Commenter Profile

Plato’s Infinite Scroll

April 12, 2016 8:36 am
 The first time I heard of Eliot Higgins was when The New Yorker published The Rocket Man /11/25/2013 issue - about a Brit ,34, liked Frank Zappa music, wrote the 'Brown Moses' blog and he was monitoring rockets fired in Syria.- me thinks 'sarin' crap. MoA  prgr 5: A short history of the war in Syria 9/14/2013 ........  ..... The US part in the plan was to provide the media and "global opinion" cover for the insurgency. ....... ///// Eliot Higgins in the last of 'Letters'  The Red line and the Rat Line by Seymour Hersh April 2014 ....... Letters: Richard Lloyd; Ted Postol Spokane,   Washington Massachusetts Institute of Technology: ...... Allinson is correct that the improvised rockets he calls Volcanoes each contained about fifty litres of sarin, but wrong in his claim that they were fired from a regime-held area ‘to the north’. These claims are not original, but repeat those of Eliot Higgins, a blogger who, although he has been widely quoted as an expert in the American mainstream media, has changed his facts every time new technical information has challenged his conclusion that the Syrian government must have been responsible for the sarin attack. In addition, the claims that Higgins makes that are correct are all derived from our findings, which have been transmitted to him in numerous exchanges. ....... It seems that Eliot Higgins had been active during Libya/2011 too, according to the NYT : American held captive in Syria is released 4/8/2016 ....... And the great Frank Zappa here:

Rabbi Boteac wants Clinton to denounce Max Blumenthal – Patrick Goodenough/CNSNews (double article)

April 5, 2016 4:58 am
"In one email two days after the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Clinton referred to the younger Blumenthal as a “mitzvah” because of an article of his that appeared in The Guardian. The article strongly condemned the maker of “Innocence of Muslims,” the Youtube video that the Obama administration falsely blamed for sparking the Benghazi attacks." Chuck Ross   The trailer of the 'Innocence of Muslims' was a deliberate to-offemd/inflame project. Reactioms were already happening next door, in Cairo on Sep. 11, 2012.  Even if the trailer is not to be found partialy responsible for motivating some of the ones that attacked the American Mission compound in Benghazi on Sep 12, chances are Muslims were reacting to the trailer all over Libya.   Pamela Geller's Blog Solicited Funds For anti-Muhammad Film Bruce Wilson Sun Sep 16, 2012  ..... As journalist Max Blumenthal declared, in a Thursday September....

How narratives killed the Syrian people – Sharmine Narwani/RT

April 1, 2016 4:04 am
 "A secret 2006 State Department cable reveals that Assad’s government was in a stronger position domestically and regionally than in recent years, and suggests ways to weaken it: “The following provides our summary of potential vulnerabilities and possible means to exploit them…” This is followed by a list of “vulnerabilities” – political, economic, ethnic, sectarian, military, psychological – and recommended “actions” on how to “exploit." Sharmine Narwani Later on : "Speaking on CNN’s Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that “the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran…. It’s the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world…and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.” Before on The Israel Lobby 3/23/2006 .... In short, Sharon and the Lobby took on the president of the United States and triumphed. Hemi Shalev, a journalist on the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv, reported that Sharon’s aides ‘could not hide their satisfaction in view of Powell’s failure. Sharon saw the whites of President Bush’s eyes, they bragged, and the president blinked first.’ But it was Israel’s champions in the United States, not Sharon or Israel, that played the key role in defeating Bush. The situation has changed little since then. The Bush administration refused ever again to have dealings with Arafat. After his death, it embraced the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, but has done little to help him. Sharon continued to develop his plan to impose a unilateral settlement on the Palestinians, based on ....... ..... Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors back in. ‘The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must,’ Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. ‘Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.’ At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that ‘the greatest risk now lies in inaction.’ His predecessor as prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled: ‘The Case for Toppling Saddam’. ‘Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,’ he declared. ‘I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.’ Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, ‘the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.’ ... Also, Dore Gold of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs preaching to Christians on Shia vs. Sunni CBN news Muslim against Muslim: Syria's secret war 7/14/2012 

