Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
A Neocon Monster: The Ruinous Lies & Crimes of Bill Kristol, Now a Major Foreign Policy Thought-Leader in the Democratic Party
Video Transcript
June 20, 2023
post photo preview

Watch the full episode here:

placeholder

 

Good evening. It's Monday, June 19. Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube. 

Tonight, a neocon monster: the singular evil and deceit of Bill Kristol. 

One of the most extraordinary, alarming and baffling developments to witness in American politics is the complete rehabilitation of neoconservatives. Most Americans who know this term first learned of it in 2002 during the run-up to the American and British invasion of Iraq. The neocons were the most vocal and vehement advocates, not just of the invasion of Iraq, but more importantly, of the warmongering framework undergirding that attack, namely that the world is better off when the United States rules it, and especially the Middle East, through the application of superior military force, in essence, ordering all countries to do the bidding of the United States, always under the threat that failure to obey will result in attacks, invasions, bombings, regime change, coups and much more. This imperialistic and militaristic mindset was not exactly new.

This imperialistic and militaristic mindset was not exactly new. The U.S. fought wars, imposed tyrannies, and engineered coups all over the world, on every continent, during the Cold War and after but what distinguished neocons from standard warmongers and militarists were two qualities:  

First, they have no other politics beyond their quest for endless war. Many neocons in fact began as liberals or even leftists and were willing to morph into anything they needed to be as long as doing so served the only issue they really cared about: placing the US in a state of endless war, almost always fought by other people's families and children rather than their own. Starting with the war in Iraq, a war they were craving and loudly demanding long before the 9/11 attacks – that attack became the pretext for the war in Iraq – they have supported every new and proposed American war since then. "Neocons" is a polite euphemism for "bloodthirsty, sociopathic warmongers."

 Second, neocons, by definition, barely even pretend to care about the truth, whether they know it or not. The smarter ones do, the dumber ones don't. They are often followers of the German-American political philosopher Leo Strauss, and his belief in the “noble lie”, falsehoods propagated by those who are superior in society to deceive and mislead the peasants into acting contrary to their own belief system, for their own good as elites to find that concept for them. It was no accident that the war in Iraq, along with every U.S. war that followed, began – and then was sustained – with propaganda so intense and deceitful that calling them lies is a woeful understatement. Neocons do believe in lies. They believe in lies – and appear to derive arousal from them – almost as much as they believe in and find purpose and excitement in wars. 

Neocons were said to have reached the peak of their power during the Bush-Cheney administration when the trauma of the 9/11 attack and the fear and anger it inspired finally gave them the fuel to usher their demented agenda of endless permanent war. The utter failure of the Iraq War and the realization that it was based on lies told to the public through the corporate media, often led by neocons themselves, supposedly resulted in neocons finally being expelled from power and influence in Washington. They were discredited, we were told, finally unmasked as the deceitful sociopaths that they are. 

That should have been true, but it most definitely was not. The neocons went a bit underground after the Bush administration, but they never really went away and, in 2013 and 2014, they began to detect a shifting political reality: anti-war sentiment was growing in the Republican Party – as it was before 9/11 – as evidenced by Ron Paul's campaigns or George Bush's 2008 presidential campaign plank that the U.S. needed to have a more humble foreign policy. At the same time, Democrats were becoming increasingly enchanted with the promises, power and profit that war provides. In 2013, and 2014, neocons became especially enamored of Hillary Clinton. And though the narrative we're fed now claims that neocons only migrated back to the Democratic Party as a reaction to Trump – as the neocons are such honorable patriots and devotees of democracy that they simply could not abide Trump's anti-democratic impulses – the reality, as is easily demonstrated, and as we will show you, is the neocons who began maneuvering, reattached themselves to the Democratic Party long before Trump emerged, and they were especially excited by the prospect of a presidency led by Hillary Clinton, whose criticisms of Barack Obama was that – despite bombing eight different Muslim-majority countries – Obama was insufficiently aggressive, bellicose and militaristic.  

