Trending Topics:

Hillary Clinton’s decision to support Iraq war was driven by Israel concern, Chris Matthews says

Opinion
on 76 Comments

In the last week, two conversations on television suggest that the idea that the Iraq war was undertaken because of concern for Israel’s security is now conventional wisdom among the chattering classes.

First there was a discussion about foreign policy at the Center for American Progress on December 15, aired later on CSPAN, in which James Mann, the scholar and author, said that Obama had set out to be an old-style realist, in the mode of Zbig Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft. The difference between him and the neocons was a question of the status of the Israel/Palestine conflict in considerations of how to get peace in the Middle East. Mann:

When Obama took office, he cited Scowcroft as a model… I do think that was realism. You mention Israel and the Palestinians. That is interesting because that goes back to a debate around the time of the Iraq War and before, where the neoconservatives felt, having been most of them or all of them through the Gulf War, that a display of military power, as they saw it in the Gulf War, opened the way for some negotiations. That was their belief. It cowed Arafat, Arafat was scared and he was marginalized. And therefore that would work with the Iraq War. And the other side, this is at the time of the 2002 Iraq war, Scowcroft and Brzezinski had been arguing that you can’t get anywhere in the Middle East without an agreement between Israel and Palestinians first. Obama takes off on the Scowcroft side of that.

So the neoconservative road to peace in Jerusalem went through Baghdad, by burning it and occupying it…Bringing the Debate to You

Last night on Hardball, Chris Matthews made a similar point. In a discussion about why Hillary Clinton had supported the Iraq war, he said she may have been mistaken in hindsight but not at the time.

What was the mistake? She did what she wanted to do. I think she played, as they say in the Godfather parlance, the smart move. Being for the war in 2002 thinking was the smarts. She represents New York [then as Senator]. That makes sense.  A lot of people are very pro-Israel. They worry about anything in that region. She also knows that supporting wars has a better track record for people running for president than being doves.

A few years ago, the idea that support for the disastrous Iraq war was driven in any way by concern for Israel’s security was verboten. Walt and Mearsheimer were accused of being anti-Semites for saying that the Israel lobby pushed the war. Jeffrey Goldberg went in for the casual smear that they were saying that Jews started all American wars. But we’ve gone 12 years since that awful decision; the battle lines have softened; and the elites are changing; and raising the issue doesn’t seem to endanger Jews in the U.S., as was surely feared when folks kept their mouths shut about the matter in years gone by. When I started blogging at this site in 2006, I said that we needed to have this debate, inside the Jewish community and in the broader American community. What has supporting Israel done to our foreign policy? When Roosevelt and George Marshall warned in the 1940s of unending war in the Middle East if we helped to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, were they prophetic?

P.S. And doesn’t Matthews’s analysis dovetail with the revelation in the New York Times, that when Obama wanted to hire Hillary Clinton as sec’y of state, he reached out to the prince of the Israel lobby, Malcolm Hoenlein… How much of our foreign policy is a subchapter of our Israel policy?

Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

76 Responses

  1. peterfeld on December 24, 2014, 11:30 am

    The myth that New York (or any) voters demand war on Israel’s behalf is will collapse once it gets a sharp, effective challenge.

    • Shingo on December 24, 2014, 3:56 pm

      The fact that Israel’s supporters demand war on Israel’s behalf is beyond dispute. It has been scrutinized for over a decade and no longer in dispute.

      • peterfeld on December 24, 2014, 4:07 pm

        The hardcore ones yes, but polls show only 4% of Jews consider Israel when they vote, and those that do should be more than balanced by the many more that don’t want war.

      • Mooser on December 24, 2014, 4:20 pm

        The pretense of being a hard-core Zionist has been, for Americans, a cost free pretension, with macho overtones. Let’s see what happens when Zionism begins to cost something.

      • on December 24, 2014, 6:35 pm

        “The hardcore ones yes, but polls show only 4% of Jews consider Israel when they vote”.

        Simply not credible. At least here in Massachusetts. So many people with their “friends of the IDF” and “this is what a Zionist looks like” tee shirts. And the temples all draping their “We support Israel in her quest for peace” signs. And the temple right down the street bringing in speakers like Gert Wilders and Jerry Boykin (the rabbi there calls himself the warrior rabbi).

        Israel — or at least a false image of an imaginary Israel — is real important to many, perhaps most of the Jewish people here in Eastern MA. In fact, I have never met one who ever spoke about Israel in any terms but positive ones.

      • Taxi on December 24, 2014, 8:06 pm

        Merry Crimbles, Shingo!

        And just and Peter and Mooser and Giles – woohoo HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

        And zionist this and zionist that – I wish you all a very special UNHAPPY HELLDAYS!

