they will profit by destroying what our founding fathers once told us i'm tom hartman and on this show we reveal the big picture of what's actually going on in the world we go beyond identifying the problem truck rational debate and a real discussion critical issues facing america five ready to join the movement then walk a little bit if. there's a media leave us so we leave the media. by the sea motion security play your part of the musical. push use that no one is asking with the guests that you deserve answers from it's all on politics only on our t.v. . one of the wonderful mormon

a lot of these. people. pleasure to have you with us here on t.v. today i'm sure. below and welcome to crossfire pour all things considered i'm peter lavelle the return and we venture of the neo cons as a middle east descends into a regional civil war and ukraine becomes a failed state washington's foreign policy neoconservatives are on the march the

world is their playground. to cross-talk the neocon agenda i'm joined by my guest robert perry in washington he is an investigative reporter for the a.p. and newsweek who now edits the online news site consortium news dot com also in washington we have jim lobe he is the washington bureau chief for intra press service and director of a blog on us middle east policy called low blog dot com and in champaign we cross to francis boyle he is a professor of international law at the university of illinois college of law are gentlemen cross-talk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want and i very much encourage it robert to go to you first in washington you wrote an article recently obama's true foreign policy weakness what is that weakness. well president obama has been willing to fall into the control under the control pretty much of the neo conservatives and some of their liberal interventionists

friends he has instead of asserting more of a real break from the george w. bush policies he has he has adopted them he has avoided perhaps some of the more extreme problems but in many ways he has not challenge them in any fundamental way so why is that why well it's a good question and he he i think he basically is trying to avoid the kind of hard political battle that would be required to if he were to challenge this what's become a very powerful force in washington the neoconservatives have been building strength in d.c. since the one nine hundred eighty s. they've they not only have been important players in the reagan and the bush administrations but they've also had keep positions in powerful think tanks they control some of the major op ed pages of american newspapers like the washington post and they've they've established themselves as a force to be reckoned with that should really prevent a president from from challenging them the president does control us foreign policy

but president obama has not been willing to do so plus he's surrounded himself with some of these what might be called liberal interventionists and they're very very much in league with the neo cons right now you've seen an alliance that's developed over the past several years between the old neo cons and these liberal interventionists and in fact some like robert kagan some of the old neo cons now want to call themselves liberal interventionist so what you've seen is kind of a merger of those forces and president obama has been unwilling to challenge them and in fact as it has enabled them. jim in washington as well it seems to me that from the one thousand nine hundred to the president to the president that then you can see conservative creed has become part and parcel of the genetic code of american foreign policy. i actually. agree with that particularly i mean they're certainly a factor in american foreign policy but their influence have waxed and waned. over

a period of almost four decades now well indeed for decades at least. i mean i i fundamentally agree with what bob you know just just said but i would say i think . liberal internationalists and neo cons are fairly distinct traditions although they're kind of like first cousins you could talk about that later but they have a light in the past i mean in the one nine hundred ninety s. under bill clinton you saw very much of an alliance between neo conservatives and liberal interventionists particularly as regards the balkans so this the alliance that he's speaking of is quite important but it doesn't just date back a few years it it dates back some decades indeed neo conservatives who were originally democrat for the most part ridgeley democrats who became disillusioned with the mcgovern wing of the party as for the influence on on obama i think the neo cons are much less influential than the liberal interventionists and as i say i

think there there are important differences between the two groups although they do have a tendency to ally themselves from time to time over several decades francis in champaign these people that have so much influence it whatever creed we can stress here but they don't have much of a road record of success do they i mean the same people that brought us into iraq are on television talk shows now it's quite extraordinary well it's all a it be a logical i went to the university of chicago which is the founding center of the neo conservative movement where i was trained to become a neo con wolfowitz schol ski are all the rest of them were there. for the most part not all of them many of them are american jews. whose grandparents fled the russian empire during the program's against the

jews this resulted two factors one they hate russia and the russians with the passion and two they are very probably is real and against. arab and muslim world this can account for the policies we see toward ukraine in the middle east today second i agree with bob perry and jim lobe on the influence of the neo liberals as well obama's mentor at columbia was big enough. who ran his presidential campaign on foreign affairs in two thousand and eight and has stacked the national security council with persian ski protegees i went through the same program ph d. program at harvard that produced persian ski before me he is an expatriate paul who hates the russians with a passion and wants to see russia discombobulated so the top russian

