http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/04/24/news-callahan.php "First of all, George Tenet warned the president of the United States about the threat of terrorism almost ad nauseam during the entire spring and summer of 2001. In the final analysis, the president had been warned often enough and long enough. He should have done something about it." "Why didn’t he?" I wonder. "Because Bush didn’t know what to do," McGovern says. "And Condoleezza Rice, his adviser on such things, didn’t know a thing about terrorism. By her own admission, she hadn’t opened the file that [Clinton National Security Advisor] Sandy Berger left behind that said, ‘Read This File First.’ She knew a lot about the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe but nothing about terrorism. The charitable explanation for why nothing was done is gross ineptitude and gross malfeasance."
And then we have this canard... "And I would simply add, not as an afterthought but as a core part of this whole calculus, that this war was fought as much for Israeli strategic objectives as it was for American strategic objectives. As a matter of fact, the people running our policy toward Iraq have great difficulty distinguishing between the two." Next on the the conspiracy list....freemasons.
Main Entry: ca·nard Pronunciation: k&-'närd also -'när Function: noun Etymology: French, literally, duck; in sense 1, from Middle French vendre des canards à moitié to cheat, literally, to half-sell ducks a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report Main Entry: 1con·jec·ture Pronunciation: k&n-'jek-ch&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin conjectura, from conjectus, past participle of conicere, literally, to throw together, from com- + jacere to throw -- ...inference from defective or presumptive evidence
EXACTLY!!! PNAC may be defective, but not as evidence that Isreal's security concerns drive, in part, our policy toward Iraq and the Middle East as a whole.
You have your causality mixed up, and this kind of weak and superficial thinking, which sounds OK, in fact fuels the inclination towards an unfounded belief in some sort of cabalist shadowy conspriacy of the the Perle-Wolfowitz axis. We didn't go after Iraq to protect Israel, in whole or in part. Israel can protect itself just fine. The worst case scenario right now is that some rogue state or rogue organization, gets ahold of nuclear weapon, and uses it...anywhere, including Tel Aviv. In that sense what we're doing is "protecting" Israel...but only in the most tenuous of senses.
Why would a rogue state use it when they are virtually assured of their destruction in our, or Israel's, response? Rogue organization, I'll give you that they'd love to get their hands on one. But who TF would give it to them and risk the response?
Thanks, McGovern. Now no one has to check out everything else you said, because of (a) your stupid-ass phrasing of the neoconservative policy views, or (b) your anti-Semitism. It's very easy to describe neocon policy aims without describing them as "Israeli." It's stupid to pretend that the OSP cabal described by many sources is anyone's pawn, let alone that of the State of Israel. The protection of Israel is in our interest, for lots of reasons. It doesn't mean that our foreign policy is being decided by the Elders of Zion. If our foreign policy really is dictated from Jerusalem, why didn't we invade the West Bank (or, more realistically, Syria) instead of Iraq? Wish McGovern had evidence for his assertions, but apparently he doesn't. It's very easy for me to believe what he says about Bush, Tenet, and Snooze Alarm, but I don't think he's bringing anything new.
Perhaps they would use one because they are insane, or feel that the use of one outweighs the consequences. I'm not saying it's going to happen or that the likelihood is all that high [I do not see Iran nuking Israel], but consider the following. After giving this speech, http://www.memri.de/uebersetzungen_analysen/laender/iran/iran_nuclear_03_01_02.pdf Hashemi Rafsanjani was asked about the consequences of using a nuclear weapon against Israel. His reply was something along the lines of 'What is one out of 22?'
He also lost me at the Israeli bashing, but the September 11th parts kind of gel with what I've read before. See http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html The article mainly focuses on Richard Clarke, an anti-terrorism guru who served both Bush Administrations as well as Clinton's.