The neocons’ migration back to the Democratic Party is now complete. Virtually every major neocon from the Bush-Cheney era doesn’t even bother to brand themselves any longer as Never Trump conservatives. They're just Democrats like any other and are ardent admirers of Joe Biden. And why wouldn't they be? Their perception that the Democratic Party is the best vehicle for advancing their war-hungry pathology is correct. But the fact that they opportunistically morphed into loud opponents of Donald Trump and became Democrats – along with time, which means more and more people don't remember who they are or what they really did – means that neocons have reached a level of influence that is arguably greater than what they wielded back in 2002 and that it was. That is what makes it so urgent to document who they all are and why they are singularly menacing and demented. 

The most uniquely influential and illustrious neocon is almost certainly Bill Kristol. For years he edited a magazine, The Weekly Standard, founded in 1995, funded by Rupert Murdoch, and that was designed to push the United States to align with neoconservative ideology more and more by exerting influence within the Republican Party. Kristol now performs exactly the same role – contaminating our body politics with neoconservative sickness – but now operates within the Democratic Party and is now funded not by Rupert Murdoch, but by the liberal billionaire Pierre Omidyar. 

One could very effectively and persuasively make the case that Bill Kristol is the single most toxic, destructive and malign influence on American politics over the course of the last three decades. And that is exactly the case that we will make tonight, both as a reminder of what neoconservatives really are and have always been and to highlight how significant their influence continues to be, now, more than ever, in American politics, the Democratic Party and prevailing sentiments about war, militarism and chronic deceit from America's leading institutions of power. 

As a reminder, System Update is available as well in podcast form. You can follow us on Spotify, Apple and all major podcasting platforms where you can also rate and review each episode, which helps spread the visible visibility of this program.

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
20
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Howard Lutnick's Blatant Lies About Epstein Ties
00:22:04
System Update's schedule: and my life as a "farmer"

As we have the last couple of years, we are going to take the break from Christmas until New Year off from the show, returning on Monday, January 5. We very well may have individual video segments we post to Rumble and YouTube until then, but the full show at its regular hour will resume on January 6.

In the meantime, enjoy this video we produced of my fulfillment this year of a childhood dream: to have a (very) small farm where my family can go to make communion and connection with every type of animal possible.

00:05:18
SPECIAL AFTERSHOW - SYSTEM UPDATE 500
01:07:46
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

On Noam Chomsky & Jeffrey Epstein

For people like me who spend a lot of time on Twitter/X, it can appear as though Aaron Maté is currently the only prominent leftist who hasn't jumped on the anti-Chomsky bandwagon, where everyone embraces the darkest interpretation possible of every photo and email fragment.

People in this camp include Vijay Prashad, Chris Hedges, Alan MacCleod, Aaron's colleague Max Blumenthal, and Briahna Joy Gray, who titled an interview with MacCleod with this salacious headline on YouTube: "Chomsky FANTASIZED About Epstein's Island."

But not all leftist writers and intellectuals utilize social media to promote their work; a mistake in my opinion, as it means they have less visibility. So far, I have found 3 essays by such writers/thinkers, which I find highly worthwhile in their good-faith, nuanced approach to the story, and deserving of wider circulation. I strongly recommend reading/listening to each one:

1 - "Chomsky and Epstein: What the Evidence Shows," by Tim Hjersted:
This ...

post photo preview

Yes, I’ve been trying to figure out how to cancel the subscription. Please cancel mine, @ggreenwald_ and confirm it’s been cancelled. Thanks. ([email protected])

February 10, 2026

Jimmy Dore Starts a book club on Friday the 13th, if anyone is interested? First book is 'Memories, Dreams, Reflections' by 'Carl Jung',
Sign up at .... jimmydore.com

Here is a fun fact from the Friday 13th Superstition!
It was the beginning of the 'fall' of the 'Knights's Templar' by Mass Arrests, perpetrated by the soon to be pennyless through debt, King Philip of France, on 'Friday October 13, 1307'.......

Looking forward to the book club! 👍💯🙏🕉️

NEW: Message from Glenn to Locals Members About Substack, System Update, and Subscriptions

Hello Locals members:

I wanted to make sure you are updated on what I regard as the exciting changes we announced on Friday night’s program, as well as the status of your current membership.