expert on the national security council is a bridge and ski protege so we we have stat he's stacked the national security council with his people so i agree with bob what we're seeing here is a conjunction of both the neo conservatives and the neo liberals with respect to both russia and the middle east this is extremely dangerous that the only. the stablish main group staying on the outside criticizing those are the real politicker typified by henry kissinger again i went through the same ph d. program at harvard the produce kissinger before me he's a german jew who fled the nazis returned to fight he does not have this type of emotional baggage towards russia that bush in ski and his proteges have

and that is why there was such productive relations between the united states the soviet union under. nixon by. kissinger in the real politic years have been completely frozen out now by the obama administration the rivalry between kissinger and persians key goes way back to when they were six and professor at harvard together and regime skis made sure considers been completely frozen out my understanding is despite his public protestations mike is injured president obama has yet to speak with him ok robert it let's go back to the road record here i mean i don't i just don't see particularly in this century where any of these neo con ideas have actually. made america safer or the world safer you know when you look at the situation in the middle east it is it is so confusing that you know we it's even difficult to see where you support one regime that is

being attacked by another regime we have the russians are sending jets to help the regime survive in baghdad at the same time ababa want to spend five hundred million dollars on groups of people these mythical moderates in syria i mean that doesn't make any sense a lot of this but just very quickly but quickly the neoconservatives have also been very successful in controlling the narrative of washington i would say is perhaps their greatest strength they've understood the idea of information warfare going back to the one nine hundred eighty s. they they work they work closely with the national security council under ronald reagan it was walter raymond jr who was a cia propagandist was moved over there to kind of organize basically an information warfare against the american people the american people were seen as somewhat suspect because they'd opposed the vietnam war after a time so the idea was how do you get them back in line and that and the way they came up with was to develop these central narratives themes as they call them and they would use and so even when they fail because they've been so successful in

sort of in influencing these opinion circles of washington they succeed so for instance you have the catastrophe in iraq in the last. but then the neoconservative narrative is that well yes the after great invasion very successful invasion there was a problem with the implementation of the occupation but then came the surge then came near victory and then obama screwed it all up by withdrawing the troops so there's seem to be able to enforce these narratives even when they don't rematch up with any factual reality but they they have enough basis and they have enough way of influencing the whole the whole way washington things so you get this very alice in wonderland effect and so and they are able to make everything fit into one of their narratives for instance the catastrophe in syria is now being blamed even though the u.s. side is supporting with working with the saudis and others helped create this

problem in syria where these extremists became very powerful as rebel forces some of the dice this group and those are a front the the narrative is that if obama had only sent in more military support for the rebels earlier then it would've worked out fine so there's always a way to spin this and i think what we've seen is as we've seen similarly in crane this idea of how you control the narrative that's what's been happening in the united states i mean let me go to jim before we go to the break care let me go to jim jim is it just an information war it's very interesting what but we just heard well i'm frankly i think the influence of neo conservatives in in the current situation is is being exaggerated here i i don't agree that they're that influential and indeed we've seen in recent weeks that news organizations most recently the ombudsman at the new york times are excoriating. t.v. networks for putting on people who constantly who supported the iraq war and specifically

neo conservatives i don't think i don't see a neo conservative bubble at at this moment ok on that point there digit win. to go to when you're going to go to a short break and after the break we'll continue our discussion on neo-con state park. the media leave us so we leave to be. the same push to secure. all your party there's a. clear shoes that no one is asking with the guests that you deserve answers from it's all on politics only on our t.v. .

waters. spread all over. food you have in the whole world. drama. furthermore. really knows what's.

a. very hard. to get along here a lot of their sex lives of their lives.

live . a. please. welcome back to cross top where all things are considered i'm peter lavelle remind you we're discussing the role of the neoconservatives in american foreign policy.

