Today on Blogcritics
Home » Iraq: Forget WMD, It Was A Smokescreen

Iraq: Forget WMD, It Was A Smokescreen

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Forget about the WMD, it was a smokescreen. The President knew it, the VP knew it, the Republicans knew it, and the Democrats knew it. It was a sales tool to get the world to accept the invasion of Iraq. WMD was one of several reasons for the attack. The others were complicated, difficult to sell to the American public and ‘unmentionable in public. Iraq was the second stage of a long range plan to transform the Middle East and destroy Al Qaeda in the process.

We often think of foreign affairs in a simplistic terms. Someone hits us, we hit back. I don’t think we, as Americans, are well known for subtle diplomacy. However in this case it might help to take a longer view. It is not hard to think of the Middle East as a social and political sewer, where dictators and extremists control almost all aspects of society.

Yes, there are some exceptions, but not many. Most countries are breeding grounds for Muslims extremists. Iran is a growing problem. Saudi Arabia was the home of most of the hijackers and is the center of Wahabi Islam, the most extreme of the extremists. Syria supports terrorists and, at the time of 9/11, completely dominated Lebanon. Egypt practices a dictatorial “democracy” with a growing militant populace. Libya was developing nuclear weapons and supporting supporting terrorism, and Pakistan was a strong supporter of the Taliban. There is more, but you get the idea.

After deposing the Taliban, the U.S. faced a next-move problem, what to do? Bush and the neocons were not blind to history in Afghanistan. They had no intention of making the same mistake the British and Russians made. The U.S. wanted a friendlier government in Afghanistan, not necessarily a Western style democracy. Capturing bin Laden was less important than destroying the foundation of his support. Looking at the long term, the government, led by the White House, saw Iraq as the next logical step. They would eliminate Saddam, a truly bad guy, begin the transformation of the region by installing a democracy, assuming they were successful.

By invading Iraq, eliminating Saddam, and setting up a democratic government, they would achieve a number of goals. One, a developing democracy and the military presence of the U.S. would force the Saudis to make some substantial internal changes. They would clamp down on extremist groups and stop the transfer of money to terrorist groups. There was also the hope that they would implement some more personal freedoms, especially for women. Two, Iran might throttle back its support of terrorism with the U.S. right on its border. Three, Syria, Libya and other problem states would change policies if they thought the U.S. might target them next. Fourth, countries in the region could institute political reform. This is a very broad brush stroke view, but it does provide a wider perspective of the invasion.

The result is obviously tainted by the disastrous implementation of the war. However, there have been some successes. Libya definitely changed its policies very quickly. Syria moved out of Lebanon, and has been cooperating with the U.S. in several ways. The Saudis made a couple of gestures to political freedom and are cracking down more on extremists. Pakistan is now our ally, as is Afghanistan. Palestine had democratic elections. We certainly don’t like the result, but they were fair according to official observers. Who knows how the long term might work out? The situation with Iran is a mess, but that seems more a case of our ineptitude than their genius. If we had managed the invasion properly, the situation with Iran could be vastly different.

I don’t want to minimize the problems with this war, as Iraq totters on the brink of chaos. I think we all know the nature of the Bush Administration’s management skills by now. Say what you will about Our Illustrious Leader (OIL), I don’t like him, but if you think in the longer term, 20-30 years, and as something exceedingly complex, covering a whole region, with numerous players, and the U.S. having many shifting alliances with not so perfect partners, the invasion makes sense.

The American electorate would never have bought this involved reasoning for war. The policy didn’t fit 5-word sound bites they can understand. One only has to read the various surveys indicating things like 20% of America still think Saddam had direct involvement with bin Laden and 9/11, or that only 40% of Americans believe in evolution, 13% do not know what a molecule is, 1/5 of Americans still think the Sun circles the Earth, and only about half know that humans did not live during the time of dinosaurs (NYT) to understand why some of our leaders have little respect for the intelligence of the public. They have good reason.

Congress agreed to the smokescreen because they understood the issues. We face a truly dangerous foe, requiring new tactics. This war is one move in a high stakes chess game, destined to last many years. Bush told us this would be a long war, fought on many fronts, across more than his administration. He knows it, so does Congress. Many of us, including the media, forgot his words. The Democrats and Republicans are now using the WMD issue for their own political purposes with the upcoming Congressional elections. They still cannot tell us why they voted to support the President after 9/11, but they can use the smokescreen against G.W. for his mismanagement, which is substantial.

We should keep this long term view in mind before we uncategorically demand a withdrawal of troops. We are trying to do more than install one democracy in the Middle East. The longer goal is right, though our methods are faulty. That is what needs to change.