What They Said – Philip Giraldi/The Unz Review

March 30, 2016 4:37 am
"To an extent, it evidently derives from the unsurpassed love that American politicians appear to have for Israel, a sentiment that was on display in its most effusive form last Monday at the annual summit meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known as AIPAC. I confess to having watched the Donald Trump speech live and in its entirety in the vain hope that he would tell AIPAC to get stuffed. " Philip Giraldi Try this prophetic cartoon: 8/20/2015

West Haven I-95 billboard on USS Liberty is anti-Israel, critics charge – James Walker/New Haven Register

April 1, 2016 8:07 am
"But Steve Ginsburg, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League-Connecticut, said that while the words themselves are not anti-Semitic, “the misleading ad targets Israel and that can have an anti-Semitic impact.” " article  The Israel Lobby 3/23/2006 ...... No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of. ...

Is the ISIS Behind the Brussels Attacks? Who is Behind the ISIS? – Prof Michel Chossudovsky/Global Research

March 26, 2016 3:17 am
Israel Science Minister links attacks to'Foolish rebukes of Israel/Haaretz" C&D CBN news  Netanyahu Accuses Europe of 'Appeasing Terrorists' Dec. 2014 Back to the tricks: Transcript:  MW Back to theatrics: Netanyahu'd AIPAC speech, including videos about Palestinians, the IDF 3/22/2016

Is There a US-Russia Grand Bargain in Syria? – Pepe Escobar/InformationClearingHouse

