The Curious Connection Between America’s Foreign Wars and the Enemies Within

By: Cliff Kincaid

Let’s understand why a liberal magazine known as The Atlantic would release an anonymously-sourced unsubstantiated story about President Trump allegedly making offensive comments about wounded and fallen soldiers. It has everything to do with misdirection. The magazine knows that Joe Biden’s record on war and peace is scandalous. That means the media have to talk about something else.

Before the story was issued, a liberal outlet released an article, “Joe Biden, don’t let Donald Trump run as the antiwar candidate!” The left was afraid that Trump would run in the last days of the campaign as an anti-war peace candidate and that Biden’s record of support for wars in Iraq, Serbia, Syria, and Libya, would backfire on him.

Under these circumstances, the only option, as we have seen numerous times over the last three years, is to smear Trump with a made-up story. They hope news consumers will be misled and confused.

One possible charge that could stick against Trump is that he may have referred to former Senator and GOP presidential candidate John McCain as a loser. Trump has said something similar about Mitt Romney. They are both losers, in his view, because they both lost winnable races against Barack Hussein Obama. Hence, both McCain, the 2008 candidate, and Romney, the 2012 candidate, are losers. By contrast, Trump is a winner, having defeated Obama’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016.

McCain not only lost to Obama but then turned around and distributed the phony Russia dossier to hurt Trump. The whole story was told by Allan Ryskind in his Washington Times column, “Did Sen. McCain ‘collude’ with Russia?” The long-time Human Events editor noted that McCain secured “opposition research on Mr. Trump from Putin-friendly sources” and didn’t seem to care that “current and ex-Russian intelligence officials and the FSB (formerly the KGB), provided some of the document’s most damning contents.”

Let’s be completely honest. The media never admired McCain for his Vietnam War service and years being held as a POW by the communists. They admired him because he was a “maverick” who frequently took the liberal line. His use of the dossier played right into their hands, perhaps deliberately so.

If the media will peddle a phony dossier based on Russian sources about Trump, there is nothing they won’t say or do. They don’t care about our troops or the fact that they have been sacrificed by the Bush-Clinton-Obama-Biden Administrations in wars in Iraq, Serbia, Syria, and Libya. What the media care about is destroying Trump.

The war in Afghanistan, launched after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, has raged for nearly 19 years, making it the longest war in American history. More than 2,400 U.S. service members have died in Afghanistan since the U.S.-led invasion in late 2001 to topple the Taliban, which was protecting al Qaeda, while more than 20,000 have been wounded in action.

President Trump has been withdrawing U.S. forces and wants them down to as little as 4,000 by the November 3 election. He’s also pulling them out of Iraq, a war Biden vigorously supported and then lied about.

If Trump can be faulted for anything, it’s the failure to clean house at the FBI, which failed to solve the anthrax mailings which occurred after the 9/11 terrorist attacks staged by al Qaeda.

Retired Foreign Service officer and intelligence analyst Kenneth J. Dillon did extensive research on the case and concluded  that then-FBI director Robert Mueller “was responsible for the suicide of the alleged but wrongly accused mailer, Bruce Ivins, as well as for the subsequent cover-up.”

That’s the same Robert Mueller who ran the Russia probe based on the phony dossier.

Dillon’s research indicates that Ivins prepared anthrax to test vaccines, but the anthrax was sent to various civilian labs, including one infiltrated by an al Qaeda operative. The anthrax was transferred to another al Qaeda operative, Abderraouf Jdey, and used in the attacks. “There was a very lax attitude in the pre-9/11 era relating to the handling of anthrax,” Dillon says.

Dillon adds that, “The news media have not reported key aspects of the al Qaeda theory of the case, but there have been articles on the putative possession of anthrax by the intending September 11, 2001 hijackers while they were in Florida and on al Qaeda’s biowarfare projects in Afghanistan.”

