“Having murdered Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and the US Constitution, Washington is now murdering Ukraine.” Paul Craig Roberts
…by Jonas E. Alexis
Evidence continues to pile up against the Zionist state. Just recently, the Syrian rebels/jihadists and ISIS signed a non-aggression pact near Damascus which says that
“the two parties will respect a truce until a final solution is found and they promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime.”
Nussayria, of course,
“is a pejorative term for the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam to which President Bashar Assad belongs. Syria’s armed opposition initially welcomed jihadists including ISIS members in their fight against Assad.”
In other words, there is no serious distinction between the Syrian rebels and ISIS. What’s equally worse is that a Syrian rebel brigade commander made it clear that
“his forces were working with the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s official Syrian affiliate — both U.S.-designated terrorist organizations — near the Syrian/Lebanon border.”
The sad fact is that the Zionist state in Israel, Europe and America, spent millions of dollars supporting the Syrian jihadists while those same terrorists are signing pacts with ISIS. As George Galloway would have said, did those people read Frankenstein—and did they read it to the end?
During the same year, fake evidence was cooked up in the Zionist factory, lies were propagated by Israel and Zionist cells in America, and media mush-heads and political whores and punks like John McCain and Lindsey Graham were just doing what they typically do best for the Zionist state and the neocons: repeating ad nauseam that Assad was evil, that he used chemical weapons on his own people, and that he therefore ought to go.
Now that those same political whores are confronted with the true colors of ISIS, they are all scared to death because they think that members of ISIS may have come from America and Europe.
But here is something comical (if it is true). The New York Times has reported that President Obama desires “to train Syrian rebels to serve as ground troops against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria…” Saudi Arabia has also been willing to help train the rebels once again.
Obama said a few days ago that he vowed to destroy ISIS “wherever they exist,” but he thinks that it is not a contradiction for the United States to support the Syrian rebels. If ISIS is “a massive threat,” doesn’t it lead to the logical conclusion that those who sign pacts with ISIS are also “a massive threat”?
White House spokesman Josh Earnest has also declared that
“The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way that we are at war with Al-Qaeda and its Al-Qaeda affiliates all around the globe.”
In a similar vein, Jewish neocon Jonathan S. Tobin has declared that ISIS is so evil that “No moral or cultural equivalence” can diminish that evil. Yet again, who supported the Syrian rebels? Russia? China? North Korea?
Even Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post, a woman who has a history of rationalizing Zionist propaganda in politically promiscuous ways and who simply cannot write an article without producing at least three lies, has recently declared,
“Just hours before Obama’s speech, the leadership of Syria’s “moderate” rebel forces was decapitated in an explosion. And for all their moderation, the leaders were part of an anti-Assad coalition that included Islamic State.”
It is certainly not the Obama administration. It is largely the people who are working four jobs to make ends meet and who are ending up dead in their cars because they cannot get enough sleep.
“After more than three years of civil war, there are hundreds of militias fighting President Bashar al-Assad — and one another.
“Among them, even the more secular forces have turned to Islamists for support and weapons over the years, and the remaining moderate rebels often fight alongside extremists like the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria.”
The New York Times went on to cite Aron Lund of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace saying,
“You are not going to find this neat, clean, secular rebel group that respects human rights and that is waiting and ready because they don’t exist.”
Again, the New York Times was being truthful when it reported,
“Analysts who track the rebel movement say that the concept of the Free Syrian Army as a unified force with an effective command structure is a myth. Whatever force the United States can muster, it will face a jihadist army that has surged in size…
“The Syrian rebels are a scattered archipelago of mostly local forces with ideologies that range from nationalist to jihadist.”
In fact, Assad himself is a little angry because Washington has not been fully committed to cooperate with him to fight ISIS.
Max Abrahms, a Professor of public policy at Northeastern University, believes that the U.S. should help Assad to fight ISIS. However, such a move would be devastated for the Zionist machine.
If the U.S. supports Assad, then the U.S. has spent millions upon millions of dollars destabilizing the country for nothing. And if the U.S. supports Assad, then they might as well ally with Iran because Assad and Iranian officials are not enemies.
Kerry seems to have perceived this logical deduction. He does not even want Iran to participate in “an international conference on the security crisis in Iraq that is to be held in Paris next week…”
Moreover, the Minnesota Press News has reported that Obama knew very well that Assad protected Christians in Syria. In other words, Obama knows pretty well that Assad is not a bad guy after all.