Powered by

About Chip Spear

  • [MR]Chip

    Libya had been laying diplomatic groundwork for years (see the involvement of Ghadaffi’s son in Italy). Syria is cooperating with the US by, eh, torturing their prisoners for them? Pakistan, the great nuclear proliferator and motherland of the Taliban, is not an ally. It’s walking a tightrope. Palestine had elections before. Iran is the big winner in this situation, they can do what they want.

    You seem to be starting with your domino theory first and then looking for things that can back it up. Maybe next time try the other way around?

  • Shaun Omac

    I agree this administration as I said on the radio show last night, is wiping its collective asses with the constitution and the truth.

    King George and his minions must go !!!

  • JP

    Well written, thought provoking. Still, let’s think about this:

    1. It is well documented that there were more reasons. “For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.” – Wolfowitz, 5/28/03.

    2. By not explaining all the rationale and waiting to build a consensus, don’t you set yourself up to lose public support when the house of cards falls?

    3. You say the M.E. is a “social and political sewer” and that many countries are breeding grounds for Muslim extremists. Doesn’t the long history of Western manipulation of the Middle East (Britain’s carving up of Iraq included) factor into why this might be? So to solve the mess the West created, the West must manipulate even more?

    4. Exactly what are we “Remaking” the Middle East into? A safe place without terrorists that will “leave us alone”, or a place friendly to American business and willing to sell us oil? The implications are vastly different. We’re being sold the first while actually seeking the second, and this is a big problem.

    5. About distrust of the average American’s judgment, the constant barrage of propaganda from the Bush Administration is one of the main reasons people continue to believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. That’s an effect, not a cause.

    6. We can’t just yank troops out, but we should be planning a departure. Our presence IS one of the biggest destabilizing factors in Iraq now. We can’t rebuild the world in a business-friendly way, per PNAC, if we can’t even run our own country well. Thru Abu Garib we’ve lost any claim to moral superiority that we might’ve had.

  • gonzo marx

    oh my..and here i had thought the card carrying NeoCon Apologists were about extinct

    except for the World Bank and the VP’s office, of course

    but i digress…


  • Pratyush

    It took this long to realise WMD wasnt the real agenda for attacking Iraq?

  • gonzo marx

    no…it took this long for the NeoCon types, and the rest of the GOP…to admit it


  • Kane

    Ha, the left’s trying to “smokescreen” General Sada (and the other General who’s name I can’t recall… Al-Tikriti or something), reports of the Russians helping to move Iraq’s WMDs, the reports of unchecked WMD sites in Iraq, and of course the Saddam Tapes. I’ve seen one response, and it was to the tapes. “Right wing BS”. And they moved on. Pathetic. Oh, and if you still think “Well we would have noticed the WMDs being moved!” you need to read about it more before you talk.

  • ss

    Why not invest in Jordan in exchange for further democratization/secularization? Why not make Jordan the beacon of hope and change in the Middle East? How about better trade deals with Turkey if they stop jailing journalists and authors?
    I know most of you will say ‘oil’, and you’re not wrong about us wanting to secure oil, but there was another reason.
    War. Sadam gave Bush what he really needed, an evil dictator to justify a war when Bush really needed one.
    Creating a country freedom and democracy can spread from in the Middle East is still a good idea.
    We just have to believe in it so much we’ll commit to it when all we get out of the deal is peace.

  • skeptic

    “One only has to read the various surveys indicating things like 20% of America still think Saddam had direct involvement with bin Laden and 9/11, or that only 40% of Americans believe in evolution, 13% do not know what a molecule is, 1/5 of Americans still think the Sun circles the Earth, and only about half know that humans did not live during the time of dinosaurs…”

    I don’t believe the percentages are that high.

  • first grader

    I always suspected that rednecks are linguistically challenged,

  • RogerMDillon

    Everyone knows that 73% of percentages are made-up.

  • WB

    Do you guys read or watch the news as of yesterday they admitted that we have tapes going back to 1989 linking bin laden to iraq. Just so happens saddam taped all of his meeting and they are now being made public. Not only that but the u.s intel knew for a fact that bin laden’s op’s guy met with iraqi intel in the phillipines in 2000 why they havent admitted it I don’t know. We also know that the russians helped move the wmd’s out of iraq days before our invassion and dummped them in the baltic sea we are not guessing we know.