In his research, Dillon explains that the FBI not only failed to stop 9/11 but  the anthrax attacks as well, and there arose “compelling reasons” for the Bush Administration (and subsequent administrations) “to avoid a reinvestigation of the events of 2001 and specifically what had gone on inside the U.S. Government in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks.” In other words, there was a massive cover-up.

None of this should be that surprising. There were cover-ups before this, including such scandals as the FBI/ATF armed assaults on Randy Weaver’s home and family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and the Waco religious compound in Texas (both are covered in a very good Netflix series).

One can argue that the post 9/11 anthrax terrorist attacks were the result of a real “inside job,” involving stolen anthrax from a U.S. lab, and a cover-up was launched, stemming from the influence of what we today call the “Deep State,” led then by the same Robert Mueller called upon to cover-up malfeasance by the FBI in the Russia-gate matter. It was another scandal that made government “experts” look foolish or worse.

Continuing to send troops to Afghanistan, supposedly to root out terrorists, when the federal government can’t “solve” the mystery of the anthrax attacks, even though they can be traced to al Qaeda operatives on US soil, makes no sense.

Trump is wise to quickly dismiss the fake news attacks, continue his policies of bringing the troops home, and concentrate on the real enemies that occupy positions of power in both the Deep State and the military-industrial complex.

As news consumers, we have an obligation to see through the propaganda and understand that the anti-Trump attacks are coming from people who have a lot to hide. They are the “national security experts” who have failed to protect our nation and send our young people off to never-ending and no-win wars.


War is the Big Issue of the Campaign

By: Cliff Kincaid

It may be the sleeper issue of the 2020 presidential campaign – trigger-happy Joe Biden’s record of support for the disastrous Iraq War and his repeated lies about his role in starting that war.

But like those offering excuses for Nancy Pelosi going to a beauty parlor that is closed to ordinary people, many “progressives” are prepared to overlook Biden’s war-mongering past because their allegiance to the Democratic Party supersedes their commitment to ending foreign wars.

This came up during the Republican National Convention when Senator Rand Paul said, “Joe Biden voted for the Iraq War, which President Trump has long called the worst geopolitical mistake of our generation. I fear Biden will choose war again. He supported the war in Serbia, Syria, Libya.”

That’s a lot of war.

Even the liberal “fact-checking” website PolitiFact rated Paul’s remarks as “mostly true,” with the caveat that Biden claimed that on one occasion he privately questioned military action.

Biden was essential to the Iraq War going forward.

After President Bush went to war in Iraq, with the strong support of then-Senator Joe Biden, he rewarded former CIA Director George Tenet with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The invasion of Iraq, launched in part on the basis of false information provided by Tenet’s CIA, was justified by the argument that American troops were helping to build a democratic and lasting government in Baghdad that would stabilize the area and reduce the terrorist threat. Instead, the invasion led to the Iranian domination of Iraq and the rise of ISIS.

In an article in The American Conservative, Daniel McCarthy wrote, “The Iraq War launched by the Bush administration (with the support of Democrats like Joe Biden, of course) destroyed the Saddam Hussein regime that had kept a check on Iranian power. More than that, it destabilized Iraq, and ultimately Syria as well, in ways that created channels for wider Iranian influence.”

Biden has claimed that the declaration of war on Iraq, titled, “Authorization for the Use of Force,” was not an authorization for President Bush to invade Iraq and go to war. But that’s not the only lie he has told.

CNN reported that, in response to an Iowa voter who expressed concern about Biden’s foreign policy record, the former vice president said that he opposed the Iraq War “from the very moment” it began in 2003. That was another lie. Even CNN noted this lie, in an article, “Biden again dishonestly suggests he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning.” CNN stated, “It’s false that Biden opposed the war from the moment Bush started it in March 2003. Biden repeatedly spoke in favor of the war both before and after it began.”

Incredibly, CNN added that Biden’s campaign had previously said that he “misspoke” when he made a similar claim. Bernie Sanders accused Biden of “rewriting history” over his vote for the war.

The record is clear: Biden lied repeatedly about going to war and doesn’t seem to know when he lies and when he tells the truth. This is a sign of brain damage.

