Whilst cole is clear on the legality of the war his position is not so clear on the morality of the war. Obviously, to the extent that this illegitimate war achieved the goal that cole desired then he may have been tempted to offer moral support for the war. The question then arises as to whether the war was morally justified. If saddam was genocidal, as cole suggests, this would justify moral support even for an illegitimate war. However, it is highly questionable that saddam was genocidal. He was certainly not in the same league as pol pot’s regime in cambodia. Whilst saddam was a ruthless dictator who would not hesitate to use violence against his opponents he never sought the extermination of a whole ethnic group and he never slaughtered his own allies. He punished those who opposed him but usually left alone those who did not. It is true that he initiated the war against iran and pursued this hideous war for eight years but the americans share as much blame for this as saddam since they pushed him into the war and helped to sustain his war effort. As appalling as saddam was he was nothing like as bad as he has been made out to be so there was no moral case for a war to depose him. Indeed, there was no way of getting rid of him without causing even more problems. Iraq is far worse off under the americans than it was under saddam. What is more, if cole calls saddam's regime genocidal then he must also define as genocidal america’s sanctions against iraq and its invasion/occupation of the country.

Cole seems to go beyond this unpalatable political fact of international life by suggesting the un’s legitimization of america’s occupation of iraq makes the occupation morally acceptable. America’s occupation of iraq is immoral for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the bush administration set up a so-called interim iraqi regime whose first function was to submit a request to the un for the american military to occupy the country. This puppet american regime had no moral authority to sanctify or legitimize america’s occupation.

Secondly, the bush administration’s moral case for the occupation of iraq, i.e. the establishment of democracy, is a deception. All the reasons given by the bush administration for america’s invasion of iraq turned out to be lies and the reason it gives for the occupation of iraq is also a lie. America has no intention of allowing iraqis to create their own system of democracy. There is no more chance of americans establishing democracy in iraq than there was of finding weapons of mass destruction in that country.

The bush administration is dominated by israelis whose loyalty is primarily to the jews-only state in palestine. These israelis, and their allies, systematically lied to the american public in order to win their support for the invasion of iraq because they wanted to neutralize saddam’s minimal military threat to the jews-only state in palestine. They wanted to ensure iraq would never again pose a threat to the jews-only state. They aimed to achieve this goal either through the palestinianization of iraq or the permanent occupation of iraq. If the iraqis turned out to be successful in resisting the occupation of their country, the zionists in the bush administration would use america’s overwhelming military power to reduce iraq to rubble, as the jews-only state has done to palestinians in palestine, thereby ensuring it would take decades for the country to recover industrially and militarily to the level it was at before the invasion. If, however, the iraqi resistance did not materialize then the zionists in the bush administration would try to establish a permanent military presence in the country - making the palestinianization of iraq unnecessary.

Thirdly, after the invasion of iraq, the bush administration opposed the idea of democratic elections ­ it even stopped iraqi local elections from going ahead. It was only political pressure from grand ayatollah ali sistani, that forced bush to accept the need for national elections.(1) When america started making preparations for the election of a democratic iraqi government it agreed the new government would have the power to request the withdrawal of the american military. Bush stated he would withdraw his troops if this was requested but he did everything he could to shape the iraqi constitutional process so that those elected would not make such a request. What the bush administration wanted was the election of a quisling iraqi government which would pacify the country sufficiently to enable america to establish a permanent military presence in iraq.

The bush administration has no intention of allowing iraqis to choose a political system that will suit their own national interests ­ the most obvious being able to militarily defend itself from zionist expansionism. It intervened in what should be iraqi domestic politics to shape the elections to the constitutional assembly, "The Americans crafted the election as a national one, in order to make it more difficult for strongly local and sectarian political forces to do well. The party lists that fare best will be those with strongest national support. The down side of this plan is that if a major constituency, such as the Sunni Arabs, boycotts, then they will get virtually no seats and the legitimacy of the resulting parliament would be weakened." (Juan Cole ‘Did Fallujah Sink the Elections?’ http://www.juancole.com/ November 19th 2004). The form of the national elections in iraq chosen by the zionists in the bush administration is similar to that being used in the jews-only state in palestine, "The success or failure of the political process in Iraq anyway has nothing to do with yearning for democracy. It has to do with the frankly stupid policies implemented by the Bush administration in Iraq. If the whole enterprise goes bad, it won't be because the Iraqis couldn't live up to Mr. Langley's ideals. It will be because the Americans, especially the Neoconservatives, crafted a ridiculous electoral system based on that of Israel." (Juan Cole ‘Elections in Iraq will be Held on Schedule, But with What Result?’ http://www.juancole.com/ November 28, 2004).