  • mike

    the invasion of Iraq was a good idea in theory it was purely aimed at destroying iraq-iran-syria axis, it had indeed worked in a way after all we really do not care what happens in iraq as long as its decentralized it is pliable and poses no danger. syria is all but finished with almost no oil and near total isoaltion what will let it survive? Iran on the other hand is not finished and it would of been much more sensible to attack iran first which would of weakened the shia terrorist, and destroyed syria more rapidly leaving only saddam who was weakened by decade of isolation to stand

  • mike

    the invasion of Iraq was a good idea in theory it was purely aimed at destroying iraq-iran-syria axis, it had indeed worked in a way after all we really do not care what happens in iraq as long as its decentralized it is pliable and poses no danger. syria is all but finished with almost no oil and near total isoaltion what will let it survive? Iran on the other hand is not finished and it would of been much more sensible to attack iran first which would of weakened the shia terrorist, and destroyed syria more rapidly leaving only saddam who was weakened by decade of isolation to stand

  • ThatGayConservative

    What was the reason, again, for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which was signed by lord BJ?

  • Joanie

    Chip, I’m really impressed with your vision on long term foreign policy. Really, really impressed. Thank you for this.

  • Dave Nalle

    This isn’t exactly a revelation. I made essentially the same observation a year and a half ago.

    Iraq just happens to be in a great location and was vulnerable. The real objective is to pressure its much more dangerous neighbors and destabilize the region.


  • JP

    WB, you must be talking about this nonsense. The point of this is it’s really irrelavent whether there were WMD.

    I have suggested to friends in the past (usually over a few drinks! lol) that even if an “anti-war” President were elected, if that’s even possible, there are forces beyond the President’s control that would continue this initiative even if he didn’t want it. Some terrorist act or some act of aggression by one of the nations involved would demand that we become involved over the President’s wishes.

    The sad thing is we’ve handled Iraq so badly that we’ve weakened our ability to handle the real threats, Iran and N. Korea. But, we demanded a Shrubbery, and we got one!

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    I’ve mentioned before, and I’ll remind you all again. If the gun isn’t aimed at your head, it is easy to ignore it. The WMD’s were not aimed at you – they were aimed at us. We had every reason to pay attention to them. We still do.

    Saddam Hussein envisioned himself as a latter-day Nebuhhadnetzar – you know, the guy who destroyed Solomon’s Temple when Jeremiah was still around to write his jeremiads… Ssddam Hussein even had a new version of the city of Babylon built for himself with pictures of him instead of the ancient Babylonian emperor. He had the goal of repeating Nebuhhadnetzar’s achievement. Wiping out the Jewish state.

    The WMD’s were moved out of the country before the Americans attacked – why, I can’t tell you. Does it matter now with respect to your debate over whether you should have soldiers there? No. I just have the nasty feeling that we in Israel have not heard the last of them.

  • nitpicker

    Dave believes:

    “Iraq just happens to be in a great location and was vulnerable. The real objective is to pressure its much more dangerous neighbors and destabilize the region.”

    Destabilize the region?

    If so, it was a great success.

    We have succeeded in paying more for energy and running up our trade imbalance even more.

    I’m sure the next chapter will give us even more success.

  • Dave Nalle

    Nit, I don’t ‘just happen to believe’ anything. I draw conclusions based on evidence and logic.

    And yes, that’s why we picked Iraq. Even if we failed, the destabilization of a civil war would still produce a very desirable chaos in the region and divert a lot of resources from neighboring countries. Kind of like removing the dampening rods in a nuclear reactor and letting it melt down.


  • nitpicker

    It is likely we will achieve the melt down in the next chapter.

  • nitpicker

    Dave’s conclusion:

    “And yes, that’s why we picked Iraq. “Even if we failed, the destabilization of a civil war would still produce a very desirable chaos in the region…”

    If destabilization was our objective, we could have saved over 2,200 American lives and up to a trillion dollars by simply lobbing a few dozen cruise missiles at the mosques in Iraq.

  • Dave Nalle

    The cruise missiles at the mosques would have just gotten them angrier at us and done nothing for us. Now we have them angry at the Wahabbis and at least relatively neutral towards us. A much better situation.


  • nitpicker

    If chaos is the objective, the missiles would have caused more chaos.

    The more anger, the more chaos.

    It doesn’t matter who made them mad.

    What we have been doing in the Middle East is like poking at a hornet nest.

    The more we poke. the madder they get.

  • Dave Nalle

    Chaos for them, but not for us, nit. You aren’t following terribly closely here. The point is not to just make them randomly angry, but to make them disorganized, distracted and too busy with their own problems to cause more for us. It does matter who made them mad, because anger at an outside source would help bring them together – as it is against Al Qaeda.


