Ex-CIA Director: Bush administration ignored months of warnings about 9/11 to avoid leaving ‘paper trail’ of culpability
In an explosive revelation during an interview with Politico, the former CIA director during President George W. Bush’s administration claims his department informed White house officials over impending Al Qaeda attacks months before the president received the infamous “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” presidential briefing.
According to ex-CIA head George Tenet and Cofer Black, then chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, they called an emergency meeting with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10 of 2001 saying they had evidence that an attack on the U.S. was imminent and that it would be “spectacular.”
Beginning in May of 2001, Tenet and Black launched an initiative called “the Blue Sky paper” and pitched it to Bush’s national security team. The CIA called for a joint CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat by “getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.”
According to Tenet, the Bush administration said they wanted to back-burner the plan.
“And the word back,” claims Tenet, “‘was ‘we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking,’” meaning they didn’t want a paper trail.
Glenn Greenwald recently spoke to New York Times journalist Charlie Savage and author of a new book titled Power Wars: Inside Obama’s Post-9/11 Presidency. Savage has been covering the War on Terror and its associated abuses for many years and is one of the most knowledgeable journalists out there on the Obama administrations continuation and expansion of many of the policies of the previous Bush/Cheney administration.
[…] If Americans want to blame someone for the Iraq War, we should be looking closer to home — at Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and ourselves. As former CIA officer Robert Baer put it: “Chalabi was scamming the U.S. because the U.S. wanted to be scammed.”
All the evidence indicates the Bush administration would have invaded Iraq with or without him. According to Mickey Herskowitz, Bush’s one-time ghostwriter, Bush was hoping to invade Iraq as early as 1999. Bush’s treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, later claimed that Bush had begun planning for war with Iraq within days of his inauguration. And on September 12, 2001, Bushwas demanding that his top terrorism adviser find out if there were any way to blame the previous day’s attacks on Saddam Hussein.
Likewise, the Times didn’t need Chalabi to give Bush’s war a big boost. The 2005 book Hard News explains that Howell Raines, who at the time was the paper’s editor in chief, wanted to prove that he wasn’t leading the Times in a way that showed his liberal views. Doug Frantz, a former investigations editor, told the book’s author, “My sense was that Howell Raines was eager to have articles that supported the warmongering out of Washington. He discouraged pieces that were at odds with the administration’s position on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction and alleged links of al Qaeda.
- Ahmad Chalabi, Iraqi Politician Who Pushed for U.S. Invasion, Dies at 71
- Chalabi Now Convincing Hitchens That He Will Be Iraq’s George Washington In Hell
- Ahmad Chalabi’s legacy isn’t that he fooled the US, but that he failed Iraq
- With Ahmad Chalabi’s Death, Passing of an Age of Lies
- Chalabi and the Legacy of De-Baathification in Iraq
- Ahmad Chalabi, The Man Who Gave Us ISIS
- The Unfinished Business of Ahmed Chalabi
- Ahmed Chalabi – Right Web Profile
- The Manipulator
Editor’s Note: You can listen to a recent interview with the author of the Perle piece from the Scott Horton Show.
Where is Richard Perle?
His virtually total absence from the Iran nuclear debate over the past two years was perhaps one of the most remarkable features of the whole controversy. Ubiquitous in the major media in the run-up to and aftermath of the Iraq war debacle and a long-time advocate of “regime change” by whatever means in Iran, the “prince of darkness,” Washington’s leading neoconservative operative for several decades, seems almost to have entirely disappeared from public view.
[…] If it’s true that Pletka has maneuvered Perle out of AEI, it marks something of a watershed. Probably Washington’s most influential neocon operative of his generation, he played a critical role in driving the U.S. to war in Iraq, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith (another Perle protégé). But he seems to have retired to the fever swamps of Gaffney’s CSP.
His departure, if that indeed is what it is, follows those of his long-time collaborators at the Institute.
- Richard Perle – Right Web Profile
- American Enterprise Institute – Right Web Profile
- Deja vu? Neocons tout Ahmed Chalabi as Iraq’s next leader
- Among Libya’s lobbyists
- Prince of Darkness Denies Own Existence
- Perle Linked to Kurdish Oil Plan
- Chutzpah, Thy Name Is Perle
- Pentagon Adviser Is Stepping Down
The United States considered using nuclear weapons against Afghanistan in response to the September 11 attacks, Der Spiegel reported on its website Saturday.
Michael Steiner, who served as a political advisor to then-German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, told the German daily that the nuclear option was one of the possibilities examined after the attacks.