Those elected to the constitutional assembly won’t be free to create the type of state they want or believe is best for their country - they will continually have their ideas and ideals challenged or manipulated by the zionists ruling the country.

Fourthly, what makes america’s occupation of iraq even more immoral are the appalling military tactics being used to quell opposition to the occupation. These include: the illegal imprisonment and torture of iraqi civilians in order to turn them into informants; the shooting insurgents on sight (2); the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas; the widespread demolition of urban areas to destroy any resistance to the occupation; the use of bulldozers as machinery of war; the collective punishment of iraqis for the iraqi insurgency; the deliberate targeting of hospitals to prevent news about civilian casualty rates (3); etc. The american military is committing war crimes in iraq. Virtually all of america’s military tactics have been learnt from zionists’ oppression of palestinians - sometimes zionist military officials have been guiding american operations.

The bush administration’s treatment of the iraqi people, its refusal to stop looters from decimating the country’s cultural heritage; its refusal to allow iraqis to carry out even local elections; its failure to do anything about wide-scale malnutrition amongst iraqi children; and its appalling military tactics; all of this shows that it has no good intentions for the country and that it is occupying the country only for the benefit of the zionist state in palestine.

It has been pointed out above that cole believes the occupation of iraq is now legitimate. However, in june 2005, in an attempt to clarify his position over the war he argued the occupation of iraq is not legitimate. "When the UNSC declined to do either, very late in the game, it became apparent that I could have either justice or the rule of law. At that point I chose the rule of law. I did not see the invasion, the war, or the subsequent occupation as legitimate." (‘Cole on Knowing his Own History; and Isaiah Berlin’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_06_01_juancole_archive.html June 23rd 2005).

The moral dilemma that cole finds himself in is that the more he challenges the legitimacy of the war and the occupation, the more he undermines the honour of americans, whether military or civilian, who have died in iraq as a result of this illegitimate war. And conversely the more he tries to salvage the honour of american fatalities in iraq the more he legitimizes the war, "Just because I chose the rule of law over justice, however, does not mean that justice as a consideration had evaporated. The US troops who gave their lives to depose Saddam and free Iraqis from his yoke were helping achieve justice, which any Kurd or Shiite in Iraq will tell you. I stand by that, and I assure every grieving parent who has lost a child in the Iraq war that it was a meaningful sacrifice, because the Baath system was monstrous. But this achievement was deeply flawed (and may yet be undone) because it was done illegally." (‘Cole on Knowing his Own History; and Isaiah Berlin’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_06_01_juancole_archive.html June 23rd 2005).

Cole’s attempt to say that american (and british) troops are not dying in vain is entirely understandable. As an american patriot the last thing he wants to do is to add further burdens to the families of the bereaved. But in adopting such a stance he is ignoring all the other victims of this carnage who are far greater in number and far more innocent since they did not participate in the war against america. It thus becomes morally imperative to ensure that tens of thousands of innocent iraqis did not die in vain by telling the truth - that the zionists in america systematically lied to the american public to manipulate them into supporting a war in which america had no national interest; that the invasion was carried out solely to please the jews-only state in palestine and the jewish traitors within the bush administration; and, finally, that the invasion was illegal. It is imperative to tell the truth no matter how dreadful this is: american troops have died in iraq because they were duped into the war by the jewish traitors within the bush administration and tens of thousands of innocent iraqi civilians have been slaughtered in order to appease the warmongering jews-only state in palestine. It is possible to make moral judgements about what is happening in iraq only on this foundation of truth. Cole’s understandable efforts to provide solace for the deaths of american soldiers in iraq leads him not merely to overlook the greater need for consolation to be given to innocent iraqi victims, but to provide a moral legitimacy for the war.