  • JP

    “Relatively neutral”? By that do you mean that, per the ABC poll of Iraqis from last December, “two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq”?

  • Dave Nalle

    JP, read the poll sometime. What they take as 2/3 opposing the presence of the US is actually 2/3 supporting a slow withdrawal over 6 months to two years. You might want to read this recent poll.


  • nitpicker

    Dave says: “Chaos for them, but not for us”

    I’d say we should be more concerned about the chaos here.

    We have more chaos in our country now than before we started this “beneficial” war.

    Dave says: “The point is not to just make them randomly angry, but to make them disorganized, distracted and too busy with their own problems to cause more for us.”

    I’d say the point is Americans have become more angry, disorganized, distracted and too busy with Iraq’s problems.

    Dave says: “It does matter who made them mad, because anger at an outside source would help bring them together.”

    You think we brought them together?

    You aren’t following terribly closely here.

    Dave says: “You might want to read this recent poll.”

    Your referenced poll is designed to limit responses.

    Beware of a poll which asks questions such as

    “Which of the following would you like?”

    Doesn’t cover all the bases, does it?

  • JP

    Yes, that poll has limited answers, and it also shows that as many as 47% of Iraqis approve of attacks on our forces. If we wanted chaos and disorganization, we’ve sure found it.

    And nitpicker, I do agree it’s contributed to the polarization of opinion in this country. Sad but true.

  • ss

    A year ago it was the wahabis who wanted to start a civil war in Iraq. Now that we’re knee deep in this decade’s version of the Lebanese civil war, it turns out destabilizing Iraq was Bush’s brilliant plan all along?
    Dave I’m real sorry Clinton passed an assualt weapons ban and raised your taxes, but the gymnastics you’ll go through to justify the mistakes of anyone not Clinton would be funny if they weren’t so painful to watch.

  • ss

    And to everyone peddling the ‘the WMD’s were in Iraq, but now they’re in ____.’ arguement.
    You’re actually lucky people dismiss this arguement out of hand.
    If there were WMD’s in Iraq when we invaded (extremely unlikely, but possible), they could be anywhere now.
    That’s not really a good outcome.
    You actually make Bush sound more dangerously incompetent when you make that arguement.

  • Dave Nalle

    SS if you had a clue you’d be dangerous, at least to yourself.

    I’ve spent more time defending Clinton over the last decade than I have defending Bush.

    And as for the WMDs, the argument is only that they are in Syria, and the people making it are the Iraqi officials who moved them there.


  • ss

    On this thread they’ve already been moved from Syria to Russia to the Bottom of the Baltic.
    All I’m saying is Blix was probably right, and if he was wrong all you people who insist there were WMD’s are basiclly admitting they are no longer in Iraq and you can’t say with any certainty where they are now.
    You can quote more unreliable sources to claim you do know the location of these non existant weapons, as you quoted unreliable sources when you backed an invasion that produced no WMD’s in Iraq, all to maintain your fairy tale arguement, but it just strengthens my contention that you don’t know what you’re talking about, you blindly follow leaders who don’t know what they’re talking about, and it’s time these leaders and their followers stepped aside.
    It hardly matters, since most people believe Blix was right and Bush was wrong, but in your absolute refusal to admit a mistake, you’re actually imagining a far more dangerous scenario concerning WMD’s today than the one that existed before the invasion.
    Which is a completely assinine defense of the invasion.

  • Dave Nalle

    I don’t know about people who think the WMDs are in Russia or some other loony place. The only evidence I’ve seen shows them being moved to Syria, and that wasn’t full blown WMDs, but the materials and hardware associated with their manufacture. It’s clear that stuff was moved to Syria, but it’s equally clear that it was more in the nature of the ability to make WMDs rather than actual WMDs themselves.

    The point of this article has nothing to do with whether there were WMDs in Iraq or whether they are somewhere else now, it’s more about why the invasion was necessary regardless of the existence of WMDs, and it’s a valid perspective. And I’m not sure it’s even a defense of the invasion, more of an explanation. This article is really very cautious on the subject – hardly a full-blown pro-Bush defense.


  • nitpicker

    Dave is a die-hard neo-con but he tries to deny it.

    He tries to hide his neo-con allegiance but most see through the masquerade.

  • Dave Nalle

    Nit, if you think I’m a Neocon then you either have no idea what Neocons believe or haven’t been paying much attention to what I’ve been saying. I actually despise Neocons even more than I do the soft-headed corrupters of the mainstream left.


