All too often, official inquiries are conducted by the very
people who should themselves be under investigation.
In this respect, Britain�s Chilcot Inquiry on the Iraq war
bears a distressing similarity to the 9/11 Commission.
In a remarkable symmetry, both inquiries involve a Jewish
Zionist historian, who not only advised his country�s leader to go to war
against Iraq, but actually provided the ideological justification for that
Perhaps Philip Zelikow was one of the few people who was not
surprised by his appointment as executive director of the National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, better known as the 9/11
Commission. After all, the professor of History at the University of Virginia
had shown uncanny prescience in foreseeing an event such as 9/11 itself. In
1998, as project director of the Catastrophic Terrorism Group, Zelikow had written:
�An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of
people . . . would be a watershed event in America�s history. . . . Like Pearl
Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a �before� and
Yet despite his awareness of an imminent threat of
�catastrophic terrorism� against the United States, in the Bush administration
Zelikow was instrumental in downgrading the status of the National Coordinator
for Counterterrorism, Richard Clarke . Effectively cutting off his direct
access to the president, this prevented Clarke from discussing al-Qaeda with
George W. Bush before September 11.
In an even clearer conflict of interest, as a member of
Bush�s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Zelikow had authored the 2002
National Security Strategy of the United States. Dubbed the �Bush Doctrine� by
the Washington Post�s hawkishly pro-Israeli columnist Charles Krauthammer ,
it advocated the necessity of �preemptive war.� Based on a policy first mooted
in 1992 by two other Jewish neoconservatives, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby
, the Zelikow Doctrine provided the justification for the 2003 invasion of
While Bush probably believed he was �ridding the world of
evil,� Zelikow knew exactly why Iraq was being targeted. In a rare moment of
candour, he told an audience at the University of Virginia on September 10,
2002: �Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I�ll
tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 -- it�s
the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name,
because the Europeans don�t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you
frankly. And the American government doesn�t want to lean too hard on it
rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.�
Nevertheless, as executive director of the 9/11 Commission
Zelikow did his very best to �sell� the Iraq war to the American people. The
first expert witness he called had �no special expertise on the events of September
11,� but that didn�t seem to matter too much. Instead of discussing 9/11,
Abraham Sofaer, a board member of the pro-Israeli Koret Foundation, made an
impassioned speech in support of the �preemptive war� against Iraq .
An even more controversial �expert� witness called was
Laurie Mylroie. Known as the �neocons� favourite conspiracy theorist,� the
American Enterprise Institute scholar had made a career out of seeing the hand
of Saddam Hussein behind every anti-American terrorist attack during the previous
decade. Her 2000 book, Study of Revenge, in which she laid out her flimsy case against Saddam,
acknowledged the assistance of Wolfowitz and Libby, and was blurbed by Richard
Perle as �splendid and wholly convincing.�
Exercising a scepticism toward Mylroie�s �batty� theories
lacking in much of the media coverage, one of the 9/11 widows lambasted Zelikow
for this transparent �sales pitch for the Iraq war.�
Zelikow�s persistent efforts to rewrite the commission
staff�s reports to give the impression of a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq
�horrified� some of his staff, many of whom considered him a �White House mole�
. Little did they suspect, however, that Zelikow�s loyalties might lie much
If British Prime Minister Gordon Brown were genuinely
interested in finding out why his predecessor followed George Bush into the
Iraq quagmire, his appointment of Sir Lawrence Freedman to the five-member
Chilcot Inquiry was an odd choice. As the political editor of the BBC�s
Newsnight programme, Michael Crick, pointed out, �Critics of the war might
argue Sir Lawrence was himself one of the causes of the war!�
Crick was referring to a Freedman memo which formed the
basis of Tony Blair�s 1999 Chicago speech, �The Doctrine of the International
Community.� In what became known as the �Blair Doctrine,� Freedman had offered
an answer to the specious question: �When was military action justified for
liberal, humanitarian reasons?�
In addition to the Freedman Doctrine�s justification of
military intervention in �rogue states� such as Iraq, Freedman has admitted
that he �instigated� a pre-war seminar for the British prime minister, because
he was �aware of misgivings among some specialists in Iraq about the direction
of policy.� Clearly, Freedman has no such �misgivings� himself about the
illegal invasion of Iraq. It was, he claims, motivated by �rather noble
In his recent book, A Choice of Enemies: America
Confronts the Middle East,
Freedman is dismissive of those who suspect less �noble� motives for the war.
�Another popular theory,� he writes, �is that U.S. foreign
policy was effectively hijacked by a group of neoconservatives with a grand
design to reshape the Middle East. A conspiratorial version of this theory
argues that the aim was to help Israel, by removing a leading rejectionist
state from the scene.�
Presumably, the consistency of the prescriptions that runs
from Oded Yinon�s �A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,� through Perle, Feith
and Wurmser�s �A Clean Break,� to the so-called �Bush Doctrine� is merely
coincidental. Evidently, the learned Professor of War Studies needs to read
�The Israeli Origins of the Middle East War Agenda� in Stephen Sniegoski�s The
Perhaps it is also �conspiratorial,� or worse, to wonder
about the media�s hyping a book which obscures why America �confronts� Israel�s
enemies in the Middle East, while one which exposes the Zionist agenda gets the
silent treatment.  But it certainly is cause for concern when Freedman�s
book, which also opts for the euphemism of a �security fence� to describe
Israel�s Apartheid Wall, and repeatedly refers to the illegally occupied West
Bank as Judea and Samaria , is given such credence.
Despite its obvious shortcomings, A Choice of Enemies
won the 2009 Lionel Gelber Prize, awarded to �the world�s best non-fiction book
in English that seeks to deepen public debate on significant global issues.�
The prize is presented by the Munk Centre for International Studies, which was
financed by Peter Munk, the chairman and founder of Barrick Gold, the world�s
largest gold-mining corporation.
Just as the Zelikow-directed 9/11 Commission suppressed
evidence that the main motive for the September 11 attacks was American support
for Israel , Freedman�s presence on the Chilcot Inquiry is a clear
indication that there will be no inquiry into the role of Zionist insiders in
taking Britain to war against Iraq -- a country that posed a threat not to
British interests but to Israel�s regional hegemony.
1. Philip Shenon, The Commission: The Uncensored History
of the 9/11 Investigation, p. 63.
2. Charles Krauthammer, �Charlie
Gibson�s Gaffe,� Washington Post,
September 13, 2008.
Draft Defense Planning Guidance,� RightWeb, March 12, 2008.
4. Shenon, p. 104.
5. Ibid., p. 322, p. 107.
6. Richard Ingrams, �The
insistent doubts about Chilcot�s tame professor,� The Independent, December 5, 2009.
7. Paul Gottfried, �The
Transparent Cabal,� Taki�s Magazine, September 17, 2008.
8. Jason Burke, �From Washington to Kabul the hard way,� Guardian, September 21, 2008.
motivated the 9/11 Hijackers? See testimony most didn�t,� Representative
Press, You Tube video.
� Cathail is a freelance writer. He has written for Antiwar.com, Dissident
Voice, Online Journal, OpEd News, Media Monitors Network, The
Palestine Chronicle and many other publications.