The Israeli regime certainly does not appreciate the fact that both Assad and Iran are willing to fight ISIS and the regime actually sees it as a strategic move.
To counterattack, Israeli officials went to Washington telling the Obama administration to focus its attention on Iran, not ISIS. Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s strategic affairs minister, declared,
“ISIL is a five-year problem. A nuclear Iran is a 50-year problem, with far greater impact.”
The New York Times tells us, “Other Israeli officials warned the Obama administration that the new American operation would bolster Iran’s ambitions for regional dominance.”
When the Iraq war started in 2003, the Israeli publication Israel National News bragged, “Of course this war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein is for us.”
But the same news outlet ended up begging the question when it declared
“True, most Jews in America and Israel want the US to capture Saddam Hussein and his gang, disarm Iraq of Weapons of Mass Destruction, institute some form of regime change, and introduce freedom and democracy.
“But so do most Americans, many Iraqis, and many other freedom-loving people in the region and around the world.
“Although it might be in Israel’s interest to see the ‘neighborhood bully’ – Iraq – have its non-conventional weapons confiscated, it is also in America’s interest, it is also in Europe’s interest, it is even in Russia’s and China’s interest – they have both been plagued by Islamic terror in recent years. And, though they might not like to admit it publicly, it is even in the interest of Arab states in the region.”
Again, who deliberately used lies and fabrications to convince the American people that Hussein was a bad guy in the first place? Who repeated ad nauseam that Hussein had WMDs? Wasn’t it the Jewish neocons, as investigative journalist Carl Bernstein has said?
Now we have other voices telling us that the Iraq war failed because “we failed to go after the neighbouring terrorist-sponsoring states, i.e. Iran and Syria.” Who is the author of those words?
I did mention that I would pick up Shrimpton’s Spyhunter and see if he could provide rigorous evidence for many of his bold claims. Sad to say, it was one big disappointment.
Shrimpton declares in the book that Iran and Syria are “terrorist-sponsoring states.” That indeed is a bold claim and requires serious evidence and sober scholarship. I honestly was looking forward to seeing the evidence that Shrimpton would produce for the assertion. Yet none was provided.
I remember two years ago that a friend of mine, who happened to be a Brit and indeed a lawyer and a Christian Zionist, made a claim about Jews living in Israel and concluding that this or that event happened because “God is still fighting for them.”
I simply asked him, “What’s the evidence? I need to work with some basic evidential and historical fact.”
To my astonishment, he responded by saying, “What’s the evidence that he isn’t?” I quickly started laughing. I said,
“You made a claim and I ask for evidence, and your ‘rational’ response is, ‘what’s the evidence that he isn’t?’ Are you sure that you are lawyer? Why are you implicitly shifting the burden of proof on me? If you lost your wallet and accused Mr. X of stealing it, are you not under obligation to produce the evidence? Would the court be pleased if your only ‘evidence’ is simply, ‘What’s the evidence that Mr. X didn’t steal it?”
He actually saw the point I was making, but he still went on to believe what he wanted to believe. He wanted to cherish his ideological worldview and no one is going to tell him what to do or how to examine his own golden cow. (This has been my experience with people who believe that Jewish behavior is genetic.)
I am seeing the same thing with Shrimpton. He quickly assumed without a shred of rigorous evidence and historical reference that Iran is a terrorist state, when in fact the historical evidence indicates the opposite.
The truth is that Iran does not really have a problem with Israel or the Jewish people. Outside of Israel, Iran has the largest Jewish community in the Middle East. But Iran does have a problem with the Zionist regime that controls Israel.
Jews in Iran are granted complete freedom so long as they do not align themselves with the Zionist regime in Israel. In fact, the Khomeini set forth a religious decree saying that “Jews were to be protected.”
The large majority of Jews in Iran did not even see Ahmadinejad as a threat because he never attacked or demonized them. Ciamak Mor-sathegh, head of the Jewish hospital in Tehran, declared that “anti-Semitism is not an eastern phenomenon.”
Synagogues, a major Jewish library, and Jewish hospitals “haven’t been touched.”
And contrary to what the Zionist state has been telling the West ad nauseam, many Jews did voice their opinions and even oppose some of Ahmadinejad’s comments without repercussion.