  • nitpicker


    You are correct that both sides are corrupt.

    But the fact remains that most of your posts show that you are a neo-con fellow traveler.

  • http://wildblueyounder hophop

    Well the WMD were all over the net 2001,2,3& 4.
    Ariel views of them as to where they are buried, witnesses on nationwide talk radio telling you the same. Satalite photos of Russian trucks moving them around in Iraq in 2002 before we went in there has all been on the net for everyone to see.
    Just prior to us going in Iraq a train load was derailed by a covert opps escaping to another country. Some went to Syria, some through Lebanon to the sea and loaded on ships. You see 40% of Russian gnp was selling Saddom and others WMD, and France was about 28% and smaller amount for 2 other countries. In Nov 2002 Bush and Putin met, Putin told GW “If you go into Iraq they will never pay us the $8 billion they owe us” “Will the American people pay us”? Bush said No! i speculate they agreed for Putin to send in his covert opps to remove them and we were watching from the heavens. In the 1970’s i attended a Gold mining Convention. They had these electronic devises that can go on a belly of an aircraft and see pockets of different minerals deep under ground. That was in the 1970’s. Our technology is by far better now.
    There was this story on the net that was saying Saddam, Syria leader and Arafat had plans of being King, Queen and Bishop of the entire Arab group of nations. Well King and Bishop are history and Queen is in hot water. According to the site the King was in the process of loading Bio Weapons on unmaned aircraft headed for Israel. Israel knew they were coming and was going to seriously retailiate and too many would die. So about mid Sept. 2002 100 aircraft hit Iraq and area. Tracking and Missile sites were hit. Numerous nations took part. This is one reason Iraq was such a push over when we finally invaded.
    Have you heard about the swamp we drained with 200,000 bodies of females in it. I have heard Saddams Sister 3 times on Radio saying he killed 2 million in the 20 years he was in power. 100,000 per year average?? GWB did the right thing going in Iraq for what ever reason. He will do the right thing for humanity cause that’s the kind of fellow he is. His wife is the best liked first lady the white house security folks have ever had in there. Dick Cheney and wife are very similar decent folks. Dick never wanted to be VP. But he’s a good one.

    I invite all you disbelievers of GWB and company to go to “CPUSA.Org” read several pages! Then “Think” what Congress Repesentatives, what New Medias Parallel this site. Then add the “duck”, You know: If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck! Probably it’s s Duck! Now you will know whom set these radicle Isamics against the Christians, Buddist and Hindus and others. Does G. Soros fit that mold??? Isn’t it his $$$ that funds “”?
    A long time ago i lived with a Buddist, very smart fellow. Said the Average American would not know a C.P. folk if he was sitting on his nose. That is so so true. Learn how to THINK folks. Remember: Karl Marks favorite words: “Accuse others as you are, it works.”

  • hip hip hooray

    In the 1970’s I also attended a convention. Those presenting had devices that can be loaded into the belly of an spacecraft and see through the clothing of people on earth unless the people are deep under ground.

    Representatives of the government were there to tell those attending about things that made their minds spin more and more . Most attendees had been smoking a sweet smelling weed that made them relax and believe everything they were told.

    They were told to THINK positive and anything could be believed.

    They were told to remember the famous words of Richard Nixon: “I am not a crook even if it appears that way.“

    Always remember that anything is possible – if you just believe in what your government tells you.

  • Dave Nalle

    But the fact remains that most of your posts show that you are a neo-con fellow traveler.

    Ok, Nit. Tell me what you think the Neocon agenda is and then show me how anything I say fits into it.

    It’s about time for Godwin’s law to be amended with Nalle’s Corollary, which applies the same rule to the gratuitous use of ‘Neocon’ that Godwin applies to ‘Nazi’. I’ll email my old pal Mike and see if he approves.


  • nitpicker

    C’mon Dave, being a neo-con isn’t the worst mistake a person can make (although it’s close).

    Someday you might look back and laugh at it.

    Come out of the closet now and it’ll make you feel better.

  • Dave Nalle

    If the Neocons weren’t diametrically opposed to everything I believe in then I might not have a problem, and I agree that they’re no more evil than the one-worlders or the religious right. But I don’t like any of those groups or want to be associated with them either.


  • nitpicker

    I believe Dave has reconsidered and now he sees the light.

    He says he has converted.

    Let’s hope he doesn’t have a relapse.

  • Dave Nalle

    Converted to what, Nit? You have a real penchant for incomplete thought processes.


  • notpicker

    Admission from a neo-con that he has changed from a neo-con to a non neo-con is a conversion.