He provided two justifications for the attack. Firstly, because it would stop insurgents from continuing to kill innocent people, "A significant proportion of the absolutely horrible car bombings that have killed hundreds and thousands of innocent Iraqis, especially Shiites, were planned and executed from Fallujah. There were serious and heavily armed forces in Fallujah planning out ways of killing hundreds ... These are mass murderers, serial murderers." (Juan Cole ‘More on Marine Mosque Killing’ http://www.juancole.com/2004_11_01_juancole_archive.html November 18th 2004). Secondly, because insurgents were trying to undermine national elections held in january 2005.

Neither of these justifications is satisfactory. Firstly, the number of innocent iraqis killed by the americans during the invasion of fallujah is far greater than the numbers killed by insurgents ­ just as the number of innocent iraqis killed by the americans during the invasion and occupation of iraq is far greater than the numbers killed by insurgents. That the americans were going to slaughter large numbers of iraqis in fallujah was obvious from the fact that months before the invasion the american military indicated its intention to demolish the city. According to tom engelhardt, "News about the resulting devastation grows worse by the day, though the announced body counts of dead insurgents ­ 1,200 or more ­ can't be trusted. (I'm reminded of the informal "Mere Gook Rule" of the Vietnam War when it came to body counts: "If it's dead and it's Vietnamese, it's VC [Vietcong].") But the main point no one will make in the American news mainstream ­ where U.S. military self-constraint tends to be emphasized and military claims about efforts to avoid civilian casualties are printed without significant comment ­ is simple indeed: The levels of destruction in Fallujah were not a by-product of the campaign, but the product itself. The rubblizing of whole neighborhoods was meant. The Bush administration may indeed have invaded Iraq on a theory, not a plan, but the assault on Fallujah itself was planned with great care over significant periods of time. So what remains of that city in which hardly a building evidently emerged unscathed (among those that remain standing) must be considered the Fallujah that was supposed to be. The brief shots on the nightly news are breathtaking (or breath-stopping) in the visible levels of destruction whenever the camera bothers to pull back for a few seconds. You have to return to 1968 and the old Vietnamese imperial capital of Hue to find a city flattened in anything like this manner by the American war machine; and in that case, the Americans were responding to Hue's surprise seizure by the other side in the midst of the nationwide Tet Offensive." (Tom Engelhardt ‘Draining the Swamp’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=4013 November 20, 2004). Once again, the americans copied this military tactic from the jews-only state in palestine which has frequently used it against palestinians.

The americans were trying to win the "hearts and minds" of the iraqi people by demonstrating they are to be feared more than the so-called terrorists who allegedly control the iraqi population! "The October 12 New York Times offered this interesting quote from "one Pentagon official: "If there are civilians dying in connection with these attacks, and with the destruction, the local as some point have to make a decision. Do they want to harbor the insurgents and suffer the consequences that come with that, or do they want to get rid of the insurgents and have the benefit of not having them there?" As the article goes on to make clear, American officials believe such terror bombing will split the resistance. In fact, the whole history of air warfare says it will have the opposite effect." (William S. Lind ‘It's Worse Than a Crime; It's a Blunder’ October 22 / 24, 2004).

The second reason for cole’s support of america’s invasion of fallujah was to stop iraqi freedom fighters from disrupting the january 2005 elections. However, america’s war crimes against fallujah turned even more iraqis against those elections. As a result of the invasion, many political parties decided to boycott the elections.

That cole could support what everyone knew was going to be a demolition job, a war crime, against fallujah is appalling.

Quite who is carrying out such attacks on innocent iraqi people is virtually impossible to determine. Some of it could be carried out by those in the iraqi freedom fighting movement who have been pushed over the edge by the violence or have lost sight of their long term goals. Some of it could be carried out by non-iraqi islamic extremists. Some could be carried out by the iraqi criminal underground trying to make some money.