      • peterfeld on December 24, 2014, 9:03 pm

        Thank you Taxi! Giles – that may be true of the ones that you see, who make themselves visible, but the Jewish are a pretty low percentage of the Mass electorate and the ones with the IDF shirts and banners on their temples are a small fraction of that. There are lots more people out there, Jewish and not, who don’t want a war. If we ourselves act as though it’s politically damaging to challenge Israel (how do we even know?) we keep the myth going and politicians will act as if it’s true.

      • MeMyself on December 25, 2014, 11:06 pm

        What supporters of Israel? AIPAC took no position. Paul Wolfovitz? Come now. He was pretty much known as an Arabist before joining the Bush administration. To him, support for Israel was only a way to sell the war.

        Remember, in 2007 Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, revealed the formerly secret conversations between then Israeli PM Sharon and Bush. Wilkerson was actually in the room when Sharon told Bush an invasion of Iraq would be a bad thing and that Iran is the threat. Unless you were also in the room at the time, I will take Wilkerson’s version of events.

      • just on December 25, 2014, 11:52 pm

        MM- Ever hear of PNAC? Check out their “membership” and goals.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

        ’nuff said.

      • geokat62 on December 26, 2014, 8:30 pm

        “What supporters of Israel? AIPAC took no position.”

        This lie was dispelled by Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt (see The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy) – See more at: link to mailstar.net

        Here’s a couple of excerpts from their above-noted book:

        1. On August 12, 2002, Sharon told the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset that Iraq “is the greatest danger facing Israel.”

        2. Israel’s enthusiasm for war eventually led some of its allies in America to tell Israeli officials to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest the war look like it was being fought for Israel. In the fall of 2002, for example, a group of American political consultants known as the Israel Project circulated a six-page memorandum to key Israelis and pro-Israel leaders in the United States. The memo was titled “Talking about Iraq” and was intended as a guide for public statements about the war. “If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.”

      • Kathleen on December 27, 2014, 3:55 pm

        Peter links to those polls?

    • Shingo on December 24, 2014, 9:22 pm

      The hardcore ones yes, but polls show only 4% of Jews consider Israel when they vote

      Irrelevant. Even if that were true, you are evading the fact that it only requires a small number of very wealthy donors to influence policy.

      We’ve already heard from mega rich donors like Adelson and Sabam, that they would like nothing more than to see Iran nuked on Israel’s behalf.

      US arms manufacturers would represent less than 1% of the vote and If the US military budget was put to a national referendum, it is more that likely the poll would be in favor of drastic reductions in spending.

      Yet who do the lawmakers listen to?

      Same with arming Ukrainw. 67% of Americans are opposed to it yet that hasn’t stopped lawmakers doing do anyway.

      So your argument that wars are not being fought for Israel just because the majority of Jews are opposed to war is a non starter.

      • CigarGod on December 25, 2014, 11:32 am

        Yep. Its the money. Opens ears and doors. The 1% rule…right up to the point the 99% are climbing over the walls.

      • Atlantaiconoclast on December 26, 2014, 11:27 am

        The bigger problem is support for Israel among the much larger Christian Zionist faction.

    • hammersmith on December 28, 2014, 7:16 am

      Congressman Duncan, Republican-TN, attended the same briefings Hillary, Kerry, and company attended on the eve of the Iraq war. He left the briefings unconvinced and voted against the war. The ignorant hillbilly was apparently more perceptive than his Ivy League counterparts–or perhaps a little more honest. He later, in an interview, told a local paper that the war was for Israel.

    • peterfeld on December 31, 2014, 2:24 pm

      Kathleen sorry for seeing this late. Several polls are linked in this CNN story including the stat that Israel is a top issue to only 4% of American Jewish voters. http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/04/opinion/etzioni-jewish-voters/

  2. Blownaway on December 24, 2014, 11:40 am

    The U.S. culture of now makes introspection and reflection a lost skill. Intellectual laziness makes it hard but for only the most committed to see and internalize how US policy and interest are being subverted for the benefit of Israel. The committed few steamroll the sheeple

  3. oneangrycomic on December 24, 2014, 12:27 pm

    Unfortunately, the Israeli Occupation includes virtual control of the US congress through cancerous growths like AIPAC. Our blind support of the Apartheid Terrorist government of Israel was a major cause of 9/11 (according to the FBI investigation) and has earned us the hatred of the civilized world!

  4. Taxi on December 24, 2014, 2:17 pm

    And EXACTLY the same zionist cabal in DC is barking and snarling and wanting our soldiers to go kill Iranians in Iran, be killed themselves in their thousands in Iran, purely for their “concern for israel’s security”. Same freaking game and same freaking players will be producing the same disastrous results – all for that obsessive “concern for israel’s security.