As most of you likely know, we announced on our Friday night show that that SYSTEM UPDATE episode would be the last one under the show’s current format (if you would like to watch it, you can do so here). As I explained when announcing these changes, producing and hosting a nightly video-based show has been exhilarating and fulfilling, but it also at times has been a bit draining and, most importantly, an impediment to doing other types of work that have always formed the core of my journalism: namely, longer-form written articles and deep investigations.

We have produced three full years of SYSTEM UPDATE episodes on Rumble (our premiere show was December 10, 2022). And while we will continue to produce video content similar to the kinds of segments that composed the show, they won’t be airing live every night at 7:00 p.m. Eastern, but instead will be posted periodically throughout the week (as we have been doing over the last couple of months both on Rumble and on our YouTube channel here).

To enlarge the scope of my work, I am returning to Substack as the central hub for my journalism, which is where I was prior to launching SYSTEM UPDATE on Rumble. In addition to long-form articles, Substack enables a wide array of community-based features, including shorter-form written items that can be posted throughout the day to stimulate conversation among members, a page for guest writers, and new podcast and video features. You can find our redesigned Substack here; it is launching with new content on Monday.

For our current Locals subscribers, you can continue to stay at Locals or move to Substack, whichever you prefer. For any video content and long-form articles that we publish for paying Substack members, we will cross-post them here on Locals (for members only), meaning that your Locals subscription will continue to give you full access to our journalism. 

When I was last at Substack, we published some articles without a paywall in order to ensure the widest possible reach. My expectation is that we will do something similar, though there will be a substantial amount of exclusive content solely for our subscribers. 

We are working on other options to convert your Locals membership into a Substack membership, depending on your preference. But either way, your Locals membership will continue to provide full access to the articles and videos we will publish on both platforms.

Although I will miss producing SYSTEM UPDATE on a (more or less) nightly basis, I really believe that these changes will enable the expansion of my journalism, both in terms of quality and reach. We are very grateful to our Locals members who have played such a vital role over the last three years in supporting our work, and we hope to continue to provide you with true independent journalism into the future.

— Glenn Greenwald   

Read full Article
Netanyahu Visits Trump for the Seventh Time Amid More Threats of a U.S. Attack on Iran
Will the U.S. Government base its policies toward Iran on its own interests, or fight a pointless but costly war against Israel's prime enemy in the Middle East?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has by far spent more time with President Trump than with any other world leader. Netanyahu, on Wednesday, will make his seventh visit to the U.S. since Trump’s second term began a little over a year ago, on top of the visit to Israel made by Trump in October. No other leader has visited the White House during Trump’s second term more than twice. The duo will once again meet at the White House.

The Israeli leader is traveling to Washington this time in order to impose as onerous conditions as possible on Trump’s desire to sign a deal with Iran that would avert a second U.S. attack on that country in the last eight months. “I will present to the President our positions regarding the principles of the negotiations,” Netanyahu saidbefore boarding his presidential plane this morning.

In June, Trump ordered the U.S. military to bomb several of Iran’s underground enrichment facilities in the midst of Israel’s 12-day bombing campaign. After those strikes, Trump pronounced Iran’s nuclear facilities “completely and totally obliterated.”

Yet over the past two months, Trump has ordered the deployment of what he called a “massive armada,” led by the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, headed to Iran. On Truth Social, Trump emphasized that the deployment of military assets to Iran is larger than what he sent to Venezuela prior to the removal of that country’s president by the U.S. military. Trump added: “Like with Venezuela, [the U.S. armada] is ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary.”

Indeed, Trump has explicitly and repeatedly threatened Tehran with “violence” and “very steep” consequences in the event that the two countries fail to reach a long-term agreement governing Iran’s nuclear program — the same one that Trump insisted had been “obliterated” last June.

 



 
Trump stated over the weekend that he believes negotiations with Iran are going “very well,” arguing that “they want a deal very badly.” Numerous reports have suggested that Trump’s strong desire for an agreement instead of war has put him at odds not only with many of his most hawkish pro-Israel advisers, but also with Netanyahu. Today’s trip is thus being depicted as one between two leaders who have very different views of how Iran should be dealt with, thus implying that Netanyahu’s trip is an act of desperation to prevent Trump from reaching peace with Israel’s arch-nemesis.