ok mike to go back to francis and champaign one of the interesting things when you look at these neo-cons i mean whatever time period you want to look at it they always use the figleaves of democracy promotion but in the end it's usually chaos promotion right what i did want to get back to. this point bob was making that and your question that in fact from the neoconservative perspective u.s. foreign policy has been a great success now after nine eleven two thousand and one wolfowitz who i went to school with publicly stated that they were going to get into the business of destroying states and then we have the memoirs by general wesley clark saying that the deal cons were going to sequentially plea proceed to destroy seven arab muslim states that's exactly what they've done they destroyed afghanistan iraq syria libya they've dismembered sudan basically they've cracked in half yemen and russia is

next so from their perspective this is been a great success now i do agree with jim lobe and bob however that we see a can ruin sphere between the interests of the neo conservatives and the neo liberal interventionists organized underbridge in ski and his protege's who are controlling the foreign policy of the obama administration. the only people really dissenting except for for progressives like the three of us are the real politic ors like like kissinger and they've been locked out so it's a very dangerous situation in the middle east and also in ukraine with russia robert if i go back to the way out of from undersea promotion ok well let me go to robert on that one of his he used that phrase in your article that i mentioned earlier chaos promotion. right they certainly have promoted chaos that is francis

says you could look at that from their perspective a somewhat successful part of their concern and in some of the way the neo cons evolved in terms of their thinking comes out of the one nine hundred ninety s. after the first persian gulf war and the demonstration of american military superiority that was beyond anything in the world ever seen then there was also the frustration over the peace process with the palestinians so you had some leading neo cons richard perle of feith and others. who are who worked for the netanyahu campaign in in the mid one nine hundred ninety s. ninety six and prepare this new plan that instead of dealing with these frustrating . palestinian negotiations they would move to this new concept of regime change get rid of some of these countries that were supporting the palestinians or hezbollah or hamas and that was that that gave that evolved into the project for the new american century in ninety eight when they called for an invasion of iraq that was finally possible once president bush was in office now for nine eleven where the

attack then goes against the invasion of iraq happens now you could look at what happened in iraq as a human being and saying it's a horrible disaster hundreds of thousands killed a country ripped apart still ripped apart but if you're looking at it in the from the point of view of eliminating a threat or weakening iraq as as a nation state it certainly could be seen as somewhat of a success so often under the under the concept of democracy promotion which is what the it which is how not only the neo cons but these liberal intervention is always sell their their proposals what you end up with often are these failed states but states that can no longer provide any kind of threat ok jim but they do not i think you read way they do as it's called backlash it does end up happening jim in washington. well to answer your question briefly p.s. lee there have been immense failures i mean by just by invading and occupying iraq

they fortified iran which which they or at least people they respect like netanyahu himself is a neoconservative consider the far greater enemy or the far more dangerous enemy same with afghanistan but i'd like to go back i still want to question this notion that somehow obama has been captured by neo conservatives in alliance with liberal inner interventionists i think you saw in syria when. obama at first indicated he was going to attack but then changed his mind i think you can see that there was no control there on the contrary both groups neo cons and liberal interventionists lost that one i think now when he announces he wants five hundred million dollars for syrian rebels but congress has to approve it i mean he's he's putting these people off and i think realists remain very much

not in charge necessarily but certainly very much in contention in the white house and it's in the white house where foreign policy is controlled under this administration so i would not again i what i said earlier i don't think the neo cons are having a real bubble at the moment in fact i think there's more skepticism directed in toward them than ever before and moreover i think what hasn't been discussed is the fact that republicans neo cons of always dependent on alliances with other groups because they're such a tiny group as influential as they are from time to time and in this case we have a situation where republicans just refuse to do anything that obama wants to do it's true and that's where neo cons gain some influence is. because you have a republican party that is completely opposed to obama and he has to to some extent

accommodate that because that's a political fact of life but that's not and republicans tend to defer to neo cons on foreign policy but the neo cons desperately need the republicans and as we saw on syria last fall when obama said ok you want to do something in syria you want to bomb syria like the neo cons want the republicans all went back to their constituents and said no we don't really want to do that. so i really don't think the neo cons are as intellectual as has been depicted here although they are certainly a factor in washington francis if we can look at is going on in iraq. obviously the agenda joy in the country was turned out to be a tragedy for all involved here but how much do you think the neo cons are pushing obama's agenda when in dealing with iraq right now well this is not just the neo cons this is a long term framework of american foreign policy sam huntington in his clash