    All them lined up on Capitol Hill in support of a war on Iran for ‘israel’s security’ should be removed from high office immediately and charged with high treason. For obvious reasons.

    Question is: will it take Chris Mathews another 12 years to honest-up and broadcast the above statement in public?

    Let’s remember here that Chris Mathew (and his work on the Iraq war is well documented on youtube) had supported the war on Iraq at the time, then, like the loathsome hypocrite coward that he is, he surreptitiously backtracked when the battles started going badly – and by now, shamelessly, he has the gall to pretend that he NEVER supported the ziocon war on Iraq in the first place!

    … Man, that’s why I love the internet: it’s faster on the truth-trigger than Mathews’ mouth on 12 shots of espresso.

    • just on December 24, 2014, 5:04 pm

      woo- hoo, Taxi !!!

      You’re correct on both posts~ above and below!

    • eGuard on December 29, 2014, 6:28 am

      So Chris Matthews was pro-war back then. But Mondoweiss does not point that out, even while quoting Matthews saying: Being for the war in 2002 thinking was the smarts.

      MW wants a seat at the MSM table by softballing Chris Matthews?

      • annie on December 29, 2014, 7:24 am

        i think the point of the article is in the headline. phil’s written about matthews many times https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mondoweiss%20chris%20matthews not sure how important it is what he thought in 2002, were there any msm/tv hosts voices against the war back then?

      • Taxi on December 29, 2014, 7:56 am

        I can’t think of a single msm news host who even questioned the ‘rush to war’ for even a second back in 2002-2003.

        And yes it does matter that Cris Mathews and other jurnos helped the warmongering ziocons fool some 318,881,992 Americans into believing the unfounded lies that led to a horrific war against both Saddam’s army and civilian historic Iraq itself – this illegal war against Iraq is still ongoing and has caused/enabled mass-killings and chaos in neighboring countries to boot!

        It matters a lot, annie.

        After all, what is a journalist without credibility but a career propagandist?

        If Phil wants to ignore journalists’ credibility, that’s up to him – and I understand that the context of the article is really more about what an msm honch is NOW daring to say. But that does not negate the fact that Chris Mathews is not a trusted source on matters of war and peace.

      • annie on December 29, 2014, 2:12 pm

        taxi, the reason i left the link is that phil has gone after matthews numerous times. an example:

        Chris Matthews channels his inner Bill Kristol http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/matthews-channels-kristol
        Chris Matthews and David Corn defend Israel against ‘slander’ of apartheid – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/matthews-slander-apartheid#sthash.tKCw7e40.dpuf
        Chris Matthews gives Adelson and the lobby a pass http://mondoweiss.net/2014/04/chris-matthews-adelson

        if you and eguard want to fault him for not mentioning every time his name comes up he pitched for the war have at it. but it seems rather redundant to me, especially when every single tv host in america pitched for the war (and how could anyone forget). as least as far as i know.

        and one more thing. phil said once about matthews ‘all hat no saddle’, iow, he doesn’t go out on a limb, he plays the middle road. the point of this post is not that matthews has made a turn or come over to the other side or is a good guy or anything like that, because for the most part matthews lacks cajones. the point of the post is that if matthews is saying it then it means the idea has already gone mainstream.

        there’s nowhere in the post he cozies up to matthews or compliments him, that’s not the point of the post. and matthews is not known as a strategic thinker people look up to. he’s a weathervane.

      • Shingo on December 29, 2014, 11:48 pm

        I can’t think of a single msm news host who even questioned the ‘rush to war’ for even a second back in 2002-2003.

        There as one, Phil Donohue. As his punishment, he had his ratings winning show cancelled.

      • seanmcbride on December 30, 2014, 12:02 am

        Shingo wrote: “There as one, Phil Donohue. As his punishment, he had his ratings winning show cancelled.”

        One should compile a timeline for all the American public figures who have been attacked and punished by the Israel lobby over the last sixty or seventy years.

      • Citizen on December 30, 2014, 10:14 am

        Phil Donohue talked about his firing from MSNB to Amy Goodman, March 2013. How many Americans even remember this, or even ever reflected on it? He was fired because he was anti-war & honcho of MSNBC was watching all other TV stations furiously waving the war flag. Honcho consulted with top arms manufacturer who owned MSNBC: http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/21/phil_donahue_on_his_2003_firing

      • CigarGod on December 30, 2014, 10:24 am

        SOB!