Both Maurice Mohtamed (Jewish member of the Iranian Majlis or parliament) and Haround Yashayaei (chairman of Iran’s Jewish Council) dissented, even sending letters to Ahmadinejad in protest.
Some Jews left Iran for Israel, “thinking that Israel was an economic paradise,” but later returned to Iran because “Israel has not lived up to their expectations.”
Furthermore, how many Americans and Brits actually know that Iran was sympathetic toward the United States after 9/11, or that they
“offered air bases to the U.S.; they offered to perform search-and-rescue missions for downed American pilots; they served as bridge between the Northern Alliance and the U.S. in the campaign against the Taliban; and they even used information provided by American forces to find and kill fleeing al-Qaeda leaders”?
In 2003, the Iranian government sent the U.S. a negotiation proposal in which they declared in part that they are willing to cooperate with the U.S. on terrorism and the Middle East conflict.
And in 2012, it was Iranian naval vessels that helped chase off pirates attacking a U.S. ship. While the U.S. government admitted that Iranians played a key role in helping the ship, Jewish blogger J. David Goodman ran an article in the New York Times entitled, “Iranians Take Credit for Thwarting Pirate Attack on U.S.-Flagged Vessel.”
Why was this flaming title? Was it necessary? Well, if Iranians are not viewed as a real threat to the U.S., then the Zionist dream that Iran must be bombed will crumble. In fact, didn’t Jewish neocon Daniel Pipes tell the Jerusalem Post in 2009 that Iran must be bombed?
Even after the Israeli regime bombed an Iranian scientist, Iran still agreed to let the United Nations conduct nuclear weapons. Weeks after the attack, it was widely reported in the Zionist matrix itself that Iran was willing to talk about the program.
Moreover, although Iran does not want to drop its nuclear program, U.S. intelligence officials declared that the program is not to provoke conflict at all.
Would Israel agree to allow inspections? The answer is a resounding no. As Seumas Milne of the Guardian pointed out,
“The whole campaign [against Iran] has an Alice in Wonderland quality about it. Iran, which says it doesn’t want nuclear weapons, is surrounded by nuclear-weapon states: the US—which also has forces in neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as military bases across the region—Israel, Russia, Pakistan and India.”
Jewish philosopher and writer Avner Cohen posed the most common-sense question to all: “What if the Iranians start killing [Israeli or American] scientists?” Wouldn’t the Zionist state declare war on Iran? The answer is yes.
Yet having uranium does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a nuclear bomb is on its way. Former director of the CIA Leon Panetta certainly recognizes this. Uranium can be used for peaceful or military purposes.
Secondly, as already suggested, many agree that enrichment is perfectly legitimate under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, made it clear that building nuclear weapons is not only genocide but against Iran’s Islamic faith.
There is no conclusive evidence saying that Iran’s nuclear program will lead to nuclear weapons. A new study shows that there are at least thirty-two countries “with materials that can fuel atom bombs.” Why not impose sanctions on these countries?
Those are just double standards and any serious writer (let alone a lawyer) cannot just brush them aside by positing a few claims here and there and leaving the scene without evidence. And this is why I find Shrimpton’s assessment exhaustively unsatisfying, historically risible, intellectually preposterous, and morally indefensible.
For example, Shrimpton tells us in his book that the war in Afghanistan “was justified under public international law.” Once again, I was hoping that he would cite the references for examination, but they were nowhere to be found.
In the book itself, Shrimpton calls himself “an intelligence specialist—an intelligence and national security lawyer, analyst, academic, and author.”
But shouldn’t a serious academic and lawyer think twice about making a bold claim and suddenly leaving the scene without evidence? Has the academic and judicial world sunk that low?
As the book progresses, the author tells us unambiguously,
“There is no point asking me to disclose my intelligence sources or evidence, which in turn could not be done without exposing sources, in some cases to physical risk.
“Sources and evidence must and will remain secret. Different rules apply, some of the time, in courts of law but even in the courts evidence is routinely suppressed…
“You will not therefore find sources named in this book, unless they have died, and even then not if naming them might expose another source. Intelligence is not a game and loose talk burns up real people, sometime very good people.”
Nonsense. Serious academics and former CIA officials such as Michael Scheuer and Paul R. Pillar could have said the same thing when they wrote books such as Osama bin Laden and Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy, but both writers independently and meticulously make sure that references are made available.
