.

    • traintosiberia on June 17, 2014, 9:17 am

      Saddam had no relation to 911. He even did not have the information of the possibility of 911 taking place. The neocon had that forewarning. They had that information. US intelligence told them repeatedly and was ignored.
      That attitude of ignoring where the threat was coming from or would come was evident in blatant sordid dishonest behavior in the remarks and insistence of Wolfowitz in 1993 following WTC .bombing. He was telling everybody that this was engineered by Saddam and that US was wrongly fixated on Osama-Al Quida.
      His circle of same indoctrinated mindset kept on piling up on Saddam by writing book and giving expert opinion on media.
      They are the criminal.
      In some way it is replay of Kristalnight -Night of the broken glass . A crime was allowed to happen to blame a different country.

      • James Canning on June 17, 2014, 2:58 pm

        Osama bin Laden wanted Saddam Hussein assassinated.

    • James Canning on June 17, 2014, 6:06 pm

      The idiotic US invasion of Iraq was a titanic fraud, at its heart. Epic stupidity, and much worse than that.

  20. traintosiberia on June 17, 2014, 6:44 pm

    Laurie Mylroie

    Paul Wolfowitz and Wolfowitz’s wife (at the time),
    John Bolton
    Richard Perle
    R James Woolsey,
    Judith Miller
    Kagan and family
    Krystol and family
    Frank Gaffney,

    To understand why Bush invaded Iraq, we have to know what goaded the cabal above day and nights and for decades to focus on Iraq, Wolfowitz from 1979 and Laurie Mylroie from 1990. What made them tick about saddam? What made them accuse Saddam of OKC bombings, WTC 1993 bombings, USS Cole bombings, Kenya-Tanazania bombings?
    The lack of numbness to the tragedy , lack of informed worries about further problem , lack of interest in finding out why 911 happened , and monolithic sustained instant blame on Saddam for 911 shows the cabal was aware something big would be happeneing. They seized the moment as planned with ruthless pursuit of the second phase.

    • seanmcbride on June 18, 2014, 9:43 am


      With lists, one can explore the deepest and darkest recesses of any aspect of the world with surgical precision. (For “Illuminati” only. Keith Alexander gets it.)

      You should also mention the Podhoretz family.

    • James Canning on June 18, 2014, 1:47 pm

      Didn’t the neocons support Iraq, and Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iran?

Leave a Reply