      • Taxi on December 29, 2014, 2:42 pm

        I wasn’t faulting Phil: “If Phil wants to ignore journalists’ credibility, that’s up to him – and I understand that the context of the article is really more about what an msm honch is NOW daring to say.”

        Was just adding to eGuard’s post.

        And pointing out who has Iraqi and American blood on their hands (and our media members certainly do) is not an invalid point: it’s a reminder of whose word is credible and dependable in times of the fog of war – whose word makes for clear realism.

        Chris Mathews support of the ziocon war on Iraq doesn’t have to be mentioned every time his name comes up, and it doesn’t mostly – but when his support for the war does get mentioned, it shouldn’t be called “redundant”.

      • annie on December 29, 2014, 4:15 pm

        point taken taxi, it wouldn’t have been redundant in this article and maybe a reminder was in order.

      • Taxi on December 30, 2014, 11:10 am

        Citizen,

        I have it on good authority that right before the ‘rush to war’ media campaign began, Cheney himself had called for a meeting with the ‘Big 5’ (media owners) and told them how it should all go down – what their role and boundaries were etc. And they all obeyed, wanted to obey or whatever. But for sure, they were all sober aiders and abettors of war crimes and of misleading our nation into one of the most costly and catastrophic foreign policy this side of the century… and ongoing.

      • CigarGod on December 30, 2014, 11:20 am

        Sounds like what je hoover did with studio heads in blacklist days.

      • Taxi on December 30, 2014, 1:50 pm

        Hiya Cigargod! How you doing, old pal? So cool you still visit!

        What Cheney did with the Big 5 is by far more abominable and egregious than any Hollywood Black list. So far the illegal Iraq war has lost the USA alone over 2.3 trillion dollars and counting, never mind the cost of the vast physical destruction wrought on Iraqi property and its priceless heritage, and never mind the millions of dead, displaced, maimed or forever psychologically scarred: both American and Iraqi.

        Yet no none, not a single American leader or minor politician, not a single editor-in-chief or celebrated jurno has ever been held accountable for the hideous events that followed Cheney’s meeting with the Big 5. Nobody has been held accountable, no one is talking about this subject, and no one in power is challenging this conspiratorial silence.

        And this, to me, is a serious and grave crime in itself, against the people and the very soul of the Constitution of the United States.

        Pfff! And our media complained so bitterly that Saddam ruled without ‘checks and balances’ – that he insidiously controlled his media – that he was not being held accountable for his crimes against his native citizenry. Yeah right! Hypocrisy much, mister and missus Media?!

        The Iraq war was one sick conspiracy between government and media against the rest of us!

        And only the criminally insane would design and pull off such a mass diabolical blood-fest and orgy of misery.

        Yet these bloodthirsty madmen are still living free as birds and safe as houses. Not even their reputations have been tarnished or touched for all the blood they spilled.

        What are we to make of the future of democracy in America when we have lived to see this freakish abuse of power by the elites with our own eyes?

        The forecast is gloomy.

        Till justice is done.

      • CigarGod on December 30, 2014, 4:56 pm

        Hi taxi,
        Glad to be back.
        Dont know how you guys can deal with the same kids like hops, jons, etc…that have to repeat the same grade…year after year after year.

      • Taxi on December 31, 2014, 12:11 am

        Hop who?

        Jons who?

        Yeah that’s how I deal with them.

  5. Taxi on December 24, 2014, 2:29 pm

    Our boys in uniform ARE NOT ISRAEL’S TOY SOLDIERS!

    And anyone who treats them as such should be vilified and tried for treason.

    • ritzl on December 25, 2014, 3:31 am

      And that vilification also applies to US citizens who run off to join the IDF while their own country is at war (i.e. thereby sending their neighbors off to fight and die in their place).

    • Citizen on December 30, 2014, 10:20 am

      The fact is our troops are the toy soldiers of anyone who can buy the US government, courtesy of big $ lobby cash. Don’t you remember Smedley Butler? Easy today since we have a mercenary army; just a contractual matter–see the movie Jarhead. Our end of draft gave us our own Hessians, so to speak. “Thank you for your service.” To the 1%.

      • Mooser on January 2, 2015, 12:18 pm

        Don’t forget the vastly increased role of military contractors. Companies committed to profiting from war, and the more war, the more they profit.

      • CigarGod on January 2, 2015, 12:28 pm

        Yes, mooser.
        Both as a member of the army, and later as an employee of a war supplier, i seldom gave a thought to my – contribution – to the misery of man. In fact, early in my career, i was a cheerleader. I wasnt in control of my own brain…but i sometimes stood and cheered anyway. It is not different for those with a larger financial stake. Where it becomes evil…is the point we become aware of the impact of our actions/participation…and we do it anyway. With rationalizations, of course.