However, some of it could be the responsibility of american counter-insurgency agents ­ after all, john negroponte set up death squads in several south american countries to stop indigenous uprisings against america’s quisling governments. Since american bigotry/stupidity/incompetence has comprehensively alienated the iraqi people, perhaps the american counter-insurgency agency has decided its only option is to undermine popular support for iraqi freedom fighters by carrying out acts of barbarity and make it appear to be the work of militant iraqis. The more that the americans carry out such subterfuge the more that the iraqi people will lose trust and confidence in those fighting on their behalf. If the american counter-insurgency agents are involved in the indiscriminate mass murder of iraqi civilians, which is after all just what the american military is doing, such a policy might be inhumane and illegal but it would also be entirely rationale. Given that americans have utterly disgraced themselves in iraq it is sensible for them to try to shift the disgrace onto iraqi freedom fighters. Then again, since so many of the american tactics used in iraq are copied from the jewish military oppression of palestinians, then perhaps such tactics do not seem inhumane to american intelligence at all.

Finally, some of the atrocities could have been carried out by mossad. Nimmo suspects mossad involvement, "In fact, as Noam Chomsky points out in a foreword to Livia Rokach’s "Israel’s Sacred Terrorism," the Zionist state "may have had a substantial role in initiating and perpetuating violence and conflict" in order to avoid making peace with its neighbors (since obviously peace is diametrically opposed to the idea of Greater Israel). Again, there is little evidence Israel and the United States are behind the truly horrific number of car and suicide bombings in Iraq - targeting not only Iraqi policemen (who may be considered legitimate military targets) but children and other innocent civilians as well - although past behavior of Mossad, the CIA, and the covert military operations of both countries in the Middle East should, at minimum, allow us to consider the possibility. As a primary example, consider the CIA car bombing outside a block of flats and close to a mosque as worshippers were gathering for Friday night prayers in a densely populated Shia Muslim suburb in Beirut, 1985 (the target of the bomb, that killed 45 people and wounded 175, was Sheikh Muhammad Husain Fadlallah, a Shia cleric)." (Kurt Nimmo ‘Iraqi Suicide Bombings: the Strausscons and Likudites Sowing Chaos’ http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=433 November 23, 2004).

Quite absurdly, however, cole believes that mossad plays no role in iraq, "Israel isn't blowing up things in Iraq, and has no motive to do so. Baathists and Sunni fundamentalists are." (Juan Cole ‘Mosul Attack leaves 22 Dead, 51 Wounded’ http://www.juancole.com/ December 21st 2004). Nimmo highlighted the absence of evidence as to who is responsible for the indiscriminate acts of violence and criticized cole for blaming only iraqi freedom fighters. "First and foremost, it is nearly impossible to ascertain who is responsible for the car and suicide bombings in Iraq, primarily due to an almost complete lack of reporting there, due mostly to the Bush administration’s desire to make sure the news does not get reported in an objective manner (and "embedded" journalists are anything but objective). Since we do not have a balanced picture of what’s going on in Iraq - or for that matter, much of a picture at all beyond what the Bush Ministry of Disinformation reports - Cole’s conclusions are not only absurd, they are irresponsible." (Kurt Nimmo ‘Iraqi Suicide Bombings: the Strausscons and Likudites Sowing Chaos’ http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=433 November 23, 2004).

It is plausible that mossad is involved in some of the bombings/assassinations. There are many zionists who believe the jews-only state has a vested interest in bringing about the break up, disintegration, or palestinianization, of iraq. To believe the jews-only state has no vested interests in iraq shows cole’s crass political stupidity. But then again he might not be stupid so much as have a pro-zionist bias. Nimmo expresses his doubts about cole’s analysis, "Although Juan Cole is a professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian history, I believe he underestimates the role Israel plays in Arab terrorism, as do a large number of academics (as for the media, they invariably portray Israel as a sterling example of "democracy" amid a sea of Arab terror, thus adding to the insanity [as Xymphora terms it] of the American people, even intellectuals should know better)." (Kurt Nimmo ‘Iraqi Suicide Bombings: the Strausscons and Likudites Sowing Chaos’ http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=433 November 23, 2004).