  • Dave Nalle

    Nit, I never said I was a Neocon, nor have I ever written anything supporting Neocon doctrines, so how can I convert from something whcih I never was?

    You seem to have some problems with the logical flow here.


  • nitpicker

    Let’s take a vote.

    I say that Dave is a neo-con.

  • Dave Nalle

    I’m pretty much sure that you can’t actually determine my personal thoughts and beliefs by an electoral process, Nit.


  • nitpicker

    Let’s wait for the vote.

    If it doesn’t fit we will acquit.

  • troll

    no new con in Dave’s thinking…more of a traditionalist’s turn to Machiavellian ‘realism’ there

    he falls in with the empire builders as ‘the enemy of his enemy’


  • Earl

    “Always remember that anything is possible – if you just believe in what your government te'”lls you” – Somebody above about two scolls.

    Or… do you believe everything you read?

    Including this “Blahg”

  • Mark Schannon

    I can’t believe we’re still arguing about WMD. Oh, what the hell, why not, we’re still arguing about whether the world was created in 6006 BC at 4:35 p.m. so why I do I think there’s a semblance of intelligence out there.

    However, I will come to the defense of Mr. Nalle only because he has the most complex political ideology of anyone I’ve ever met. I too thought he was a neocon(whatever that is) at first, but realized that wasn’t true. Then I thought, “aha, he’s one of them centrist types,” but that didn’t work either.

    I finally decided that he just thinks before he speaks–something so absurd that I’m not sure he should be allowed on this site. (Sorry Dave…you butter your bread, you have to sleep in it.) What confuses and delights me about Dave is that I can’t predict what he’s going to say next. I wish I could say the same for the rest of us. So there…..(bronx cheer.)

    But, to the point. Busherettes, give it up. Any Iraqi WMD were so far in the future that we could have raised generations of morons before they were a threat–even to Israel–sorry Ruvy. The reason for the quick invasion was called “a re-election.”

    People forget that France & Germany supported an invasion of Iraq for giving the UN the finger, but they asked the Bush Bubble Machine to wait until the international process was complete so there could be the kind of international consensus Bush created for Afghanistan (and look how well that’s going.)

    But Bush couldn’t wait. Didn’t want to be fighting a war while running for re-election.

    And that’s the truth.

    In Jamesons Veritas

  • nitpicker

    Dave Nalle does have a complex ideology.

    It is easy to believe that he was a neo-con at one time.

    Then it can be thought, “aha, he’s one of them centrist types,” but that doesn’t work either.

    He thinks just after he speaks and then comes back and tempers what he previously said.

    What is confusing about Dave is that what he’s going to say next is unpredictable.

    Now that Dave defiantly denies being a neo-con let’s see if his posts confirm it.

  • Dave Nalle

    Troll: he falls in with the empire builders as ‘the enemy of his enemy’

    This was at one time true, up to a point. Before I really researched the Neocons and just saw them as a sort of imperialistic far right group I did lump them in with the less extreme religious right and the plutocrats as enemies of my enemy. But once I’d done some research and become more familiar with the totality of their philosophy – thanks to the encouragement of some insightful blogcritics – I realized that they weren’t the enemy of my enemy, but were in fact the worst of the enemy distilled and operating as a fifth column among my allies. Which makes them about as evil as you can get.

    Here’s what it boils down to. Almost every one of the diverse groups which makes up the GOP has at least some element of their philosophy which is admirable and which I can relate to. The sole exceptions being the Neocons and to a lesser extent some of the extreme religious right. In the case of the Neocons there’s basically nothing which they consider a priority which I would ever support, and the things they value the most I find absolutely abhorent. There are two groups in the GOP who get along well with the Neocons, the really whacky religious right who think that the Neocon agenda fits in well with their belief in accelerating the arrival of armageddon and the very few remaining old-style Jim Blaine style imperialists, who are few and far between and more likely to be democrats than republicans these days.


  • nitpicker

    Where does AIPAC fit in?

  • Dave Nalle

    It fits right in the middle of the paranoid dreams of crypto-nazis, nit.


  • nitpicker

    You are a neo-con.

  • Dave Nalle

    Is your next step to resort to ‘nyah, nyah, nyah’?


  • nitpicker

    No, I’ll keep trying education.

  • troll

    concerning #56 – #60:

    ‘picker – I find it remarkable when people affect surprise that wealthy American jews ‘plan’ (collude – ?…conspire – ?) with Israeli nationals to lobby US congressmen…is that not the American Way

    where do you think AIPAC fits in – ?

    does ‘neocon’ serve merely as a socially acceptable synonym for ‘kike lover’ in your lexicon – ?