March 21, 2016 5:31 am
"In Syria, Moscow accomplished the outstanding feat of making Team Obama see the light beyond the fog of neo-con-instilled war, leading to a solution involving Syria’s chemical arsenal after Obama ensnared himself in his own red line. Obama owes it to Putin and Lavrov, who literally saved him not only from tremendous embarrassment but from yet another massive Middle East quagmire." Pepe Escobar Tell us oh ziomuse of John Kerry the sailor the Whirlwind negotiator getting " fucked over" Jeffrey Goldberg: "Friday, August 30, ......... the day the sagacious Barack Obama peered into the Middle Eastern abyss and stepped back from the consuming void—began with a thundering speech given on Obama’s behalf by his secretary of state, John Kerry, in Washington, D.C.     The subject of Kerry’s uncharacteristically Churchillian remarks, delivered in the Treaty Room at the State Department, was the gassing of civilians by the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. ........ But Kerry’s rousing remarks on that August day, which had been drafted in part by Rhodes, were threaded with righteous anger and bold promises, including the barely concealed threat of imminent attack. Kerry, like Obama himself, was horrified by the sins committed by the Syrian regime in its attempt to put down a two-year-old rebellion. In the Damascus suburb of Ghouta nine days earlier, Assad’s army had murdered more than 1,400 civilians with sarin gas. The strong sentiment inside the Obama administration was that Assad had earned dire punishment. ....... A year earlier, when the administration suspected that the Assad regime was contemplating the use of chemical weapons, Obama had declared: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime … that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” ..... ... I was told that Vice President Joe Biden repeatedly warned Obama against drawing a red line on chemical weapons, fearing that it would one day have to be enforced. ...... Kerry, in his remarks on August 30, 2013, suggested that Assad should be punished in part because the “credibility and the future interests of the United States of America and our allies” were at stake. .....  Ninety minutes later, at the White House, Obama reinforced Kerry’s message in a public statement: “It’s important for us to recognize that when over 1,000 people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children, through the use of a weapon that 98 or 99 percent of humanity says should not be used even in war, and there is no action, then we’re sending a signal that that international norm doesn’t mean much. And that is a danger to our national security.” ....... David Cameron, the British prime minister, had said, “Syria’s history is being written in the blood of her people, and it is happening on our watch.” Cameron’s statement, one of his advisers told me, was meant to encourage Obama toward more-decisive action. “The prime minister was certainly under the impression that the president would enforce the red line,” the adviser told me. The Saudi ambassador in Washington at the time, Adel al-Jubeir, told friends, and his superiors in Riyadh, that the president was finally ready to strike. Obama “figured out how important this is,” Jubeir, who is now the Saudi foreign minister, told one interlocutor. “He will definitely strike.” ....   All week, White House officials had publicly built the case that Assad had committed a crime against humanity. Kerry’s speech would mark the culmination of this campaign. ..... ....... The American people seemed unenthusiastic about a Syria intervention; so too did one of the few foreign leaders Obama respects, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. She told him that her country would not participate in a Syria campaign. And in a stunning development, on Thursday, August 29, the British Parliament denied David Cameron its blessing for an attack. John Kerry later told me that when he heard that, “internally, I went, Oops.”  Obama was also unsettled by a surprise visit early in the week from James Clapper, his director of national intelligence, who interrupted the President’s Daily Brief, the threat report Obama receives each morning from Clapper’s analysts, to make clear that the intelligence on Syria’s use of sarin gas, while robust, was not a “slam dunk.” ....... While the Pentagon and the White House’s national-security apparatuses were still moving toward war (John Kerry told me he was expecting a strike the day after his speech), the president had come to believe that he was walking into a trap—one laid both by allies and by adversaries, .... ...... Obama knew his decision not to bomb Syria would likely upset America’s allies. It did. The prime minister of France, Manuel Valls, told me .....  ....... The Saudis, too, were infuriated. They had never trusted Obama—he ...... ........ Obama’s decision caused tremors across Washington as well. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the two leading Republican hawks in the Senate, had met with Obama in the White House earlier in the week and had been promised an attack. They were angered by the about-face. Damage was done even inside the administration. Neither Chuck Hagel, then the secretary of defense, nor John Kerry was in the Oval Office when the president informed his team of his thinking. Kerry would not learn about the change until later that evening. “I just got fucked over,” he told a friend shortly after talking to the president that night. .... Obama understands that the decision he made to step back from air strikes, and to allow the violation of a red line he himself had drawn to go unpunished, will be interrogated mercilessly by historians.  .....  A widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders.  ..... ..... Gideon Rose, the editor of Foreign Affairs, wrote recently that Obama’s handling of this crisis—“first casually announcing a major commitment, then dithering about living up to it, then frantically tossing the ball to Congress for a decision—was a case study in embarrassingly amateurish improvisation. .... .... [Obama] ".... When we deploy troops, there’s always a sense on the part of other countries that, even where necessary, sovereignty is being violated.” Over the past year, John Kerry has visited the White House regularly to ask Obama to violate Syria’s sovereignty. On several occasions, Kerry has asked Obama to launch missiles at specific regime targets, under cover of night, to “send a message” to the regime. The goal, Kerry has said, is not to overthrow Assad but to encourage him, and Iran and Russia, to negotiate peace. When the Assad alliance has had the upper hand on the battlefield, as it has these past several months, it has shown no inclination to take seriously Kerry’s entreaties to negotiate in good faith. ......  What has struck me is that, even as his secretary of state warns about a dire Syria-fueled European apocalypse, Obama has not recategorized the country's civil war as a top-tier security threat.  Obama’s hesitation to join the battle for Syria is held out as proof by his critics that he is too naive; his decision in 2013 not to fire missiles is proof, they argue, that he is a bluffer. .......

From Hillary Clinton’s Email Archive: “New Iran and Syria” – Wikileaks

March 19, 2016 10:49 am
"Date: 2000-12-31 22:00" top probably Date: 2012-12-31 22:00