Cole also argues that america, the occupying power in iraq, is on a higher legal and moral footing than those fighting the occupiers. This is morally appalling. The american military are occupiers and cannot possibly have a greater moral authority than those resisting such an occupation. To argue that occupiers have a higher moral authority than those resisting an occupation is a justification for any country to invade another. The occupiers of a country cannot possibly have a greater concern for those being occupied than the occupied themselves. This would be true even if the occupiers used no violence whatsoever against those they are occupying. However, it is nigh on impossible for the occupiers to have a greater concern for the occupied than the occupied themselves when the occupiers are carrying out the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas which they know will result in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It has recently been estimated that the americans have slaughtered 100,000 innocent iraqis as a consequence of their invasion and occupation of iraq. The american military has deliberately killed innocent iraqis in order to terrorize the iraqi people into submission. There is no moral equivalence between the aggression of invaders and the defensive actions of the invaded. "Some 100,000 Iraqi civilians are now estimated dead because of the war and occupation. This followed the roughly 1 million Iraqis killed from the deprivation caused by more than a decade of economic sanctions. And this followed a death toll of up to 200,000 in the 1991 Gulf War. Choosing sides should not be so difficult. Without for a moment endorsing the tactic of targeting civilians, which is used by parts of the resistance, the sheer magnitude of the death and destruction inflicted by the U.S. upon ordinary Iraqis should dispel any myth that the two sides in this war deserve equal condemnation." (Sharon Smith ‘The Right to Resist Occupation’ http://www.counterpunch.org/smith01212005.html January 21, 2005).

What is even more appalling is that cole seeks to undermine the moral superiority of those fighting the occupiers by smearing them as being the same as the terrorists who barbarically execute innocent hostages.

Strangely, justin raimondo takes a similar line to cole over the moral superiority of the occupiers, "We opposed the invasion of Iraq ­ without giving any support to Saddam Hussein ­ just as we opposed the war against the former Yugoslavia, while refusing to defend either the politics or the actions of Slobodan Milosevic and his followers. Today, we oppose the occupation of Iraq, without granting the Islamist-Ba'athist resistance a single iota of moral or political legitimacy." (Justin Raimondo ‘Why We Fight: A reminder" http://antiwar.com/justin/ November 19, 2004 ). Saddam hussein’s crimes against the iraqi people are nothing like as dreadful as the crimes committed by the american military in iraq.

Cole gradually began to show some understanding of the forces driving iraqi freedom fighters when he stated, "Although US military spokesmen keep suggesting that the torture practices were confined to a few soldiers in the lower ranks, and that the photos were mere trophies, Seymour Hersh has argued that the soldiers were ordered to humiliate and photograph the prisoners as a way of blackmailing them into becoming informants for the US. The Americans were depending on Orientalist works like Raphael Patai's The Arab Mind in finding ways of controlling Iraqis, and were convinced that threatening males in an honor society with humiliation was the key. The downside of using humiliation against a man whose life revolves around his honor is that he is thereafter bound to hate you, and to someday take his revenge. I wonder how many of the "insurgents" who have blown up so many US troops had been "controlled" this way in Abu Ghuraib or elsewhere." (Juan Cole ‘Abu Ghuraib Redux’ http://www.juancole.com/ December 6, 2004). It has to be hoped that many of those humiliated by the american military will take their revenge. It’s a shame that vietnam doesn’t share a border with iraq since this would give the millions of vietnamese who’d had relatives murdered by the american military, the chance to exact their revenge - but then again, given that the vietnamese are so much more civilized than americans they would be unlikely to want to make matters worse.

The bush administration is destroying iraq whilst protesting it is trying to rebuild the country. It is insisting that it is bringing order to iraq when all it is doing is spreading chaos. America’s primary goal in iraq is to prevent the country from once again becoming any sort of threat to the jews-only state in palestine. It is trying to achieve this goal either through the establishment of a permanent military presence in the country or through the palestinianization of the country. Anybody who believes that americans are occupying iraq for the good of the iraqi people is either a fool or, like juan cole, an american bigot. Iraqis don’t need americans to create democracy when they could do this themselves.

The invasion of fallujah has shown that the country is no longer viable. The silence of the shias and the kurds over the appalling injustices that the americans perpetrated on the sunnis of fallujah proves beyond doubt that iraq is no longer capable of existing as it had done under saddam and thus needs to be allowed to disintegrate into three separate countries. There are no iraqis - only shias, sunnis, and kurds.

