The Great Debate, Part 2

Most astounding in the Great Debate was the fact that the pro-Lobby debaters could claim with straight faces that the Lobby had not pushed for war with Iraq. This beggars belief. Indeed, one could easily compile a massive tome consisting of all the Lobby's op-eds, editorials, articles, and even books urging war with Iraq. Add to this the Lobby's radio and TV propaganda, and it was clear to long-time Lobby-watchers just who was behind this war. (See Patrick Buchanan's "Whose War?" in "The American Conservative" March 24, 2003.) President Bush has recently admitted that all his previous excuses for invading Iraq were erroneous but he claims it was necessary regardless because Iraq "was a threat." Of course Iraq was a threat...to Israel, certainly not to the US. Israelis had been hit by Iraqi missiles during the first Gulf war; Saddam was a strong supporter of Palestinian freedom. Professor Mearsheimer was not given adequate time during the debate to fully document his position, but it is all there in his paper. Also, see blog entries "Why Iraq? Parts 1-7" and "Faulty Intelligence Parts 1-3" January 2006.