      • Mooser on January 2, 2015, 1:44 pm

        It was the US government’s choice to make service contractors a big part of it. It wasn’t as if nobody knew what happens when you do that.

      • seanmcbride on January 2, 2015, 1:51 pm

        Mooser,

        The question to explore, then: what are the main organizational linkages among the Israeli government, the Israel lobby and the American military-industrial complex?

        A good place to start: [Wikipedia; Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Institute_for_National_Security_Affairs ]

        Do you have any other suggestions?

      • Citizen on January 2, 2015, 3:11 pm

        @ Mooser
        @ seanmcbride
        @ CigarGod

        Re: Mooser’s: “It wasn’t as if nobody knew what happens when you do that.”

        It appears nobody in any branch of government or running for political office opposed ending the US military draft. If anyone discussed the ramifications for opting for a volunteer military at the time (early 1970s), I’d like to see what they said. This was the last few years of the Vietnam War; as far as I know, the last significant objection to the military draft was in the Civil War era.
        Here’s some context: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72085.html

        I don’t think anybody in politics and government at the time in question gave a thought at all to what would happen when the draft was dropped for a totally contractual military. If someone did, I ‘d like to know who that was, and what they foresaw. Certainly it would’ve been a courageous thing to do in the final hours, so to say, of the “burn your draft card” era.

  6. ivri on December 24, 2014, 5:35 pm

    @Taxi
    They are not Israel`s soldiers just fight common-goals wars – hence the confusion. The good guys always find their way to each other in the eternal war against the bad ones.

    • oldgeezer on December 25, 2014, 12:10 am

      Are you claiming the US wants to steal Palestinian land?

      • just on December 25, 2014, 12:16 am

        Kudos for trying to decipher that, oldgeezer.

        Good luck.

      • on December 26, 2014, 10:11 am

        It’s quite basic and easy to decipher.

        Me good. Not me bad.

        Now you can speak zionist

      • Mooser on December 31, 2014, 4:50 pm

        “Me good. Not me bad. “

        Yes, it’s a moral and ethical schema associated with the Jewish philosopher Manicheawitz.

    • pjdude on December 25, 2014, 4:54 pm

      what common goals? its in the US interests to see a free palestine state and have closer relations to the muslim world. Israel just wants to kill arabs. we have no common goals no common interests. Israel is an enemy of america. it kills our citizens without remorse, provocation, or consequence. it sell our secerets to our enemies. its our third largest counterinteligence threat. the Us only interest is to see Israel broken and a free secular palestine with equal rights for its citizens emerge in palestine rather than the militant neo colonial theocracy state of Israel.

      • Citizen on December 30, 2014, 10:23 am

        But our political leaders keep telling us, parroting Bibi N, that the US & Israel have the same values and therefore, have the same interests. I’ve never seen anybody on main media TV contest that–have you? Most Americans get their tiny dose of foreign affairs news from TV; otherwise most are just trying to survive.

  7. Kay24 on December 24, 2014, 10:11 pm

    No surprise. We all know that this ridiculous and unnecessary war, was pushed for, by neocons, who are primarily zionists, and strong Israel firsters. I remember the war criminals who appeared in the media, all spouting the same garbage, that Saddam Hussein had WMD’s, is a danger to America, blah, blah. Where are they now, Wolfowitch, Perle, Gaffney, Feith, Abrams, Kristol, and so many others, fervent devotees of Israel, and it’s interests? Many of them were signatories to the PNAC document.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

    They should be facing charges for lying and taking this country into a war, which we know was not done for US concerns, but our blood and money was certainly used to safeguard that parasitic nation.

    • Citizen on December 30, 2014, 10:26 am

      PNAC is now FPI, and all over the TV news info stations, acting as if they’re still credible re foreign affairs–nobody influential is pointing that out in a media forum used (however meagerly) by the average American.

  8. Atlantaiconoclast on December 26, 2014, 11:31 am

    The support for Israel among Christian Zionists is much more dangerous than that of the small percentage of the population that is Jewish.

  9. Kathleen on December 27, 2014, 4:05 pm

    Iraq invasion a convergence of many interest… Oil, neo, theo cons. Hillary’s vote demonstrates her cold, hard, blood covered calculation. Not someone I am ready to go knocking on doors for. She is right in line with some of the most blood thirsty warmongers in our nation. No thanks.

    The blueprint for setting the middle east on fire all at the Project for the New American Century website (not as accessible as it used to be) Securing the Realm.