The irony of america’s invasion of iraq is that it was supposed to curb the biggest threat to the jews-only state in palestine. Whilst the israelis in the american government are now arguing that iran is the biggest threat to the jews-only state, they went along with elections in iraq which gave power to the ethnic group that is iran’s closest ally. Perhaps the belief that, after the january 2005 elections, iraq will become more closely affiliated with iran is just another reason why the israelis in the american administration believe it is imperative to push america into a proxy zionist war against iran ­ to prevent iran from becoming an even bigger rival to the jews-only state in palestine. Having invaded iraq to prevent it from posing a threat to the jews-only state, america has now turned iran into an even bigger threat to the jews-only state which, in the eyes of america’s neocons necessitates america’s invasion of iran.

The core of cole’s problem is that he is an academic. No matter how much academics might profess their independence this is rarely true ­ especially these days when zionists in america are mounting savage and libelous personal attacks on academics who criticize or even question bush’s policies. Academics belong to academic institutions which receive private funding and any academic trying to tell the truth has to bear in mind the views of the universities’ sponsors.

Cole is a man of integrity and a strong sense of justice. His blog is a must read but his patriotism and dependency on a mainstream american institution causes him to reach absurd mainstream conclusions.

This is pretty ferocious stuff and yet cole continues in the same vein, "Jonah Goldberg is a fearmonger, a warmonger, and a demagogue. And besides, he was just plain wrong about one of the more important foreign policy issues to face the United States in the past half-century. It is shameful that he dares show his face in public, much less continuing to pontificate about his profound knowledge of just what Iraq is like and what needs to be done about Iraq and the significance of events in Iraq." (Juan Cole ‘Jonah Goldberg Embarrasses Himself Once Again’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_
juancole_archive.html February 5th 2005). Antiwar.com waded in with a blog highlighting some of goldberg’s warmongering views, ‘Jonah Goldberg: Hypocrite, Chickenhawk’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/archives.
php?id=A2005021 February 6th 2005).

Goldberg’s responses to these criticisms just served to increase the ferocity of cole’s attack on goldberg, "Let us see what has been established. First, I alleged that Goldberg has never read a book about Iraq, about which he keeps fulminating. I expected him at least to lie in response, the way W. did when similarly challenged on his book-reading. I expected Goldberg to say, "That is not true! I have read Phebe Marr's book on modern Iraq from cover to cover and know all about the 1963 failed Baathist coup!" But Goldberg did not respond in this way. I conclude that I was correct, and he has never read a book on this subject. In the end, I am saying that Goldberg's punditry is empty. All he has to offer us is a party line and a strongly held opinion. Not all pundits are in this category. Goldberg is particularly unsubstantive." (Juan Cole ‘Goldberg v. Cole Redux’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 8th 2005).

Cole then raises the interesting point about why the media pays goldberg vast amounts of money to pontificate on issues about which he has done such little background reading, "I am saying I do not understand why CNN or NPR would hire someone to talk about Iraq policy who has not read a book on the subject under discussion. Actually, of course, it would be desirable that he had read more than one book. Books are nice. They are rectangular and soft and have information in them. They can even be consumed on airplanes. Goldberg should try one." (Juan Cole ‘Goldberg v. Cole Redux’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 8th 2005).

Cole proceeds to answer his own question whilst further savaging the by now battered journalist, "But Goldberg is just a dime a dozen pundit. Cranky rich people hire sharp-tongued and relatively uninformed young people all the time and put them on the mass media to badmouth the poor, spread bigotry, exalt mindless militarism, promote anti-intellectualism, and ensure generally that rightwing views come to predominate even among people who are harmed by such policies. One of their jobs is to marginalize progressives by smearing them as unreliable." (Juan Cole ‘Goldberg v. Cole Redux’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 8th 2005).

Cole emphasizes the seriousness of his charges against goldberg by pointing out the threat that people like goldberg pose to american democracy, "The corporate media failed the United States in 2002-2003. The US government failed the American people in 2002-2003. That empty, and often empty-headed punditry, which Jon Stewart destroyed so skilfully, played a big role in dragooning the American people into a wasteful and destructive elective war that threatens to warp American society and very possibly to end the free Republic we have managed to maintain for over 200 years. Already severe challenges to our sacred Constitution have been launched by the Right. Goldberg is a big proponent of "profiling," which is to say, spying on people because of their ethnicity rather than because of anything they as individuals have done wrong. That is only the beginning, if such persons maintain their influence on public discourse." (Juan Cole ‘Goldberg v. Cole Redux’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 8th 2005).