  • Brandon

    Amusing we’ve got some school girls aurguing over the Internet on who’s got on a prettier bow. Please save yourselve some embrasment and go plug in Barbie’s Pretty Pony Princess and stop aurguing about Grown-Up Things the original idea of “The Long War” was inept to say the least, but I have heard too many aurguments that bring in irelevent and useless factors such as Bush’s brain power or Congress’s coruption or my personal favorite “We Didn’t Go In Because of This We were Trying to Help Blah, Blah, Blah” I’m not saying don’t argue just use relevent reasons.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem


    Looks like you’re a better nitpicker than the one who goes under the name – looks like you picked youself a nit…

    Nice job. We have to find you a nice bridge in Israel to sit under…you’ve earned it. How about the one by the Hebron Road near the Sultan’s Pool? It’s right near the Cinematheque and the Old City Walls.

  • nitpicker

    This is how AIPAC “fits in” with neo-cons.

    Lawrence Franklin, a former Defense Intelligence Agency employee who worked in the office of neo-con Douglas Feith was sentenced January 20, 2006, to more than 12 years in prison for giving classified information to an Israeli diplomat and some members of AIPAC.

    Franklin admitted he met AIPAC members Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman between 2002 and 2004 and revealed classified information, which they then provided to the Israeli government.

    This relationship is UN-AMERICAN.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Ah yes, I somehow knew my old friend Larry Franklin would wind up here sooner or later. Poor guy was set up by the FBI in a sting to intimidate AIPAC and scare them real good. Seeing as he was a former DEA agent, he always had a taste for – shall we say – secret endeavours. I remember that side of him well. But when he realized what was coming down he didn’t want to cooperate no more. That was the other side – straight arrow and honest. So the FBI turned on him.

    Very sad that he is sitting in jail, when the higher ups who set him up should be sitting there instead.

  • Dave Nalle

    troll: “does ‘neocon’ serve merely as a socially acceptable synonym for ‘kike lover’ in your lexicon – ?”


    And BTW, nitpicker is the same virultent anti-semite who previously has posted as Historian and Practical Joe. He changes his name about once a week when his real nature gets exposed, so expect him to show up shortly with a new name.


  • nitpicker


    When Dave cannot provide facts, he plays games.

    It is clear that Dave has an aversion to discussing issues.

    Games are Dave’s way to avoid reality.

  • nitpicker

    Where does Dave fit in?

    Great minds discuss ideas and issues.

    Average minds discuss events.

    Small minds discuss people.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    So, Nitpicker,

    If great minds discuss ideas and issues, average minds discuss events and small minds discuss people, and you write, “When Dave cannot provide facts, he plays games. It is clear that Dave has an aversion to discussing issues. Games are Dave’s way to avoid reality.” what does that say about you?

    Even an old Jew like me can apply a little logic…

  • troll

    so – because AIPAC associates Rosen and Weissman were spying and their source worked for Feith therefore AIPAC (and by implication Israel) controls the neocons (and by implication the US government)…

    good example of the conspiratorial thinking described in the Dave’s post

    you will need to show a larger pattern of un-American activity within AIPAC to get me excited about this

    ‘picker – play again when you have more than anti-semitic sentiments and a hunch to go on

    …on the other hand all lobbyist should be shot


  • troll

    er…Dave’s post that is


  • gonzo marx

    nit sez…
    *Where does Dave fit in?*

    simplicity itself…he is a Me-ist

    anything, any Party, any sidereal Policy that offers him tax cuts and he is all for it

    there are ancilliary Issues he takes varied stands on, hence his appearance of neocon-ism at times…he supports the Bush Regime (cuz they give him…what kiddies?….that’s right, tax cuts!) in many instances, and where he disagrees are usually issues that would revolve around him paying less taxes

    that help?

    there’ll be a Quiz later


  • nitpicker

    Ruvy bemoans the fact that his old friend Larry Franklin “was set up by the FBI, that the FBI turned on him and he is sitting in jail.”

    That’s the least that should happen to anyone who assists foreign agents.

    The FBI should root them all out.

    Notwithstanding the support you and Dave provide here.

  • nitpicker

    Stephen J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, former officials with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, are scheduled to go on trial next month.

    Ruvy says it was an FBI set-up.

    Should the United States should put the FBI on trial instead?

    Ruvy and Dave think so.

  • nitpicker

    Lawrence Franklin pleaded guilty to three felony counts.

    Ruvy knows Franklin is not guilty.