“The papers were written,” Steiner said when asked whether the U.S. was considered using nuclear weapons in response to the attacks orchestrated by Al-Qaida’s Osama bin Laden, in which almost 3,000 people were killed. “They had really played through all possibilities.”
America’s neocons insist that their only mistake was falling for some false intelligence about Iraq’s WMD and that they shouldn’t be stripped of their powerful positions of influence for just one little boo-boo. That’s the point of view taken by Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt as he whines about the unfairness of applying “a single-interest litmus test,” i.e., the Iraq War debacle, to judge him and his fellow war boosters.
After noting that many other important people were on the same pro-war bandwagon with him, Hiatt criticizes President Barack Obama for citing the Iraq War as an argument not to listen to many of the same neocons who now are trying to sabotage the Iran nuclear agreement. Hiatt thinks it’s the height of unfairness for Obama or anyone else to suggest that people who want to kill the Iran deal — and thus keep alive the option to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran — “are lusting for another war.”
Hiatt also faults Obama for not issuing a serious war threat to Iran, a missing ultimatum that explains why the nuclear agreement falls “so far short.” Hiatt adds: “war is not always avoidable, and the judicious use of force early in a crisis, or even the threat of force, can sometimes forestall worse bloodshed later.”
But it should be noted that the neocons – and Hiatt in particular – did not simply make one mistake when they joined President George W. Bush’s rush to war in 2002-03. They continued with their warmongering in Iraq for years, often bashing the handful of brave souls in Official Washington who dared challenge the neocons’ pro-war enthusiasm. Hiatt and his fellow “opinion leaders” were, in effect, the enforcers of the Iraq War “group think” – and they have never sought to make amends for that bullying.
A dozen years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, that country, now effectively another Middle East failed state, remains a bloody, chaotic symbol of the failed US imperial project.
Margaret Griffis, a journalist who has been covering casualty numbers in Iraq since 2006 for Antiwar.com, has published these recent headlines that give one an idea of how life is in today’s Iraq:
“Mass Executions Terrorize Mosul; 141 Killed in Iraq”; “132 Killed across Iraq as Airstrikes Continue”; “At Least 4,693 Killed across Iraq in July”; “154 Killed in Iraq, including Dozens of Displaced Children” and “Mass Grave Unearthed in Mosul; 194 Killed across Iraq”.
Those are only the articles published by Griffis since July 30. The casualties are acute and ongoing, yet most people in the US, the very country that generated this hellish situation, are willfully ignorant of the situation caused by their government.
Truthout reached out to three expert analysts who provided their perspective on why the war was waged, what the goal of the occupation has been, and which proposed solutions are the most promising.
But its chairman, Stephen Hadley, is a relentless hawk whose advocacy for greater military intervention often dovetails closely with the interests of Raytheon, a major defense contractor that pays him handsomely as a member of its board of directors.
Hadley, the former national security advisor to President George W. Bush, was an advocate for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and more recently appeared in the media to call for massive airstrikes in Syria. Over the last year, he has called for escalating the conflict in Ukraine.
In a speech at Poland’s Wroclaw Global Forum in June, Hadley argued in favor of arming the Ukrainian government in part because that would “raise the cost for what Russia is doing in Ukraine.” Specifically, he said, “even President Putin is sensitive to body bags — it sounds coarse to say, but it’s true — but body bags of Russian soldiers who have been killed.”
Hadley also called for European governments to broadly boost military spending, ideally doubling it. “You know, let’s show that Europe is going to have real commitment to military forces,” he said.
The call to flood Ukraine with weapons not only contrasts sharply with the stated mission of the Institute of Peace, but many scholars believe doing so would provoke more conflict.
- Meet The Forces That Are Pushing Obama Toward A New Cold War
- United States Institute of Peace – Right Web Profile
- Stephen Hadley – Right Web Profile
- Raytheon beats estimates with higher second-quarter earnings, revenues
- Big Bank’s Analyst Worries That Iran Deal Could Depress Weapons Sales
- Hadley and Zoellick: Crucial Weapons in the Defense of Ukraine
- Raytheon Executive Sees Ukraine Threat Boosting Defense Budgets
- Conflicts of interest in the Syria debate
- Stephen Hadley: To stop Iran, stop Assad
- Not at peace with building’s style
- Lockheed Martin Contributes $1 Million to U.S. Institute of Peace
- Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
‘[…] Looking for changes in official public statements was my bread and butter during a long tenure as a Kremlinologist. So on Wednesday, as I watched Mr. Obama defend the deal with Iran, I leaned way forward at each juncture — and there were several — where the timeworn warning about all options being “on the table” would have been de rigueur. He avoided saying it.