Obama Is Right: America Can’t Fix the Middle East – Aaron David Miller/POLITICO

March 15, 2016 5:18 am
"Yet the president is right to be skeptical about American intervention in the region" Aaron David Miller   Well, it depends on how they define "American intervention". While a few million Palestinians are still being 'dominated' by zionists and while ISIS is occupying 35,000 square miles in eastern Syria and western Iraq and while Aleppo is swarmed with jihadists and while the "chaos" is prolonged by a bunch of outsiders trying to re-draw the map of the ME and creating all kinds of 'spill-overs', the Obama Adm. is trying to keep the most secular of the Arab leaders busy with their so-called 'moderate opposition'. Is this "American intervention" of the 'S&M' kind?:  "We just want to insure that the regime can’t defeat the opposition.” from The Vortex The Vortex / The New Yorker 12/8/2016  p.23 Syria is the most complicated war in the Middle East in the last one hundred years,” Anne Patterson, the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Middle East policy, told me after she returned from Gaziantep. Later, in an e-mail, she added, “The Syria crisis defies simple solutions. But we have an obligation, based on our national-security interests in the region and as leaders of the international community with humanitarian obligations, to help bring it to an end.” NYT Syrian Opposition Groups Sense US Support fading 2/9/2016 (7) American-backed insurgents have long been used to the American stance in recent years, that the United States did not want them to actually win the war — lest a sudden toppling of Mr. Assad lead to Islamist rule — but wanted to prevent them from losing for long enough to pressure the government to negotiate for a political solution. The Vortex 12/8/2014 p. 44  The premise of U.S. policy toward Syria is that the rebels need help in continuing to hold territory. The goal is to put sufficient pressure on Assad to eventually get him to meet the opposition at the negotiating table. “No one believes there is a military solution to this problem,” a senior Administration official told me. “We want to rebalance the situation on the ground. It’s not by making them”—the rebels—“militarily stronger, so that they can then march in and take over Damascus. We don’t believe that is how the story will end. We just want to insure that the regime can’t defeat the opposition.” ..... p. 31, 32 More than two hundred thousand Syrians have been killed in the war. More than ten million—almost half the population—have fled the country or been forcibly displaced from their homes. More than half of the refugees are children, according to UNICEF. “The scale of the human tragedy in Syria is among the most brutal of any conflict since the end of the Second World War,” Raul Rosende, who is the deputy U.N. humanitarian-aid coördinator for Syria, told me. Turkey has taken in 1.6 million refugees, including three hundred thousand in Gaziantep; more cross the border every day. At the Arin Mirxan camp, near Kobani, I found more than three thousand people squeezed into four hundred gray tents. Kids, who were idling in dirt alleys, raced over to talk to me through the wire fence; there’s little else to do. It was one of four new camps within a few miles of one another, established since the assault on Kobani. At least three million Syrian children are no longer in school. “We fear this will be a lost generation, not only because they are not in school but because a lot of the new gangs will turn them into criminals or extremists,” Fawaz Mahmoud, the Syrian Interim Government’s deputy minister of education, told me. “It’s like the ground. Whatever you seed, you will grow. And the ground in Syria is horrible right now.” Daily Star Organization of Islamic Cooperation suspends Syria 8/16/12 .....  .... Syrian rebels opposition to be armed, which FM Saud al- Faisal described in February as "an excellent idea"......