How does Shrimpton expect readers to challenge him if the book is going to be filled with assertions upon assertions with no serious sources, most specifically for many of his bold claims?
Furthermore, why didn’t he make this point very clear a few days ago, particularly when he was responding to my articles? For example, he specifically wrote,
“I don’t use footnotes in my columns, as they are intelligence columns, not dull academic treatises. I try not to do dull. If it’s of any comfort to Jonas, Spyhunter is fully annotated.”
He has a bibliography in his book, but he has no citation for the bold claims we have examined thus far. Had he written that “Sources and evidence must and will remain secret” two weeks ago, I would never have bought the book in the first place.
It is all the more interesting that Shrimpton would argue that “Western governments” certainly “did not” lie about WMDs being in Iraq.
Is he seriously saying that Bush didn’t lie about WMDs? If so, then Shrimpton is shaming serious barristers in England. As John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago puts it, The neocons influencing the Bush administration knew that
“the American military, the intelligence community, the State Department, and the U.S. Congress were not keen for war.
“To overcome this reluctance to attack Iraq, the Bush administration engaged in a deception campaign to inflate the threat posed by Saddam. It involved spinning, concealing, and lying to the American people.”
In the same vein, Paul R. Pillar, a 28-year veteran of the CIA and a fellow at Georgetown University, declared that
“The [WMD] campaign was supported by a relentless effort to dig up whatever bits of reporting could be construed as showing that Iraq was an immediate threat.”
Scholars like Stephan Halper and Jonathan Clarke write that instead of telling the truth, the neoconservatives “spun a web of deception with a reason ‘du jour’ being offered other than the truth.”
Halper and Clarke continue,
“Thus a ‘conditional reality’ in which Saddam ‘might’ have weapons of mass destruction; ‘might’ have links to al-Qaeda; and ‘might’ have been complicit in 9/11 was advanced by the Administration and, eventually, believed by the majority of Americans.
“This was the process in which the government created a false reality and then mobilized the nation to war against that background.”
In 2002, Iraq released a 12,200 page document to the United Nations in which they declared that they were not building weapons of mass destruction.
Yet former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stated in a New York Times article that Iraq was lying.
Rice and others in Washington believed that Hussein was buying uranium from Niger, but when asked for evidence to back up this belief “Washington provided nothing for over six weeks while it continued to build the case for war.”
The strategy “was effective,” for “four weeks before coalition forces entered Iraq, 72 percent of Americans thought war was justified because it would help eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”
Bush’s words were so persuasive to Americans wary of experiencing another attack like 9/11 that two years after the tragedy “seven in ten Americans thought Saddam Hussein had played a direct part in the terrorist attacks.”
Therefore, the neoconservatives framed the war in what Halper and Clarke called “moral clarity for the purpose of foreign policy.” This “moral clarity” was closely tied to the “defense of freedom” and “search for security” for the American people against terrorists.
In a nutshell, to sell the war to an American frame of mind, Hussein was billed as an evil that must be defeated by any means. Halper and Clarke write that this was “perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the neo-conservative influence deriving from 9/11.”
Scholar Andrew J. Bacevich called this “moral palatability,” which was blindly supported by Christian Judaizers and was closely related to the
“Religious Right’s fetish for the state of Israel, the distinctive Israeli strategy style…[that] has colored conservative Christian thinking about these same subjects.”
“The whole point of that second UN resolution nonsense was to give the French, Germans and Iraqis six months to move everything. They mostly went by rail along the refurbished Baghdad-Damascus railway line the movements were caught by the NRO’s orbiting birds…
“Some traces of WMDs were found, that was all. The Saddam Tapes, revealed to the public by that nice man John Loftus at the Intelligence Summit in 2006, were powerful evidence that Iraq had WMDs.
“They were voice-authenticated recordings that Saddam had made of official conversations in the presidential palace. They offered the media some at least of the proof of Iraq’s WMD programmes they were screaming for.”
I check many of the major scholarly references to find out who John Loftus really was and could not find a serious author who even made reference to him.
“On August 7, 2005, [Loftus] provided the United States address of an alleged terrorist named Iyad K. Hilal on Fox News. Only afterwards was it revealed that Hilal had left the address three years previously and the home was now owned by a family, which was then subjected to threats and vandalism and required police protection as a result of Loftus’ words. Fox terminated Loftus’s contract to commentate after the event.