“All options on the table?” The open-ended nature of this Bush/Cheney-esque bully-type warning is at odds with Western international understandings spanning more than three and half centuries — from the treaties of Westphalia (1648), to the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) to the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal to the UN Charter (1945). Try raising that with Establishment Washington, though, and be prepared to be dismissed as “picky-picky,” or as quaint and as obsolete as the Geneva Conventions. Undergirding all this is the chauvinism reflected in President Obama’s repeated reminders that the U.S. “is the sole indispensable country in the world.”
But in the wake of last week’s accord with Iran in Vienna, it is possible now to hope that the “military option” is finally off the table — in reality, if not in occasional rhetorical palliatives for Israel.
Most Americans have no idea of how close we came to making war on Iran in 2008, the last year of the Bush/Cheney administration. Nor do they know of the essential role played by courageous managers of intelligence who, for the first time on the Iran nuclear issue, supervised a strictly evidence-based, from-the-bottom-up National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that concluded in November 2007 that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003 and had not resumed that work.’
- Lots of Lobbying on Iran Deal, But Few Changing Their Minds
- Pentagon chief tells Saudi Arabia: Iran threat is shared concern
- Obama: Iran Deal Opponents Like Iraq War Hawks
- Obama defends Iran deal, decries over-reliance on military force
- Obama: US will not be letting Iran off the hook
- Anti-Iran Deal AIPAC Spin-off Relies on Iranian Ex-Terrorist Group
- Security Council Defies U.S. Lawmakers by Voting on Iran Nuke Deal
- Q&A with Hans Blix: Iran deal is ‘remarkably far-reaching’
- No “Compensation” to Israel for Iran Deal
- Israeli Army: Iran Remains ‘Top Priority’ After Nuclear Deal
- Former Israeli National-Security Officials Like Iran Deal
- US ‘Disturbed’ by Iran’s ‘Anti-American’ Comments, Responds With Anti-Iranian Comments
- Ash Carter visits Israel in attempt to ease concerns over Iran deal
- Bill Kristol on Iran Deal: ‘Its Munich!’
- Ron Paul: Iran Agreement Boosts Peace, Defeats Neocons
- Pentagon Chief Again Threatens to Attack Iran
‘Among the many groups engaged in advocacy over a potential deal between Iran and world powers, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) stands apart as by far the most mysterious. Late last month, UANI announced it would launch a “multi-million dollar” ad campaign, noting “a growing concern that U.S. negotiators could be pressured into making dangerous concessions in order to cement a deal,” according to the group’s CEO, Mark Wallace.
As the ad buy suggests, UANI draws on a deep well of resources to fund fretful warnings about the dangers of compromising with Iran’s nuclear negotiators. But, despite piecemeal information unearthed in my previous reporting, a more comprehensive look at UANI’s funding has until now remained obscured by a US government-backed veil of secrecy: the group’s donor rolls were among the documents a plaintiff was seeking in a defamation case against UANI until the Justice Department quashed the suit with an invocation of state secrets.
Now, however, I’ve obtained and reviewed a comprehensive list of UANI’s major donors in UANI’s 2013 tax year, providing some answers about who is backing the group’s efforts.’
- United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) – Right Web
- Secretive billionaire backers of United Against Nuclear Iran: Interview with Eli Clifton
- Iranian-Americans set up lobbying arm to counter pro-Israel groups
- Massive US Media Campaign Aims to Derail Iran Nuclear Deal
- GOP Mega-Donor Sheldon Adelson Funds Mysterious Anti-Iran Pressure Group
- The Justice Department Claims This Defamation Case Will Reveal State Secrets—But Won’t Say How
- Sheldon Adelson – Right Web
- The Most Important Republican Donor That You Don’t Know Is Married To One You Do
- Casino Tycoon Sheldon Adelson Takes $100 Million Gamble on GOP Senate
- Adelson says Obama should fire ‘atomic weapon’ at Iran, not negotiate
- Sheldon Adelson Spent Far More On Campaign Than Previously Known
- Thomas Kaplan – Wikipedia
- Billionaire’s sketchy Middle East gamble: Meet the man betting on war with Iran
- Kaplan compares UANI’s effectiveness to advanced weaponry
‘Victims of post-9/11 racial profiling, illegal detention, and abuse in the U.S. may have the chance to sue high-level Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a U.S. federal court ruled on Wednesday in what the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) called an “exceedingly rare” decision.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday [17th June] found that Ashcroft, former FBI director Robert Mueller, and former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Commissioner James Ziglar, who are all defendants in the case of Turkmen v. Ashcroft,“exceeded the bounds of the [U.S.] Constitution in the wake of 9/11” by profiling, detaining, abusing, and deporting numerous Arab, Muslim, and South Asian men based on nothing more than their race or religion.