    Watched an interesting interview with Anne Marie Slaughter on Al Jazeera. While I agree with her domestic stances. She dodges and manipulates on middle east issues. So pleased that the interviewer caught her hypocritical effort to point the finger at Putin’s invasion of Crimea while skipping right over the US invasion of Iraq. So absurd. Did she actually think she would get away with this massive contradiction. You all went on to discuss Syria, Assad, Egypt, Libya etc. However you both did not touch the Israel Palestine decades long conflict. Not a peep. Telling. Slaughter loves to try to avoid how this conflict has been a very strong reason for the whole of the middle east being set on fire. How the US’s extremely lopsided support for Israel no matter what they do incites many in the region. Crazy how she had the nerve to discuss international laws, “massive abuse of power” Yet never mention Israel. The interviewer let her get away with this.

    She is now the President of the New America Foundation. An Israeli protector as the Sergeant of Arms in the head position at New America Foundation. Had high hopes for that think tank in regard to keeping the facts coming out on middle east issues

    • Citizen on December 29, 2014, 10:36 am

      PNAC has remorphed as FPI; despite being discredited (rather than being in prison at the Hague) their think tank and political gurus are all over US Cable TV news/infotainment shows, most especially FOX’s.

      So what’s changed since England promised the Arabs a big state of their own and then reneged after the Arabs spent their lives and money fighting Germany and the Ottoman Empire in behalf Imperial England and France? The Brits changed their mind, thinking of control of the Suez Canal and control of ME oil in the hands of a big Arab state.
      Enter the Balfour Declaration, enter cashless Truman willing to reject his own State Department and string of diplomats, to stay POTUS with Zionist cash heaped on his whistle stop campaign. Hence Zionism triumphed, and still does, with the whole West still playing its hand.

      • Taxi on December 29, 2014, 1:51 pm

        “So what’s changed since England promised the Arabs a big state of their own and then reneged after the Arabs spent their lives and money fighting Germany and the Ottoman Empire in behalf Imperial England and France? The Brits changed their mind, thinking of control of the Suez Canal and control of ME oil in the hands of a big Arab state. Enter the Balfour Declaration, enter cashless Truman willing to reject his own State Department and string of diplomats, to stay POTUS with Zionist cash heaped on his whistle stop campaign. Hence Zionism triumphed, and still does, with the whole West still playing its hand.”

        Now that’s gotta be the most succinct explanation of the catastrophe that is the middle east EVER! Great summation, Citizen.

      • Shingo on December 29, 2014, 11:53 pm

        Now that’s gotta be the most succinct explanation of the catastrophe that is the middle east EVER! Great summation, Citizen.

        + 1

  10. Kathleen on December 27, 2014, 4:07 pm

    Before the invasion of Iraq former IAEA weapons inspector Scott Ritter (in Iraq most of the 90’s inspecting) was everywhere he could manage trying to share facts about the situation (no WMD’s in Iraq) and how Hillary Clinton clearly knew this.

    • Citizen on December 29, 2014, 10:38 am

      Lets compare how many times Scott Ritter was displayed on US mainstream media as compared to say, John Bolton.

      • Kathleen on December 30, 2014, 11:51 am

        Not at all. Ritter was on Diane Rehm Talk of the Nation, Cspan, Democracy Now. But the Chris Matthews of the world who claim they were against the invasion and had neocons like Kristol, Gaffney, Frum on pushing their false WMD claims did not go near having those experts, (Ritter, El Baradei, Zbigniew, etc) on talking out about the questions around the validity of the intelligence. Then the neocons went after Ritter’s personal life (not a pretty picture) to take his expert insights down to the ground. Ritter put up an amazing and qualified fight against those pushing and voting for an invasion of Iraq based on false claims

  11. hophmi on December 29, 2014, 10:06 am

    “A few years ago, the idea that support for the disastrous Iraq war was driven in any way by concern for Israel’s security was verboten.”

    This is just not true in any way, shape or form. You’re making it up. What was verboten was the claim that the powerful American Jewish community was primarily responsible for bringing the United States in conflict with Iraq on Israel’s behalf. You can review Bush Administration press statements and rhetoric from 2002-2008; you’ll find that the security of our ally, Israel, was one reason AMONG MANY OTHERS that administration officials provided for why it was necessary to stop Saddam Hussein. No one ever denied that the security of American allies in the region, including Israel, was one reason for the Iraq War, albeit certainly not the main reason. What people abhorred was the suggestion that a group of American Jews pushed the war on the American public because they cared more about Israel than they did the United States. And may they continue to abhor it, and anyone who advances that view. Such people belong on the margins of American society.