Biden co-sponsored a resolution supporting the invasion and declared, “I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur …”

A mini-documentary,  “WORTH THE PRICE? Joe Biden and the Launch of the Iraq War,” explores what the Institute for Public Accuracy calls “Biden’s pivotal role in backing the invasion with disastrous results.” Produced and directed by Mark Weisbrot and narrated by Danny Glover, it examines Biden’s role as the chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 2002. Weisbrot wrote an op-ed for The Guardian, declaring, “[Biden] had a power much greater than his own words. He was able to choose all 18 witnesses in the main Senate hearings on Iraq. And he mainly chose people who supported a pro-war position.”

Weisbrot wrote, “The Iraq War has been a prominent, even decisive issue, in some recent US presidential elections. It played a significant role in the surprise presidential primary victory won by a freshman senator from Illinois named Barack Obama in 2008. His heavily-favored Democratic primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, had voted in the US Senate to authorize the war, and Obama didn’t let her forget it during that contest.”

Foreign policy expert Stephen Zunes wrote an article, “Would Joe Biden, Like Hillary Clinton, Lose to Donald Trump Over the Iraq War?.” He argued that Biden’s role in getting the war authorization through the Democratic-controlled Senate has “raised serious questions regarding his electability.”

The “WORTH THE PRICE?” website is still a worthwhile stop for those interested in Biden’s commitment to the military-industrial complex. But it’s too late for the “progressives” to stop Biden from getting the nomination. And we are now learning that Biden’s foreign policy team is laying the groundwork for another war in Syria if Biden wins in November.

One political operative, Jacob Jeremiah “Jake” Sullivan, is a prominent Democratic foreign policy adviser to Joe Biden and previously served as a Senior Policy Advisor to the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign. He claims that, “During his tenure as vice president, Joe Biden led the effort to end the Iraq War,” ignoring his role in authorizing that war.

Sullivan noted that Biden is “the parent of a service member who deployed to Iraq” and “he understands the risks our troops take to keep our country safe. Sending them to fight overseas is not an academic exercise for Joe Biden — it’s deeply personal.”

That was a reference to Beau Biden, an Iraq war veteran who died from brain cancer. Another son, Hunter, was discharged from the Navy Reserve after testing positive for cocaine.

As of August 31, 2020, the Pentagon’s casualty report estimates total American deaths in Iraq at 4,431, with 31,994 wounded in action. There have been tens of thousands of civilian casualties and the war has cost the U.S. $2 trillion.

President Trump has been withdrawing U.S. forces and says that the number of troops in Iraq will drop from the current 5,200 down to 3,500. “We’re down to a very small number of soldiers in Iraq now,” Trump said, “We defeated the ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria.”

The current US-Iraq Strategic Dialogue is based on the continuing drawdown of U.S. forces.

Branko Marcetic, the left-wing author of a book about Biden, Yesterday’s Man, argues that “Biden holds significant responsibility for the bloodshed that has engulfed Iraq and the surrounding region since the invasion.” He notes that Rep. Seth Moulton, who also ran for the Democratic presidential nomination, had called for Biden to admit he was wrong for voting for the war.

What’s more, a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll showed more than 40 percent of participants between eighteen and twenty-nine were less likely to back Biden because of it. That includes millions of men, ages 18 through 25, who are required to register for the Selective Service and a draft to wage war.

There is a push by some “progressives” who support Biden to change the males-only draft registration system to include women. But while women don’t have to currently register for the draft, they can volunteer for the military and go to war in foreign countries.

Like their male counterparts, they can judge Trump’s opposition to never-ending foreign wars with Biden’s lies about his role in making the Iraq War possible.

The conclusion is that Trump is the anti-war candidate.

As Senator Paul said, “President Trump is the first president in a generation to seek to end war rather than start one. He intends to end the war in Afghanistan. He is bringing our men and women home. Madison once wrote, ‘No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continuous warfare.’ I’m proud to finally see a president who agrees with that.”