“[T]here is no legitimate governmental purpose in holding someone as if he were a terrorist simply because he happens to be, or appears to be, Arab or Muslim,” the three-judge panel wrote in its decision. “We simply cannot conclude at this stage that concern for the safety of our nation justified the violation of the constitutional rights on which this nation was built.”
CCR, which brought the case in 2002, said the ruling was historic and served as a reminder that “the rule of law and the rights of human beings, whether citizens or not, must not be sacrificed in the face of national security hysteria.”‘
‘There is a violent extremist fifth column operating at the heart of power in Britain, and they stand against everything we hold dear in Western democracies: civil liberties, equality, peace, diplomacy and the rule of law.
You wouldn’t think so at first glance. In fact, you might be taken in by their innocuous-looking spokespeople, railing against the threat of Muslim extremists, defending the rights of beleaguered Muslim women, championing the principle of free speech — regularly courted by national TV and the press as informed experts on global policy issues.
But peer beneath the surface, and an entirely different picture emerges: a web of self-serving trans-Atlantic elites who are attempting to warp public discourse on key issues that pose a threat not to the public interest, but to their own vested interests.
One key organisation at the centre of this web is the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), an influential British think-tank founded a decade ago, ostensibly to promote noble ideals like freedom, human rights and democracy. But its staff spend most of their energies advancing the very opposite.’
- Henry Jackson Society – Right Web
- Henry Jackson Society: Project for Democratic Geopolitics
- The Henry Jackson Society and its Lurch Towards Islamophobia
- The Henry Jackson Society and the Degeneration of British Neoconservatism
- The five pillars of Islamophobia
- White supremacists at the heart of Whitehall
- David Cameron confidant promotes forced depopulation of Muslims in Europe
- Fear, Inc. 2.0: Report Exposes Funders, Pundits of Islamophobia in U.S.
- Henry Jackson Society forced to quit Westminster role after Spinwatch complaint
- Rightwing thinktank pulls funds for Commons groups after disclosure row
- Think tank behind Tory foreign policy promotes Arab world fossil fuel hegemony
- The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate
- Alan Mendoza’s putsch in the Henry Jackson Society
‘President George W. Bush was wrong to try to build democracy in Iraq, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a recent interview, marking a striking admission from a key player behind the 2003 U.S. invasion.
In an interview with British newspaper The Times, Rumsfeld said that efforts to oust Saddam Hussein and replace his tyrannical regime with democracy were unworkable, and that he had concerns about the plan from the beginning.
“I’m not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories,” Rumsfeld told The Times. “The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words.”’
Editor’s Note: Matt Taibbi was recently interviewed about the role of the media in the lead up to the Iraq War on Democracy Now!
‘[…] The media quickly piled on. “Jeb Bush’s Iraq Stumble” was the title of the Wall Street Journal’s “Journal Editorial Report” on Fox. “On Iraq Question, Jeb Bush Stumbles and GOP Hopefuls Pounce,” countered the Washington Post.
“Jeb Bush’s Revisionist History of the Iraq War,” wrote New York Times Editorial Page editor Andrew Rosenthal. “Yeah, Jeb Bush’s argument that the Iraq War was right even in retrospect is insane,” tweeted current New York and erstwhile New Republic writer Jonathan Chait early in the story cycle, when Jeb was still defending the war.
A few writers, like Steve Chapman at the Chicago Tribune, criticized Jeb for not disavowing the “reckless adventurism” of the Bush II era that led to the war in the first place. In other words, Chapman blasted Jeb for being wrong then and now.
But the substance of most of the media mockery in the last week was to whale on Jeb for not admitting quickly enough that the war, in hindsight, given “what we know now,” was a huge mistake.
We can call this the “None of us pundits would have been wrong about Iraq if it wasn’t for Judith Miller” line of questioning. This rhetoric goes something like this: since we invaded, the war has gone epically FUBAR, so it’s obvious now that it was a mistake, and so we can mock you for not admitting as much.’
‘In his opening statement last month before a US Congressional Committee hearing titled “Confronting Russia’s Weaponization of Information,” the Russian-born British author Peter Pomerantsev served his Republican-led audience a piping hot serving of neocon alarmism. Quoting “the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), General Philip M. Breedlove,” Pomerantsev described Russia’s 2014 takeover of Crimea as “the most amazing information warfare blitzkrieg we have ever seen in the history of information warfare.” To which Pomernatsev added his own chilling warning:
“To put it differently, Russia has launched an information war against the West – and we are losing.”