    • annie on December 29, 2014, 2:01 pm

      a group of American Jews pushed the war on the American public because they care more about strengthening Israel than they do about the long term security of United States.

      and btw, your arguments don’t hold more water by pretending to represent ‘the majority’ or most people. you should learn to say “what i abhor”instead. and obviously some people abhor the suggestion that a group of American Jews pushed the war on the American public because they cared more about Israel than they did the United States, specifically the American Jews who pushed the war on the American public because they care more about Israel than they do the United States, and those who support them.

      Israel, was one reason AMONG MANY OTHERS

      please list the many others and the non jews who advocated for them. we already know about some people, like dick cheney. of course there were many war profiters who advocated for the war. but the primary pushers and facilitators of that war were neocons, jewish or not. if you can think of one person who advocated for that war who was not a supporter of israel by all means let us know.

      • hophmi on December 30, 2014, 10:31 am

        “please list the many others”

        Oil. Nukes. Terrorism. Human rights. Democracy. Balance of power with the US’s Arab allies in the region. All were reasons given at one time or another for why the US fought the Iraq War. None have much to do with Israel.

        “and the non jews who advocated for them.”

        Again, most of the United States supported the war with Iraq. More than 98% of the United States is not Jewish.

        But examine your way of thinking, just a bit, and you’ll discover that you’ve crossed over to the dark side. Your implicit assumption is that when a Jew advocates for something, he does so as a Jew, right, Annie? And a Jew who cares more about Israel than the United States, right? That’s the very definition of antisemitism. This is how a way of thinking has turned you into a bigot, Annie. I’m not going down the rabbit hole with you.

      • annie on December 30, 2014, 3:50 pm

        Your implicit assumption is that when a Jew advocates for something, he does so as a Jew, right, Annie?

        lol, absolutely not! it doesn’t mean the neocons which included “a group of American Jews” (not all jews, obviously) don’t care more about Israel than the United States. people like adelson have even stated their #1 is issue is israel. it’s what an israel firster is. that’s certainly does not encapsulate all ‘Jews who advocates for something’.

        That’s the very definition of antisemitism.

        oh really. the very definition of anti semitism is claiming neocons are israel firsters. hops, you’re a bloviator. i asked you for some names of non jews who were influential in pushing the american public into the iraq war. i stated quite clearly “we already know about some people, like dick cheney. of course there were many war profiters who advocated for the war.”

        i said “the primary pushers and facilitators of that war were neocons, jewish or not. if you can think of one person who advocated for that war who was not a supporter of israel by all means let us know.

        i guess you just can’t. so you go on a rampage. you don’t scare me.

        you’ll discover that you’ve crossed over to the dark side

        zzzzz boring.

        most of the United States supported the war with Iraq. More than 98% of the United States is not Jewish.

        after 2 years of non stop pundits and the press shoveling propaganda on the american public! and neocons non stop on the sunday morning talk shows. don’t act like the american pubic woke up after 9/11 and said let’s invade iraq. because they didn’t!

      • hophmi on December 30, 2014, 4:01 pm

        “i said “the primary pushers and facilitators of that war were neocons, jewish or not. if you can think of one person who advocated for that war who was not a supporter of israel by all means let us know.”

        i guess you just can’t. so you go on a rampage. you don’t scare me.”

        LOL. I’m not asking you to be scared. Stop acting like you’re being attacked. You’re not a victim.

        “people like adelson have even stated their #1 is issue is israel.”

        People like Adelson? Which people?

        “the very definition of anti semitism is claiming neocons are israel firsters. ”

        The definition of antisemitism is claiming that Jews care more about their own than about the countries in which they live. And that’s done here all the time.

        People here don’t spend time talking about Dick Cheney. They highlight the Jewish supporters of the Iraq War only. Phil Weiss are argued again and again here that the Iraq War was fought primarily for Israel, and that those who promoted the policy were neocon Jews who did so because they cared more about Israel than they did about the United States. That’s the definition of antisemitism, this idea that a cabal of Jews led a mostly non-Jewish country to war because they cared more about themselves than about their country. It’s a classic antisemitic stereotype. You don’t seem to understand that.

        And yet again, I remind you that MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES supported the Iraq War. They were not all supporters of Israel, and it’s not my business to prove to you whether they were or not, because it’s completely beside the point here.