Given the ferocity of cole’s attack on goldberg and the seriousness of the issues involved, it might have been thought that cole would not have held back on any pertinent information. And yet cole has pulled his punches: he has refused to mention that goldberg is a zionist who writes for the zionist owned american media which gave full-scale support to aamerica’s proxy zionist war against iraq. Cole probably believes he won a decisive victory over this ignoramus but, in reality, goldberg has won hands down because cole has abided by the taboos that zionists have imposed on americans against talking about the role of zionism in american politics. As long as lefty progressive critics of the war against iraq continue to abide by these taboos they are never going to expose and counter-act the primary cause of america’s problems ­ the zionist control of the american media, the zionist control over congress, and the zionist control over the presidency.

Another major point made by cole was that goldberg refused to fight for his country. Goldberg’s explanation is that, "As for why my sorry a** isn't in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give - I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my a** is, er, sorry, are a few - ever seem to suffice." (Jonah Goldberg ‘On and On’ http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/
05_01_30_corner-archive.asp#055419 February 5th 2005). Cole denounces goldberg for being a warmonger who refuses to fight in the war, "Goldberg helped send nearly 1500 brave Americans to their deaths and helped maim over 10,000, not to mention all the innocent Iraqi civilians he helped get killed. He helped dragoon 140,000 US troops in Iraq. And he does not have the courage of his convictions. His excuse is that he couldn't afford to take the pay cut! What is Goldberg going to say to the tens of thousands of reservists he helped send to Iraq, who are losing their mortgages and small businesses and have been kidnapped for 18 months at a time (not what they thought they were signing up for) by Rumsfeld? "Well guys, thanks for carrying out the policy I wanted to see, and for putting your own little girls into penury. I'd have loved to help out, but my little girl is more important than yours and besides, I like a good meal and I hear you only get MREs." (Juan Cole ‘Jonah Goldberg Embarrasses Himself Once Again’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_
archive.html February 5th 2005). Just how important this issue was to cole could be perceived by the fact that he returned to the issue, "Although I do not believe that everyone who advocates a war must go and fight it, I do believe that young men who advocate a war must go and fight it. Goldberg was in his early 30s in 2002, and the army would have taken him. An older colleague who was at Harvard in 1941 told me about how the freshman class rushed to enlist. That was the characteristic of the Greatest Generation - they put their money where their mouths were. Goldberg's response was insulting to all the soldiers fighting in Iraq who have suffered economically and who are remote from their families. I don't think there is anything at all unpatriotic about a young man opposing a war and declining to enlist. But a young man (and this applies to W. and Cheney too) who mouths off strongly about the desirability of a war is a coward and a hypocrite if he does not go to fight it." (Juan Cole ‘Goldberg v. Cole Redux’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 8th 2005).

Predictably justin raimondo’s blog carries a humiliating attack on this issue, ‘Jonah Goldberg: Hypocrite, Chickenhawk’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=0

Come on, let’s be honest about this. Goldberg has succeeded in persuading non-zionist americans to lay down their lives and often their families to protect the jews-only state in palestine. Why on Earth would he want to go fight himself when he can get american mugs to do it for him? This is no reflection on his courage. As a ‘de jure’ citizen of the jews-only state, if the jews-only state came under attack he’d doubtlessly be the first to enlist.

This is not at what has been happening in american politics over the last three decades or so. Zionist lobby groups continually groom allies or potential allies. Some zionist lobby groups are specifically dedicated to winning over particular groups within american society, such as leading american military figures, or prospective military leaders moving through the ranks, or local politicians or students. The people in these target groups are groomed with all expenses paid visits to the jews-only state in palestine. The zionists within the main two political parties help to place jewish politicians in positions of power. The zionist dominated media continually promotes the interests and policies of the jews-only state in palestine. It pours out a continual stream of propaganda about the jews-only state in palestine so that americans come to view this racist, apartheid state as just another american state. As a consequence, whenever the zionists need to act, the support is there for them. In other words, the zionist lobby is not like pork barrel politics where someone proposes an initiative and then goes around to find out who might support it. What is involved here is grooming and indoctrination to the jewish cause so that people are almost automatically expected to give their support to the zionist initiative. The zionist lobby is not powerful enough to order people to do what it wants but it is powerful enough to manipulate people into doing what it wants.