The hearing was put on by Orange County neoconservative Republican Ed Royce; the purpose of the hearings was to drum up fear about Russia’s “unprecedented” information war on the West — a propaganda battle which obviously exists, but whose dimensions and dangers are being cynically exaggerated — and then convert that fear into budget money for US propaganda and NGOs to subvert Kremlin power.
What made Pomerantsev’s lobbying appearance with the neocons so disturbing to me is that he’s not the sort of crude, arrogant meat-head I normally identify with homo neoconius. Pomerantsev’s book, “Nothing is True and Everything is Possible”, is the most talked-about Russia book in recent memory. His many articles on the Kremlin’s “avant-garde” “information war” and its “political technologists” have been hits in the thinking-man’s press: Atlantic Monthly, London Review of Books... His insights into the strategic thinking behind the Kremlin’s “information wars” are often sharp and illuminating; and yet there’s always been something glaringly absent in Pomerantsev’s writings. Not so much what he puts in, but all that he leaves out. Glaring omissions of context, that had me start to question if Pomernatsev wasn’t manipulating the reader by poaching the rhetoric of leftist critical analysis, and putting it to use for very different, neocon purposes . . . as if Pomerantsev has been aping the very sort of “avant-garde” Kremlin political technologies he’s been scaring the Ed Royces of the world with.
And then of course there’s the larger nagging question—what the Hell is a presumed journalist/writer like Pomerantsev, who claims to have been most influenced by literary figures like Christopher Isherwood, doing lobbying the US and UK governments to pass bills upping psychological warfare budgets and imposing sanctions on foreign countries? Where does the independent critical analysis stop, and the manipulative lobbying begin?’
- Adversarial Journalism in Russia and Dissecting the Propaganda Wars: Interview with Mark Ames
- ‘Bloggers’ Compared to ISIS During Congressional Hearing on ‘Confronting Russia’s Weaponization of Information’
- The Years of Stagnation and the Poodles of Power
- Nothing is True and Everything is Possible (Book)
- Russia: A Postmodern Dictatorship?
- The Menace of Unreality (NED Talk)
- Peter Pomerantsev’s LRB Blog
- Peter Pomerantsev at The Atlantic
- Anne Applebaum – RightWeb
- Anne Applebaum Is A Dingbat
- Freedom House – RightWeb
- Freedom’s Just Another Word For Fascism
- Ben Judah’s “big scoop” on Putin and Ukraine
- Radek Sikorski Throws Eggs At Ben Judah And Blake Hounshell – Hits Faces
Larry Wilkerson is a retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. He discusses how Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush recently stated how he would have authorized the US invasion in 2003 of Iraq, which shows little regard for the fact that neoconservative policy created more chaos in the region. (The Real News)
- Jeb Bush Backs Off Iraq War Comments, Says He ‘Misheard’ Question
- Iraq war casts shadow over Republican White House hopefuls
- Jeb Bush Isn’t a Moderate, He’s a Neocon Extremist
- Jeb Bush is terrible at foreign policy
- CNN Debate: Does Jeb Bush have a George W. problem?
- Jeb: George W. Bush is a top foreign policy adviser
- The swaggering idiot returns: George W. Bush reemerges
- Bush won’t cite differences with brother’s foreign policy
- Jeb Bush’s Sleazy Political Payback to Dubya’s Donors
- Jeb and the Neocon Trap
- Why Jeb Won’t Throw Neocons Under the Bus
- Jeb Bush’s foreign policy team is eerily familiar, in one Venn diagram
‘They brought us war against Iraq – what do the hawks in Washington have in store for us now? Panorama investigates the “neo-conservatives”, the small and unelected group of right-wingers, who critics claim have hijacked the White House. Throughout the war with Iraq, Steve Bradshaw was with the neocons in Washington – discovering whether they’re really trying to run the world the American way.’ (BBC Panorama)
- 61 Times Bill Kristol Was Reminded of Hitler and Churchill
- The Kagans: A Family Business of Perpetual War
- The rise of ISIS in Iraq is a neocon’s dream
- Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?
- Neoconservative Resurgence in the Age of Obama
- Project for the New American Century
- Foreign Policy Initiative
- American Enterprise Institute
- A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
- Weekly Standard
- Richard Perle
- Michael Ledeen
- William Kristol
- Robert Kagan
- David Wurmser
- Meyrav Wurmser
- James Woolsey
- Douglas Feith
- Eliot Cohen
- Joshua Muravchik
- Dick Cheney
- Donald Rumsfeld
- Paul Wolfowitz
- John Bolton
- Elliott Abrams
- Condoleezza Rice
‘Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, writing in opposition to the Iran deal recently, observed, “One is reminded — as one so often is these days — of Churchill’s great speech in Commons after Munich … ” It is true that Kristol is often reminded of Churchill and Munich these days. This may not tell us anything about the current situation with Iran, however, since Kristol is reminded of Churchill and Munich on a great many days. It is a historic reference he has used to explain a great many episodes.