The Obama Doctrine: Jeffrey Goldberg/The Atlantic

March 23, 2016 9:17 am
 The Chicago antiwar rally, 2002 by Jeffrey Goldberg, David Remnick and  Barack Obama  The Obama Doctrine ",,,,, The message Obama telegraphed in speeches and interviews was clear: He would not end up like the second President Bush—a president who became tragically overextended in the Middle East, whose decisions filled the wards of Walter Reed with grievously wounded soldiers, who was helpless to stop the obliteration of his reputation, even when he recalibrated his policies in his second term. Obama would say privately that the first task of an American president in the post-Bush international arena was “Don’t do stupid shit.” .......... I first spoke with obama about foreign policy when he was a U.S. senator, in 2006. At the time, I was familiar mainly with the text of a speech he had delivered four years earlier, at a Chicago antiwar rally. It was an unusual speech for an antiwar rally in that it was not antiwar; Obama, who was then an Illinois state senator, argued only against one specific and, at the time, still theoretical, war. “I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein,” he said. “He is a brutal man. A ruthless man … But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors.” He added, “I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.” This speech had made me curious about its author. I wanted to learn how an Illinois state senator, a part-time law professor who spent his days traveling between Chicago and Springfield, had come to a more prescient understanding of the coming quagmire than the most experienced foreign-policy thinkers of his party, including such figures as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Kerry, not to mention, of course, most Republicans and many foreign-policy analysts and writers, including me. ..... This article is informed by our recent series of conversations, which took place in the Oval Office; over lunch in his dining room; aboard Air Force One; and in Kuala Lumpur during his most recent visit to Asia, in November. It is also informed by my previous interviews with him and by his speeches and prolific public ruminations, as well as by...... ..., Obama’s patience with Saudi Arabia has always been limited. In his first foreign-policy commentary of note, that 2002 speech at the antiwar rally in Chicago, he said, “You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East—the Saudis and the Egyptians—stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality.”  ....  .... Obama...... " I don’t think anybody thought that George W. Bush was overly rational or cautious in his use of military force. .....  .....  “The central argument is that by keeping America from immersing itself in the crises of the Middle East, the foreign-policy establishment believes that the president is precipitating our decline,” Ben Rhodes told me. “But the president himself takes the opposite view, which is that overextension in the Middle East will ultimately harm our economy, harm our ability to look for other opportunities and to deal with other challenges, and, most important, endanger the lives of American service members for reasons that are not in the direct American national-security interest.” Jeffrey Goldberg .......  Negotiating the Whirlwind / 2015 "The most consequential political act of Obama’s early career was a brief appearance, in 2002, at an antiwar demonstration in Federal Plaza, in downtown Chicago, where he declared that the impending invasion of Iraq was “dumb” and would “require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” That speech set him apart from both Kerry and Clinton, who, as senators, voted to give Bush the right to use force in Iraq, and it set the ideological template for his foreign policy, not least on Syria. " David Remnick   Barack Obama 10/26/2002 I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. NYT: Iraq War Judged a Mistake by Today's White House Hopefuls By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS MAY 17, 2015  from Plato's Guns: "US intelligence chiefs are far more outspoken these days than their counterparts in Britain about the calamitous consequences of US-led foreign interventions over the past 12 years. None more so than General Michael Flynn, recently retired head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence arm, who says bluntly in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel that the Iraq war “was a huge error. As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him. The same is true for Muammar Gaddafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to get into Iraq. History will not be and should not be kind to that decision.” "
March 25, 2016 8:28 am
 ------- "priority" -------  The Obama Doctrine  ....... " ...... This is why the fight against ISI, a group he considers to be a direct, though not existential, threat to the U.S., is his most urgent priority for the remainder of his presidency; killing the so-called caliph of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is one of the top goals of the American national-security apparatus in Obama’s last year. Of course, ISIS was midwifed into existence, in part, by the Assad regime. Yet by Obama’s stringent standards, Assad’s continued rule for the moment still doesn’t rise to the level of direct challenge to America’s national security."  Jeffrey Goldberg NPR A Day After Brussels Attacks Search for Suspects Continues 3/23/2016 Speaking at a press conference in Argentina, President Obama expressed "extraordinary sorrow" for the attacks in Brussels. He said the U.S. will offer any assistance that it can in the investigation. "We will also continue to go after ISIL aggressively until it is removed from Syria and removed from Iraq and finally destroyed," he said, using another term for the Islamic State. "This is my No. 1 priority," he said later. "My top priority is to defeat ISIL and to eliminate the scourge of this barbaric terrorism that's been taking place around the world." ...... Roger Cohen/NYT 3/22/2016 ..... The San Bernardino, Calif., rampage by Islamic State sympathizers has already happened. The question raised most urgently by the Brussels attacks, so soon after Paris, is whether and why Raqqa can be tolerated when Al Qaeda’s Tora Bora sanctuary in Afghanistan was not. ......
March 29, 2016 7:12 am
"The arrangement won the president praise from, of all people, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, with whom he has had a consistently contentious relationship. ...... ... The president’s unwillingness to counter the baiting by American adversaries can feel emotionally unsatisfying, I said, and I told him that every so often, I’d like to see him give Vladimir Putin the finger. It’s atavistic, I said, understanding my audience." Geffrey Goldberg Hey Jeffrey Goldberg, try this "the finger" and "one-fingered salute" Comment is free Israel and America: Foolish tricks The Guardian,     Saturday 13 March 2010 ...., Instead of embracing Mr Biden, Israel showed him the finger, choosing the very day of his visit to announce the construction of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem.  ...... Little wonder that President Obama was said to be "incandescent with anger", spending 90 minutes on the phone to his deputy drafting a statement of condemnation rare for its ferocity. //// Israel slapped America  and may have jolted Obama awake Jonathan Freedland Tuesday 16 March 2010 One explanation is the face-value one: that Obama was "incandescent with rage" at the one-fingered salute that greeted his deputy, and even more furious at Netanyahu's subsequent attempts at an apology. ... d-america-bibi-hillary
March 12, 2016 5:05 am
"The president believes that Churchillian rhetoric and, more to the point, Churchillian habits of thought, helped bring his predecessor, George W. Bush, to ruinous war in Iraq.  ..... George W. Bush was also a gambler, not a bluffer. He will be remembered harshly for the things he did in the Middle East" ..... Jeffrey Goldberg Jeffrey Goldberg / Wikipedia Iraq In “The Great Terror”, the article that Goldberg wrote for the New Yorker in 2002 during the run-up to the Iraq war, Goldberg argued that the threat posed to America by Saddam Hussein was significant. The article opened with a vivid description of Hussein’s Al-Anfal Campaign, including his regime’s use of poison gas at Halabja.[10] Goldberg goes on to relate detailed allegations of a close relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda, which Goldberg says he “later checked with experts on the region.”[10] Goldberg argues that: “If these charges are true, it would mean that the relationship between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda is far closer than previously thought.”[10] Goldberg concludes his article with a discussion of the Iraqi nuclear program, saying that “There is some debate among arms-control experts about exactly when Saddam will have nuclear capabilities. But there is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them soon… There is little doubt what Saddam might do with an atomic bomb or with his stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”[10] In a late 2002 debate in Slate, Goldberg described Hussein as “uniquely evil” and advocated an invasion on a moral basis.[24] Glenn Greenwald called Goldberg “one of the leading media cheerleaders for the attack on Iraq,” claiming that “he compiled a record of humiliating falsehood-dissemination in the run-up to the war that rivaled Judy Miller’s both in terms of recklessness and destructive impact.” Jeffrey Goldberg has never faced ‘pundit reckoning’ for pushing Iraq war By Philip Weiss on June 11, 2015  For more "Iraq War" Blunder see:

Can Obama Level with the People? – Robert Parry/Consortiumnews

February 24, 2016 8:29 am
More WINEP  The Economist    2nd to last paragraph Syria's War Assad on the Offensive  2/13/2016  ...... ..... Washington Institute, a think tank. 

Dick Cheney Denounces Nuclear Deal With Iran as ‘Madness’ – Peter Baker/The New York Times

April 8, 2016 7:23 am
"In a full-throated speech to supporters at the American Enterprise Institute here, Mr. Cheney argued that Mr. Obama and his team had abandoned their own criteria for a meaningful agreement and acquiesced to “an intricately crafted capitulation”...  ..... Outside the Washington headquarters of the institute, a handful of protesters held signs like “Arrest Dick Cheney for War Crimes.” And inside the hall where he spoke, a protester interrupted by shouting: “Why should we be listening to him? He was wrong in Iraq. He’s wrong in Iran.” ....... Among those in the audience were Ms. Cheney, Senator Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican who has led opposition to the agreement, and former colleagues from the George W. Bush administration, including Paul D. Wolfowitz and Eric S. Edelman." Peter Baker/ NYT  AEI on BBC: View point: The end of the neo -cons? 9 February 2009 Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs looks back at the rise and fall of the neo-cons, who encouraged George Bush to invade Iraq ........ Critics of neo-conservativism have sometimes sought to portray it as an exclusively Jewish phenomenon. But while many of the best-known neo-cons are Jewish, this is incorrect. In Washington DC, the favourite neo-con think tank was the American Enterprise Institute. Here they authored a series of papers arguing for a more forceful US foreign policy, the centre-point of which was a rejection of conventional negotiations on the Palestine/Israel peace process. Instead, they harboured the much bolder ambition of a US-instigated region-wide democratic transformation. The first phase was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein - which, they believed, would have a sort of "demonstrator effect" on the region. .. High-water mark Their opportunity came with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. More than anyone else they had a well-prepared strategy which matched the need of the day for a bold, decisive response. No-one else came close to them in having a ready-to-go action plan. Suddenly, their ideas of democratic transformation looked like a reasonable policy option. Their proposals to attack Iraq rapidly moved to centre stage. Clearly, the neo-cons were not the only - or even the main - actors in bringing about the Iraq war. But the key fact remains it was their ideas that ensured that the US response to 9/11 would go beyond Afghanistan. They were, without doubt, the intellectual godfathers of the war. ...