It is quite true that "only a tiny percentage of American Jews are Neoconservatives" but most jews in america accept most of the views put forward by neocons especially those concerning the jews-only state in palestine.

However, it is not true that, "only a tiny percentage of Neoconservatives are Jews." The leading lights of the neocons are virtually all jewish.

Cole has criticized the influence of the neocons on the bush administration, "Now US occupation of Iraq is making it even more hated in the Muslim world. It is a policy hatched in part by AIPAC, WINEP, and their associated "thinkers." The cynical might suggest that they actively want the US involved in a violent struggle with Muslims, to make sure that the US remains anti-Palestinian and so will permit Israeli expansion." (Juan Cole ‘Israeli Spy in Pentagon Linked to AIPAC’ http://www.juancole.com/ August 28, 2004).

The day after publishing the above views cole wrote, "Here is my take on the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal in the Pentagon. It is an echo of the one-two punch secretly planned by the pro-Likud faction in the Department of Defense. First, Iraq would be taken out by the United States, and then Iran. David Wurmser, a key member of the group, also wanted Syria included. These pro-Likud intellectuals concluded that 9/11 would give them carte blanche to use the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv (not wars that really needed to be fought, but wars that the Likud coalition thought it would be nice to see fought so as to increase Israel's ability to annex land and act aggressively, especially if someone else's boys did the dying). Franklin's movements reveal the contours of a rightwing conspiracy of warmongering and aggression, an orgy of destruction, for the benefit of the Likud Party, of Silvio Berlusconi's business in the Middle East, and of the Neoconservative Right in the United States. It isn't about spying. It is about conspiring to conscript the US government on behalf of a foreign power or powers." (Juan Cole ‘Pentagon/Israel Spying Case Expands: Fomenting a War on Iran’ http://www.juancole.com/ August 29, 2004).

It has been pointed out above that cole refuses to dishonour americans who have been killed in iraq by saying that they have died in vain. He refuses to state that american lives are being sacrificed for the american zionist lobby and the jews-only state in palestine not because he does not believe this is true but because he simply does not want to link the two issues. Until he can say that israeli traitors in the bush administration duped americans into supporting the war and that americans who thought they are dying for their own country are in fact dying for the jews-only state in palestine, then cole is failing to face the dirty, nasty truth.

The likudniks have done more than just made themselves "respectable". Firstly, if le pen was appointed in france, the french media would have erupted in anger and would have provoked the french public into opposing such an appointment which would have made it difficult for politicians to continue protecting le pen. The media would have dredged up any skeletons rattling in his cupboard, hyped up anxieties about the sorts of policies he would try to implement, and generally stirred up as much animosity as possible against him. French politicians would have done their best to revile what to them would have been an alien presence. The fact that this did not happen in america when feith was appointed shows that the american media and the american congress is as solidly likudnik as feith. This can only mean that the likuniks control america as much as they control palestine which in turns implies that zionists are engaged in a global conspiracy to promote zionist world domination.

Secondly, the fact that there would have been considerable international protests if le pen was appointed to no3 in france but there were none when feith was appointed to no.3 in america, shows that in countries like britain, france, germany, and russia, the zionists have sufficient political power to make feith’s election a non-issue. The media and the politicians in these countries are sufficiently influenced by the global power of the likudnik party to ignore the appointment of another likudik supporter to the american administration.

The likudnik party is the main organization behind the global zionist conspiracy for world domination. The fact that cole keeps presenting evidence to show this is true but remains unwilling to state this truth is indicative of his fear of likudnik power to silence him should he over-step zionists’ taboos on the subject. The likudniks in palestine have poisoned world politics with their support for racism. The fact that america, britain, france, germany, and russia, support likudnik policies reveals the degree to which zionists, and all those jews who have refused to denounce zionism, have poisoned these countries because of their control over them.