I recently asked New York interns Claire Landsbaum and Claire Voon to compile a list of Kristol’s public references to the Munich agreement and its main players. This research ordeal, presented in reverse chronological order, represents the sort of character-building exercise, I am sure Kristol would agree, that today’s youth badly need.’
‘Judith Miller’s publicity campaign for her new book (The Story: A Reporter’s Journey) which has taken her from the Wall Street Journal to numerous television interviews, has been an instructive and engaging media spectacle.
She has shown characteristic passion and energy in attempting to defend her journalistic reputation after being pummeled during her final years at The New York Times for, among other things, writing persuasively that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
But it is discouraging that the truth can be challenged by a determined and wily opponent with a platform to propound discredited ideas. And Miller has long been given such a platform, first by The Times and now by a prominent book publisher.
In my 24 years at The Times I frequently worked with Miller, often unhappily, as I will explain. Her efforts at recasting events have thus not been a surprise to me.’
- Jon Stewart tears into Judith Miller over Iraq reporting
- The Real Problem with Judith Miller
- Maher Confronts Judith Miller: Why Weren’t You More Skeptical About Iraq?
- Judith Miller tries, and ultimately fails, to defend her flawed Iraq reporting
- Judith Miller: ‘No senior official spoon-fed me a line about WMD’
- Now They Tell Us (2004)
- The Times scoop that melted (2003)
‘Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia – and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats.
This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks.
Not only does the broader community of neoconservatives stand to benefit but so do other members of the Kagan clan, including Robert’s brother Frederick at the American Enterprise Institute and his wife Kimberly, who runs her own shop called the Institute for the Study of War.’
- Neoconservativism Is Down But Not Out of the 2016 Race
- Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?
- Robert Kagan Strikes a Nerve With Article on Obama Policy
- Superpowers Don’t Get to Retire
- Superpowers Don’t Retire, but Robert Kagan Should
- Ukraine’s Poison Pill for Peace Talks
- Nuland’s Mastery of Ukraine Propaganda
- What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis
- Ukraine: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call
- Obama’s True Foreign-Policy ‘Weakness’
- Did Manning Help Avert War in Iran?
- Neocons Guided Petraeus on Afghan War
- Robert Kagan
- Victoria Nuland
- Donald Kagan
- Frederick Kagan
- Kimberly Kagan
‘Sometimes I’m challenged over my linking belligerent neoconservatives with “liberal interventionists” who justify U.S. military invasions under the “humanitarian” banner of “responsibility to protect” – or R2P – meaning to intervene in war-torn countries to stop the killing of civilians, like the 1994 slaughter in Rwanda.
And, most people would agree that there are extraordinary situations in which the timely arrival of an external military force might prevent genocide or other atrocities, which was one of the intended functions of the United Nations. But my overall impression of R2Pers is that many are careerist hypocrites who voice selective outrage that provides cover for the U.S. and its allies to do pretty much whatever they wish.
Though one can’t generalize about an entire group – since some R2Pers act much more consistently than others – many of the most prominent ones operate opportunistically, depending how the dominant narrative is going and where the power interests lie.’
- The Dangerous Neocon-R2P Alliance
- The untold story of the Maidan massacre
- Seeing No Neo-Nazi Militias in Ukraine
- Ukraine: Widespread Use of Cluster Munitions
- The ethics of the responsibility to protect
- Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?
- Is Hillary Clinton a Neocon-Lite?
- A New Neocon Push for Syrian War
- Top 10 warning signs of ‘liberal imperialism’
- Selective Use of R2P to Secure Regime Change, Says India at UN
- Libya, ‘R2P’ and the selective business of ‘accountability’
- What intervention in Libya tells us about the neocon-liberal alliance
- Not All Interventions Are the Same
- Responsibility to protect – Wikipedia
‘Judith Miller, the correspondent whose mistaken reporting on Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program routinely decorated the front page of the New York Times in the run-up to the Iraq war, has launched a staunch defense of her work in a newspaper essay published Friday and in a forthcoming book.
The essay, published in the Wall Street Journal, describes Miller’s frustration at the “enduring, pernicious accusation that the [George W] Bush administration fabricated WMD intelligence to take the country to war”.