“Loftus said ‘I thought it might help police in that area now that we have positively identified a terrorist,’ but he did not say why he did not contact police in a more direct manner.
“Loftus apologized for the mistake and expressed frustration about ‘one federal [agency’s]’ inaction on an earlier tip he had given them years ago due to the same address.”
There you have it. One of Shrimpton’s serious sources turned out to be a hoaxer and what one should call a hoodlum. You ain’t seen nothing yet:
“Loftus’ now-expired Web site claimed, ‘As a young U.S. Army officer, John Loftus helped train Israelis on a covert operation that turned the tide of battle in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.”
At that point, I simply had to stop reading Shrimpton’s book because I figured that I was wasting my time. I had put a lot of other books on hold just to buy his book and check out exactly what he was trying to say. Here is one final statement from the book:
“Since Iraq had mounted an armed attack on the United States on 9/11, using al Qaeda as a proxy, she had committed an Act of War.”
I simply had to take a deep breath at this point. One simply doesn’t know where Shrimpton is getting this nonsense. I think I am boring readers with too much evidence on this issue and we have to move on.
One final point about ISIS. Let us suppose again that the terrorist group has actually killed at least three journalists horribly and brutally. If that is the case, then my heart goes out to the family of those journalists.
But what does that actually mean? The Zionist state is basically telling us that if an organization has killed three journalists in cold blood, then the world has to go after those terrorists.
If we follow that logic consistently, the world ought to go after the neoconservatives and Neo-Bolsheviks who propagated the Iraq war, which ended up producing Abu Ghraib, which ended up sodomizing men, women and children, and which ended up taking the lives of thousands upon thousands of innocent Muslims and decent American soldiers.
What is even more terrifying is that the Mossad and Israeli agents were behind the torture that happened at Abu Ghraib.
The torture was carried out in contradiction to the Geneva Convention and international law. Yet no one ever prosecuted or even boycotted Israel or the Bush administration, which had agreed to all these inhumane procedures
Now we learn that nothing was gained from the torture, despite the fact that the Bush administration declared otherwise.
So, should we go after ISIS? Well, even those who seem to take some of the Zionist narratives at face value are not really convinced this time. As physicist and our dear colleague here at VT Denis Rancourt has recently and rightly put it, the “ISIS project is nothing but a pretext to murder and destroy Syrian society.”
If we are going to fight against ISIS, we might as well go after the Zionist/Neoconservative/Neo-Bolshevik monsters that created ISIS in the first place.
If you have spider web in your house, the best way to solve the problem is to go after the spider that created the problem. If you just clean the place, you know for sure that the spider is going to start the same mess all over again.
 “Syria Rebels, ISIS in ‘Non-Aggression’ Pact Near Damascus,” The Daily Star (Lebanon), September 12, 2014.
 See for example Jodi Rudoren, “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” NY Times, September 5, 2014; Daniel Nisman, “For Israel, a U.S. Strike Is a No-Brainer,” NY Times, September 6, 2013; Margaret Talev, Terry Atlas and Eddie Buckle, “Obama Prepares for Syria Action With Intelligence Report,” Bloomberg, August 31, 2013.
 Somini Sengupta, “Nations Trying to Stop Their Citizens From Going to Middle East to Fight for ISIS,” NY Times, September 12, 2014.
 Ben Hubbard, Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti, “U.S. Pins Hopes on Syrian Rebels With Loyalties All Over the Map,” NY Times, September 11, 2014.
 Jonathan S. Tobin, “Beheading Show Just How Bad U.S. Intelligence Has Become,” Commentary, September 14, 2014.
 Caroline B. Glick, “Of Politicians and Moral Courage,” Jerusalem Post, September 11, 2014.
 Ben Hubbard, Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti, “U.S. Pins Hopes on Syrian Rebels With Loyalties All Over the Map,” NY Times, September 11, 2014
 “Dunkin’ Donuts Worker’s Death Reveals The True Cost Of Our Low-Wage, Part-Time Economy,” Huffington Post, August 29, 2014.
 Ben Hubbard, Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti, “U.S. Pins Hopes on Syrian Rebels With Loyalties All Over the Map,” NY Times, September 11, 2014
 Max Abrahms, The U.S. Should Help Assad to Fight ISIS, the Greater Evil,” NY Times, August 22, 2014.
 Michael R. Gordon, “Iran’s Participation in Meeting to Aid Iraq Is ‘Not Appropriate,’ Says Kerry,” NY Times, September 12, 2014.