      • annie on December 30, 2014, 5:22 pm

        MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES supported the Iraq War. They were not all supporters of Israel, and it’s not my business to prove to you whether they were or not

        nice divert, again you’re ignoring my request for influential non jewish americans (like pundits, journalists etc), my question had nothing to do w/how many people who supported the war nor did i ask you to prove it to me.

        hops, there a whole list of things that, over history, have been done to jews in unfair persecution of them. but making a list of all those things and claiming anytime an accusation of this nature may happen in the future it is therefore an anti semitic trope would be inaccurate. you can define anti semitism however you want, doesn’t mean you’re right.

        this idea that a cabal of Jews led a mostly non-Jewish country to war because they cared more about themselves than about their country. It’s a classic antisemitic stereotype. You don’t seem to understand that.

        for one thing, i never once made the claim the neocons care more about themselves than they cared about the US. i’m sure i didn’t say that hops. oh, and could you direct me to these big american high profile jewish galas raising millions for the US military.

        Stop acting like you’re being attacked.

        lol, calling someone a bigot is definitely an assault. bye.

      • CigarGod on December 30, 2014, 6:11 pm

        Hops thinks the point of debate is the debate its self. He has no intention of ever amitting an error…let alone admit learning something.

      • Shingo on December 30, 2014, 5:59 pm

        Oil. Nukes. Terrorism. Human rights. Democracy. Balance of power with the US’s Arab allies in the region.

        All of those are BS. There was no nuclear threat and they knew it. Saddam had no links to terrorism and they knew it. Washington doesn’t give a sh*t about human rights, except as a tool to bash their opponents. Balance of power was actually much more stable while Saddam was in power, and his removal created a vacuum filled by Iran.

        Not even oil was a reason. Oil was $20 a barrel at the time and the US gained no more control of oil by invading Iraq.

        Gotta any other reasons you can think of?

        Again, most of the United States supported the war with Iraq.

        No sequitur. You’re arguing that the public was behind it, while leaving out that the reason they were behind it was because those who were pushing for war were lying to them.

        They did so because they were told that their security was at stake and that Saddam was preparing to attack and that he was behind 911.

        our implicit assumption is that when a Jew advocates for something, he does so as a Jew, right, Annie?

        That’s a blatant ad hominem and you know it. Annie is not arguing that all Jews were behind it but that support for Israel among those pushing for war was. That means that a handful of Israeli supporters in powerful position were able to push for war and had the means to do it.

      • hophmi on December 30, 2014, 6:20 pm

        The question was not whether these were substantiated reasons, but whether they were reasons offered by the Bush administration.

      • Shingo on December 30, 2014, 11:08 pm

        The question was not whether these were substantiated reasons, but whether they were reasons offered by the Bush administration.

        No it isn’t. The US always claims it does what it does in the name of human rights and democracy even when it is obviously not true. The fact that the Bush administration offered these farcical excuses is irrelevant

      • annie on December 30, 2014, 6:25 pm

        That means that a handful of Israeli supporters in powerful position were able to push for war and had the means to do it.

        sounds like an aipac conferences pushing war with iran. whoops, another anti semitic trope!

    • Mooser on December 30, 2014, 3:17 pm

      “You can review Bush Administration press statements and rhetoric from 2002-2008; you’ll find that the security of our ally, Israel, was one reason”

      Hophmi, just to bolster your point, give us the name and number of the treaty the agreement with reciprocal obligations which makes Israel “our ally”! When people see all that Israel has promised to do in this alliance, they will know we’ve got a true friend.

      Oh BTW, Hophmi, you refer to “our ally Israel”. Are we ‘allied’ to 1948 Israel, or 1967 Israel? Are we ‘allied’ to Israel where ‘Israel’ operates in Palestine, outside its own borders, (as hazy as those are)?

      But gee, it just struck me. Hophmi, why aren’t you proud to get credit for the War on Iraq? Hardly seems like something you would shy away from? What gives? You don’t think it worked out well?

      • Mooser on December 31, 2014, 5:02 pm

        Hmmph, can’t understand why Hophmi wouldn’t wish to own, for himself and his compatriots, a deciding hand in pushing the War on Iraq. After all, this war, and the wars it spawned have been at the center of our foreign policy ever since.
        And yet Hophmi won’t say ‘Yes, I helped push that war, and each war after, and considering all the world-wide benefits, I’m proud to say it!’
        He must be modest.

      • seafoid on December 31, 2014, 5:41 pm

        Like most Zionists Hoppy is modest but relentless in taking credit for success and modest to the point of reticence in not taking the blame for anything at all.

      • Mooser on January 1, 2015, 1:04 pm

        Seafoid, I don’t understand why Hophmi and the oh-so-stern gang hang out here. The articles are full of lies, and they’re all too short!

    • oldgeezer on December 30, 2014, 6:12 pm

      It is difficult to not accept the similarities between the Yinon plan, the PNAC publications without noting the membership list of the PNAC and the positions of power that they held. And as we now know their direct involvement in the fabrication or falsification of information in order to promote the war(s) in the middle east.

Leave a Reply