Miller writes that both she and the Bush team acted in good faith out of an honest belief that Hussein had a functioning WMD program based on faulty intelligence and misleading sourcing. US soldiers who began to search the country after the March 2003 invasion of Baghdad discovered that no such program existed.’
- Judy Miller: Hans Blix Bears More Responsibility For The Iraq War Than I Do
- Soldier Demands Apology From Karl Rove; Rove Says No Apology Needed For Iraq War
- The Unknown Known: New Doc Tackles Unrepentant Iraq War Architect Donald Rumsfeld
- George W. Bush: I Don’t Regret Waging War Against Iraq
- Dick Cheney Says Iraq War Was ‘the Right Thing’
‘If nothing succeeds like failure, then the neoconservatives who championed democracy promotion and regime change against Saddam Hussein are very successful indeed. After the Iraq war went south, the reputations of leading neocons such as former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz came into disrepute. But as the Obama administration has worked toward its controversial nuclear deal with Iran, the neocons have once again become the dominant voice on foreign policy in the Republican Party.
Writing in National Review on the eve of the agreement, the historian Victor Davis Hanson declared, “Our dishonor in Lausanne, as with Munich, may avoid a confrontation in the present, but our shame will guarantee a war in the near future.”
Over the last few decades, the neocons, who are mostly based at think tanks and magazines in Washington, have come to constitute a kind of military-intellectual complex. Their credo is as sweeping as it is simple: No compromise is ever possible with America’s foreign enemies. Instead, they are championing a liberation doctrine that allows them to present bombing and invading other countries at will as an act of supreme moral virtue.
Exhibit A is Iran.’
- Skeptical Senate Puts New Iran Sanctions on Hold
- Obama: “This deal is not based on trust”
- Iran nuclear deal reached … Now what?
- Iran Breakthrough: Framework Agreement Reached
- Iran deal best option, military actions can’t stop nuclear program, says Obama
- Jamal Abdi: ‘Deal a beginning of new relationship between Tehran and Washington’
- The Deal: It’s a good one – but can it survive the US Congress?
- Iranians hail negotiators, celebrate announcement of deal
- Nuclear deal means more Iran oil – just not this year
- No, the Iran nuclear negotiations aren’t Munich in 1938
- Yes, Mr. Waldman, the Iran Nuclear Negotiations Are Munich in 1938
- Why Iran Distrusts the US in Nuke Talks
- Gareth Porter Interview Series on His Book Manufactured Crisis
‘The CIA Officers Memorial Foundation has awarded former President George W. Bush with the Ambassador Richard M. Helms Award, named after the Cold War-era CIA director. The honor appears somewhat odd as the president and the CIA, along with the National Security Agency, had a rather troubled relationship during the president’s administration.’ (RT America)
‘Nothing sums up the warped foreign policy fantasy world in which Republicans live more than when House Speaker John Boehner recentlycalled Obama an “anti-war president” under which America “is sitting on the sidelines” in the increasingly chaotic Middle East.
If Obama is an anti-war president, he’s the worst anti-war president in history. In the last six years, the Obama administration has bombed seven countries in the Middle East alone and armed countless more with tens of billions in dollars in weapons. But that’s apparently not enough for Republicans. As the Isis war continues to expand and Yemen descends into civil war, everyone is still demanding more: If only we bombed the region a little bit harder, then they’ll submit.
In between publishing a new rash of overt sociopathic “Bomb Iran” op-eds, Republicans and neocons are circulating a new talking point: Obama doesn’t have a “coherent” or “unifying” strategy in the Middle East. But you can’t have a one-size-fits-all strategy in an entire region that is almost incomprehensibly complex – which is why no one, including the Republicans criticizing Obama, actually has an answer for what that strategy should be. It’s clear that this new talking point is little more than thinly veiled code for we’re not killing enough Muslims or invading enough countries.’
- John Boehner Calls Barack Obama An ‘Anti-War President’ Who Won’t Lead
- Syria Becomes the 7th Predominantly Muslim Country Bombed by 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate
- New York Times Accidentally Undermines John Bolton “Bomb Iran” Op-Ed in Own Pages
- Leading U.S. Newspapers Incite “Supreme International Crime”
- The Confused Person’s Guide to Middle East Conflict
- Micah Zenko: “If 30 years of US as military hegemon in the Middle East resulted in the region today, why would more suddenly stabilize things?”
- U.S. to Delay Pullout of Troops From Afghanistan to Aid Strikes
- The US Has Given Over 465,000 Small Arms to Afghanistan. Where the Hell Are They?
