Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2021-10-31-at-12.14.22-pm

Never-Trumper neocons were hardly strangers to inciting mobs

Today's Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney forget their yesterday selves, when they were helping to stoke Islamophobia on the right.

Analysis | North America

In the wake of the recent death of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, some shared on social media his sentiments during the 2008 presidential election in which he condemned what he saw as rising Islamophobia within the Republican Party, particularly directed toward then Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama.

“I'm also troubled by, not what Sen. McCain says, but what members of the party say,” Powell said at the time. “And it is permitted to be said such things as, ‘Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim."

“Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian,” Powell added. “He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America.”

Powell then asked, “Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, ‘He's a Muslim, and he might be associated with terrorists.’” 

“This is not the way we should be doing it in America,” Powell lamented.

Islamophobia was a key ingredient in George W. Bush’s post-9/11 “War on Terror” Republican Party. While Bush himself publicly went out of his way to frame Islam as a religion of peace, the anti-Muslim sentiment described by Powell was constantly stirred up by right-leaning politicians and pundits long before Obama became a national player. Warnings of “Islamofascism” energized talk radio and a GOP base that declared for many years that the Iraq War was righteous and Muslims were not.

Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol and their friends may wag their fingers today at Trump and his supporters’ red meat rhetoric, but the anti-Islamic speech and conspiracy theories that plagued the Republican base throughout the aughts were never denounced by the neoconservative establishment at the time. 

Such behavior was more often encouraged or at least ignored because it helped the war cause. Don’t forget Dick Cheney, before he was denouncing Trump’s Muslim ban when it was politically convenient, was telling fellow Republicans that Obama was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. His daughter Liz, before she was denouncing MAGA conspiratorialists, was on “Larry King” defending the so called “Birthers” who didn’t believe Obama was born in this country:

"I think the Democrats have got more crazies than the Republicans do," Cheney said at the time. "But setting that aside, one of the reasons you see people so concerned about this, I think this issue is, people are uncomfortable with having for the first time ever, I think, a president who seems so reluctant to defend the nation overseas ..."

Kristol carried himself as being above the anti-Muslim fray, but rarely criticized the rampant, xenophobic Bush-era hate in the way that he goes after Trump today on a regular basis. Joseph Leone at Harvard’s Progressive Policy Review noted of Kristol in February, “The war, and the jingoistic propaganda Kristol peddled to support it, have also contributed to the rise in Islamophobia and anti-Arab and anti-Muslim violence within the United States and globally. Although Kristol now opposes Donald Trump, the former president’s Muslim ban and frequent incitement of violence against Muslims are the product of the war drums Kristol played for years.”  

When Kristol finally stated in 2010 — for the record — that he didn’t believe Obama was a Muslim, it was in a sort of backhanded away, and in the context of the infamous Ground Zero Mosque protest, which he supported. In fact, in the same editorial he said his now-defunct magazine, the Weekly Standard, “spoke for” the mosque protesters.

If today, Trump and his supporters are a threat to the world according to Kristol, the neoconservative leader did not have this concern when the Republican base’s rightwing fever dreams gave electoral support to the United States actually militarily threatening the world.

In this light, history should not forget that when Trump first got his political feet wet, it was precisely the neocon-friendly ‘Obama is a Muslim’ nonsense that the New York billionaire gravitated to. Give Trump this much: he knows how to read a room. At the time, Islamophobia was his ticket to so many Republican hearts and minds and he knew it. Trump said of Obama to Fox News in 2011, “He doesn’t have a birth certificate. He may have one, but there’s something on that, maybe religion, maybe it says he is a Muslim.” 

The neocons’ complicity in creating today’s populist right that so many historically Republican war hawks now denounce was sharply laid out by Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute’s Scott Horton during his October foreign policy debate with neoconservative guru Bill Kristol.

“The backlash from Bush’s disastrous wars and the devastating economic crash of 2008, a direct result of the Fed’s militarism friendly easy money policy in the preceding decade led to the disruptive and destabilizing presidency of Barack Obama. (Obama’s) disastrous wars (and economic policies)… led directly to the election of Donald J. Trump, running as an economic populist and war skeptic over ‘W’ Bush’s brother and Barack Obama’s secretary of state,” Horton exclaimed.

While Trump’s election was a reaction against the legacy of the failed Bush war policies, Horton pointed out the one thing he did embrace was the idea that the country had a “Muslim problem.” 

“In other words, your nemesis Trump (Horton nodded toward Kristol) was exploiting your movement’s previous cultivation of this sort of illiberal sentiment among Republican voters, back when it was still useful to your ends. Building support for the wars." He continued, “Now that the anti-Muslim chauvinism of the American right is no longer useful, you claim the right itself is now the greatest threat to democracy.”

Many believe that Kristol was determined to bring Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on as Sen. John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 presidential election in part because she could cement the base’s support for the long war in the Middle East. This war had been promulgated by McCain with big assists from the neoconservatives on Capitol Hill and the White House. 

Some readers will recall that when Palin entered the race she was immediately paired with neoconservative advisers Randy Scheunemann and Michael Goldfarb. Kristol has long been credited with launching Palin’s national career.

Meanwhile, anti-Islamic sentiment had long been churned out for the base by neoconservative bomb throwers like David Horowitz and John Podhoretz. Chief among them was Frank Gaffney, a sometimes Kristol “coalition” partner. Think Progress reported in 2010 that the figures behind the website dedicated to opposing the so-called Ground Zero Mosque at the time included “a who’s who of far-right pundits, politicians, and neo-conservative advocacy groups, such as Keep America Safe, the attack group formed by Liz Cheney and hawkish Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.”

“This deliberately deceptive campaign did much to make the right worse” Horton concluded.

Yes it did.

For his part, Kristol did not rebuff these charges during the debate. He largely ignored them. The first words out of Kristol’s mouth in response were “The Middle East is a very difficult part of the world and we’ve obviously made many mistakes there and I think one of the mistakes we’ve made was not pushing democracy hard enough.”

No lessons learned.

Neoconservatives understood that xenophobia and stoking hatred were part of the cost of getting support after 9/11 for wars they had long wanted prior to that tragic day

If Trump shared the foreign policy views of Liz Cheney, and the Republican Party was still thoroughly neoconservative in its geo-strategic world view, I have little doubt that Cheney, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, and other GOP hawks would have been Trump’s greatest allies — even despite the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

Neoconservatives can complain about Donald Trump forever, but they now literally reap what they sowed. 


Bill Kristol (Gabe Skidmore/Flickr); the 'ground zero mosque' protest of 2010 in NYC (shutterstock/ eporourke)' ); Liz Cheney (Reuters)
Analysis | North America
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.