    Will Ruvy testify that Franklin was set-up?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Comment #75: If I get a sub-poena to testify, whoever wants me to show up will have to pay the fare – boh ways. But no AIPAC official will want me. One look at my name on the internet wil have them filling their shorts. They’ll run from me like the plague.

    Comment #74: I don’t care what the American government does, so long as it gets its nose out of our affairs. AIPAC doesn’t represent me. It represents rich Jews who think that by writing big checks they have entrée to the halls of power in America. But setting up these guys from AIPAC was a message from the real establishment to these rich court Jews to remember their place as court Jews and not to try to rise above it.

    Nitpicker just represents those Americans who are looking for the chance to blame “the Jew” Abramoff and “the Jew” Wolfowitz for their problems. They are the ones who talk about “the Jew” neo-cons as being at fault for the death of 2,000 Americans. When the economy tanks there, they’ll also talk about “the Jew” Greenspan.


  • nitpicker


    I don’t look for a chance to blame anyone, Jew or non-Jew, the opportunities are there for anyone to see.

    I place Jack Abramoff and Randy Cunningham in the same category — dirty, rotten thieves who deserve what they get and then some.

    Regarding Wolfowitz, he claimed that Iraq would pay its own way. Instead, the US is left with an abominable cost that will eventually reach a trillion dollars, and the debt will be on the backs of middle-class Americans, while Wolfowitz goes on to a rich plush job.

    I can’t recall a non-Jew who can be compared to Wolfowitz and the harm he has done to the country. The enormity is staggering and he gets off with a medal and a promotion.

    You have rightly criticized AIPAC and the neo-cons, why do you criticize my criticism?

    Greenspan won’t be blamed for anything, He did a decent job trying to keep up with what the fools in the rest of government handed to him.

  • troll

    *I can’t recall a non-Jew who can be compared to Wolfowitz and the harm he has done to the country.*

    while this is a subjective call McNamara comes to mind right off the bat

    ‘picker – do you see the fundamentally flawed nature of your comment – ?


  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Alright, Nitpicker,

    Understand what I’m telling you, then. The essential strategy of the oil and banking establishment of the United States – the boys who really run the country – is to allow hard breathing, hard driving big ego Jews to claw themselves almost to the top, and when things go wrong, stick them up like big dolls for everybody to blame and throw rocks at.

    Wolfowitz is just such an idiot being hung out to dry. So are the guys from AIPAC. So are the Jewish neocons. Eventually, Kissinger will be hung ouy to dry, too (not that he doesn’t deserve it). This will happen to Greenspan also. This is a strategy for redirecting anger away from the guilty parties running the show. It’s Bush’s problem that he is so stupid that he can’t quite pull it off.

    Abramoff is a filthy thief who deserves to do hard time in a maximum security prison – with his underwear down, if you understand my drift…

  • nitpicker

    O.K. Troll, I didn’t recall McNamara. I agree that McNamara is in the same category as Wolfowitz. One difference is that I don’t believe McNamara got a medal and a promotion to a plush government job.

    Kissinger has been hung out to dry, but not in this country, where he should be.

  • MCH

    “Wolfowitz is just such an idiot being hung out to dry.”

    I disagree. Wolfowitz should be tried for war crimes, for his part in sending our troops to their deaths in this administration’s cluster-fuck in Iraq.

  • nitpicker

    The world needs real war crime trials, not just the PC show trials that the US agrees to.

  • troll

    * One difference is that I don’t believe McNamara got a medal and a promotion to a plush government job.*

    actually that’s exactly what happened


  • Dave Nalle

    Ruvy, I think you overstate the degree to which anyone in the US cares about Jews one way or another. We don’t really care if the fall-guys are Jewish or not, just so long as there are patsies around to take the blame.


  • nitpicker

    Troll, what promotion and medal did McNamara get?

    Dave, you think Abramoff and Cunningham are patsies, and not the criminals?

  • Dave Nalle

    They are the ‘designated’ criminals. They’re what Ruvy described, individuals who are singled out as the symbols of a problem with the system or which involves far more people, and they are punished to placate the public. They are the Judas Goats as it were of our modern political system.


  • troll

    medal of freedom and the world bank if I’m not mistaken


  • nitpicker


    Criminals can be prosecuted if there is evidence of a crime.

    They can’t be free simply because there are others with insufficient evidence for prosecution.

    A Judas goat will lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared.

    Let’s hope that Abramoff and Cunningham lead others to the slaughter without escaping themselves.

  • nitpicker

    Add Lawrence Franklin to the above list.