- How the Taliban got their hands on modern US missiles
- U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands
- More American Weapons for ISIS
- 11 Photos Of U.S. Weapons Used By ISIS — And Some Rockets From America’s Friends
- How U.S. weapons will play a huge role in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen
- U.S. Boosts Aid in Saudi-Led Fight To Defeat Rebel Force in Yemen
- In Yemen, U.S. airstrikes breed anger, and sympathy for al-Qaeda
- Pentagon loses track of $500 million in weapons, equipment given to Yemen
- Gregg Carlstrom: “US praises US ally for bombing US-equipped militia aligned with US foe who is partnering with US to fight another US-equipped militia.”
‘With the Likud Party electoral victory in Israel, the Republican Party is on a roll, having won two major elections in a row. The first was winning control of the U.S. Congress last fall. The second is the victory by the Republicans’ de facto party leader Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel’s recent election. As the Israeli Prime Minister puts together a coalition with other parties “in the national camp,” as he describes them, meaning the ultra-nationalist parties of Israel, it will be a coalition that today’s Republicans would feel right at home in.
The common thread linking Republicans and Netanyahu’s “national camp” is a belief of each in their own country’s “exceptionalism,” with a consequent right of military intervention wherever and whenever their “Commander in Chief” orders it, as well as the need for oppressive laws to suppress dissent.
William Kristol, neoconservative editor of the Weekly Standard, would agree. Celebrating Netanyahu’s victory, Kristol told the New York Times, “It will strengthen the hawkish types in the Republican Party.” Kristol added that Netanyahu would win the GOP’s nomination, if he could run, because “Republican primary voters are at least as hawkish as the Israeli public.”
The loser in both the Israeli and U.S. elections was the rule of law and real democracy, not the sham democracy presented for public relations purposes in both counties. In both countries today, money controls elections, and as Michael Glennon has written in National Security and Double Government, real power is in the hands of the national security apparatus.’
- In Washington, the Real Power Lies With the Spooks, Eavesdroppers and Assassins
- Vote all you want, the secret government won’t change
- Neoconservatism – Wikipedia
- A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm – Wikipedia
- Project for the New American Century
- Superpowers Don’t Get to Retire
- A Family Business of Perpetual War
- Don’t Get Weak
- Carl Schmitt – Wikipedia
- Leo Strauss – Wikipedia
- Nemesis of Power: The German Army in Politics 1918-1945 (Book)
- The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism (Book)
- Reactionary Modernism: Technology, Culture and Politics in Weimar and the Third Reich (Book)
- Triumph of Military Zionism: Nationalism and the Origins of the Israeli Right (Book)
- Walter Benjamin: Fascism and Crisis
- Reactionary modernism – Wikipedia
‘After the New York Times printed John Bolton’s “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran” (3/26/15; FAIR Blog, 3/26/15), following the Washington Post publishing Joshua Muravchik’s “War With Iran Is Probably Our Best Option” (3/13/15), veteran investigative reporter Robert Parry made an excellent point (Consortium News, 3/28/15):
If two major newspapers in, say, Russia published major articles openly advocating the unprovoked bombing of a country, say, Israel, the US government and news media would be aflame with denunciations about “aggression,” “criminality,” “madness” and “behavior not fitting the 21st century.”
But when the newspapers are American – the New York Times and the Washington Post – and the target country is Iran, no one in the US government and media bats an eye. These inflammatory articles – these incitements to murder and violation of international law – are considered just normal discussion in the Land of Exceptionalism.
Advocating for war is not like advocating for most other policies because, as peace activist David Swanson points out, war is a crime.’
‘The New York Times yesterday [March 26th] published an op-ed by the characteristically bellicose John R. Bolton, headlined “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” Bolton, now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration.
In an unusual touch, a link added to the original online edition of Bolton’s op-ed directly undermines Bolton’s case for war:
… Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq … can accomplish what is required.
U.S. and Israeli politicians often claim that Israel’s bombing of Iraq in 1981 significantly set back an already-existing Iraqi nuclear weapons program. The truth is almost exactly the opposite.’
- John Bolton’s Love of Bombs
- Stop Listening to John Bolton
- Letting a Warmonger Rant
- New York Times Publishes Call to Bomb Iran
- John Bolton: To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran
- Prof. Wilson: Available evidence “suggests that the bombing did not delay the Iraqi nuclear-weapons program but started it”
- Incorrect, incomplete or unreliable information can lead to tragically incorrect decisions
- An Israeli attack against Iran would backfire — just like Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq
- To Ousted Boss, Arms Watchdog Was Seen as an Obstacle in Iraq
- Bolton Often Blocked Information, Officials Say
- The New York Times and Iraq
- Washington Accuses Cuba of Germ-Warfare Research
- Cuba Bio Weapons Effort Revisited