of civilizations basically argue that iraq had to be destroyed i went through the same ph d. program at harvard the produce hundred did before me. iraq had to be destroyed because it was with the neutralization of egypt it was the only country in the arab world with the power and the resources that could stand up against the imperial agendas of the united states and israel so starting in one thousand nine hundred ninety one with the bush sr war against iraq we saw this policy implemented when bush sr encouraged the kurds to rise up and then gave them up protection with a no fly zone and then he encouraged the shia to rise up and gave them protection. with the no fly zone so effectively iraq was carved up de facto as early as one

thousand nine hundred ninety one and we're now seeing the final disintegration of the state of iraq so i don't i think from the neo con perspective. this has been a great success and remember it was professor fouad ajami the token arab neo-con whom i debated before myself who advised president bush sr on the war against iraq and he also advised president bush sr. ok as for this democracy promotion by the neo cons look i went through the same program there at the university of chicago there guru for the neo cons was professor karl schmidt in a nazi war professor who justified every hideous atrocity hitler and the nazis inflicted on everyone including the jews he was spot struck professor strauss

is a teacher mentor and sponsor in germany so we have to understand the neo cons are the godfathers and the god sons of god sons and god daughters of karl schmidt affectively they are neo nazi it's ok robert how in the world can destroying a state. force regime change make the world a better place and how does it further american interest because the middle east now is almost unrecognizable over the because of what's in the recent events going on in syria and in iraq right now how can destroying states in the long term create security for the region because i can't see it well i can't see it either i mean the problem is that there is a difference between what might be in the interests of the american people more broadly speaking and what might be in the interests of various political factions i happen to agree with jim i think i think that president obama is not himself

a neo con and not really a liberal interventionist i think he's more of a realist but he's a lot him sell to be pushed around a great deal now it's true that he finally decided at the last minute to avoid the bombing attack on syria but he had allowed that to move quite a ways you had the remarkable incident last august of secretary of state john kerry who was speaking really for the state department you know liberals are what he want to call them almost doing a declaration of war against against syria before president obama pulled. rug out from under him now because i think president obama doesn't really want to have these wars i think he recognizes that they're not particularly good for the broader american interests that is the economy particularly he sees the difficulties with this but he's been he's been he's been a finesse or he's not be willing to challenge these people very directly he tries to play along with them as far as he can before maybe at the last minute backing

away from one of their extreme policies but he's also go along with some particularly in libya for instance where he was drawn in by the liberal interventionists to attack and destroy the khadafi regime which has led to another failed state in the middle east so you have so i don't think these these these shattering of these states is anything good for the american economy of the american people or the world economy or a world all right gentlemen we've run out of time certain fascinating discussion many thanks to my guests in washington and in champaign and thanks to our viewers for watching us here darkie see you next time remember. the.

u.s. military was built to square off against the soviet union. over western europe and but when you take that conventional military and now try to read task it as a counterinsurgency force it creates a lot of gaps and that's the kind of private sector stuff. zero casualties war this is the great fantasy of war mongering politicians. capturing this. what do you do if the innocent killing them easy we were serve the right to kill any person anywhere any time. because of the shooting but they come around makes these things are very. politicians. new kind of power and this technology that

is very tempting. in justifying their stance they're citing all sorts of what they see as international precedents in cost of the outcoming referendum in scotland but the response that they're hearing from the west is that what you're saying is illegitimate but what we've been doing is still full of life a measure if you break into their still good luck america does is right. for other people for centuries like russia are all trying to reason like this straight. to america does is right because america does it. on america and the financial world. it's not stopping

only take credit not going to get it in life they're obtuse. israel announcing a ceasefire after a un school of bomb didn't gaza killing ten the united nations condemns the latest attack on the shelter calling it a criminal act. civilians in the east ukrainian city of lugansk forced to seek shelter from the military bombardment in basements and bomb shelters local media say one attack targeting people who were simply lining up for food. record number of immigrants locked up in the us in the last few years thanks to a vote a system that ensures hands of thousands remain behind bars sometimes for.