 “Obama: Assad Protected Christians in Syria,” Minnesota Press News, September 12, 2014.
 David E. Sanger, “ISIS Fight Raises Fear That Efforts to Curb Iran Will Slip,” NY Times, September 11, 2014.
 All subsequent quotations of Shrimpton will come from his book, Spyhunter: The Secret History of German Intelligence (UK: The June Press, 2014).
 Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), 7.
 Ibid., 8.
 Ibid., 9.
 Ibid., 10.
 Trita Parsi, A Single Roll of Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 39.
 Parsi, Treacherous Alliance, 341-344.
 “Iranian Sailors Chase off Pirates Attacking U.S. Ship,” CNN, May 24, 2012.
 J. David Goodman, “Iran Takes Credit for ThwarPirate Attack on U.S.-Flagged Vessel,” NY Times, May 24, 2012.
 Daniel Pipes, “How to Save the Obama Presidency—Bomb Iran,” Jerusalem Post, February 2, 2010.
 Adam Entous, Julain E. Barnes, and Jay Solomon, “U.S. Warns Israel on Strike,” Wall Street Journal, January 14, 2012; Steven Lee Myers and Rick Gladstone, “Negotiations with Iran Over Nuclear Program May Resume,” NY Times, February 17, 2012; Joby Warrick, “U.S., Europeans Welcome Iranian Proposal for New Nuclear Talks,” Washington Post, February 17, 2012.
 J. David Goodman, “Ahmadinejad Says Iran Is Ready for Nuclear Talks,” NY Times, January 26, 2012; “Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran President, Says Country Is Ready to Resume Nuclear Talk,” Huffington Post, January 26, 2012.
 Avi Bar-Ali, Natasha Mozgovaya, and Barak Ravid, “U.S. Intelligence Chief: Iran Not Close to Dropping Nuclear Plan,” Haaretz, February 17, 2012.
 Seumas Milne, “War on iran has Already Begun. Act Before it Threatens All of Us,” Guardian, December 7, 2011.
 Avner Cohen, “What If the Iranians Start Killing Scientists?,” Haaretz, January 16, 2012.
 John Glaser, “Panetta: Iran is Not Developing Nuclear Weapons,” Antiwar.com, February 16, 2012.
 Richard G. Lugar, “Obama’s Nuclear Misstep,” National Interest, February 21, 2012.
 Robert Wright, “AIPAC and the Push Toward War,” Atlantic, February 21, 2012.
 Stephen M. Walt, “Guest Post: Using Religion to Restrain Iran’s Nuclear Program,” Foreign Policy, February 24, 2012.
 Eric S. Margolis, “A Radioactive Situation,” National Interest, February 24, 2012.
 William J. Broad, “New Study Ranks Countries on Security of Materials That Fuel Nuclear Arms,” NY Times, Jan 11, 2012.
 Michael Scheuer, Osama bin Laden (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).
 John J. Mearsheimer, Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 50,
 Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), 14.
 Halper and Clarke, America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 202.
 Ibid., viii.
 Ibid., 214.
 Ibid., 201.
 Bugliosi, Prosecution of George W. Bush (Cambridge: Perseus Books, 2008), 22.
 Halper and Clarke, America Alone, 218.
 Andrew J. Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 133, 146.
 See for example Seymur M. Hersh, “Torture at Abu Ghraib,” New Yorker, May 10, 2004.
 Robert Fisk, “Abu Ghraib Torture Trail Leads to Israel,” Independent, May 26, 2004; “Israeli Interrogators ‘in Iraq,’” BBC, July 3, 2004; Jon Elmer, “Israel in Iraq: Evidence Mounts,” Antiwar.com, July 9, 2004.
 See for example Mark Danner, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror (New York: New York Review of Books, 2004); Philippe Sands, Torture Team: Rumsfeld’s memo and Betrayal of American Values (New York: Palgrave, 2009); Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh, Administration of Torture: A Documentary Record from Washington to Abu Ghraib and Beyond (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009); David Cole, Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable (New York: The New Press, 2009); Jane Mayer, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals (New York: Anchor Books, 2009).
 Matthew Kalman, “Were Abu Ghraib Abuses Learned from Israel?,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 27, 2004.
 See for example Peter Beinart, “How Serious a Threat Is ISIS?,” Atlantic, September 11, 2014.