All of that might be encouraging if not for the fact that this was the exact playbook run by Israel and the U.S. prior to their last joint bombing campaign on Iran. In the weeks leading up to Israel’s surprise attack, Trump had repeatedly assured the public, and Iran, that he believed negotiations were rapidly progressing to a deal that would render unnecessary military conflict with Iran.

And, just as now, coordinated leaks — typically laundered through Axios’ always-helpful Barak Ravid, the former IDF soldier who served in Israel’s notorious intelligence Unit 8200 — depicted a major rift between the two leaders as a result of Trump’s refusal to sanction a war with Iran. It seems clear that last year’s reports of a major “rift” were designed to lower Iran’s guard against what Trump ultimately acknowledged was a jointly planned U.S./Israel attack.


 

The supposed “dispute” between Washington and Tel Aviv this time rests on the scope of the deal with Iran. Israel’s fiercest loyalists in the U.S. have been demanding that Trump send the U.S. military to achieve Netanyahu’s longest and most supreme goal: having the U.S. military impose regime change on Israel’s most formidable regional enemy and replace it with a pliable puppet.

The sudden outbreak of deep concern over the human rights of Iranian protesters, from the same crowd that has cheered on every U.S. and Israeli war for decades, was quite obviously intended to provoke and even force a U.S. war to dislodge the Iranian government from power. This ritual is depressingly familiar to anyone paying even minimal attention to U.S. wars over the last several decades.

As I have long documented, feigned concern for oppressed peoples is always the tactic of choice for Washington’s neocons and warmongers. When they were trying in 2005 to force former President George W. Bush to go “from Baghdad to Tehran” on what was intended to be his regime-change crusade against Israel’s enemies, Americans were suddenly subjected to stories about the cruel and abusive treatment of Iranian gay men, as if that were a motivating factor in agitating for regime change there. (Similar concerns are rarely, if ever, expressed about the at least equally repressive behavior of friendly governments in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Uganda — all governments which the U.S. actively supports.)

What Israel and its American supporters most fear is a U.S. deal with Iran that will only resolve the question of Iran’s nuclear program, while leaving the current government in place. But the position of the U.S. government and of President Trump has long been that the threat posed to the U.S. by Iran comes from the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. By Trump’s own repeatedly stated views, that is the only legitimate concern of the U.S. when it comes to Iran.

But Israel has a far more ambitious agenda when it comes to that country. For that reason, Israel — as it did last June — is demanding the imposition of pre-conditions on Iran to which Israel knows Iran would and could never agree.

As the Israeli journalist Guy Azriel reported this week: “Despite the apparent lack of tangible progress in the Iran talks over the weekend and the unresolved gaps between Washington and Tehran, concern is growing in Jerusalem over the trajectory of the U.S.-led negotiations[.] … In Israel, there is mounting fear that any emerging deal could fall short of addressing the country’s core demands, not only regarding Iran’s regional terror proxies, but above all its ballistic missile program.”

In other words, Israel is demanding that the U.S. go to war with Iran even if Tehran satisfies Trump’s demands on its nuclear program. Netanyahu is insisting that Trump also require Iran to give up its ballistic missiles before any deal can be signed: something no country would ever do.

It may be rational for Israel to wish that their main regional rivals were left completely defenseless against any possible Israeli attack. President Trump himself admitted that Iran’s ballistic missiles were used to great effect to retaliate against Israel for its attack last June: “Israel got hit very hard, especially the last couple of days. Israel was hit really hard,” the President said, adding, “Those ballistic missiles, boy, they took out a lot of buildings.”

But what does that desire have to do with the United States? And why would any country, let alone Iran — which was just heavily bombed for almost two weeks last June — agree to give up conventional weapons that serve as a deterrent for future Israeli attacks?

Despite the best propaganda efforts of the Ellison-owned, Bari Weiss-led CBS News to convince Americans that Iran’s ballistic missiles somehow pose a threat to the U.S. rather than just Israel, the reality is that Iran cannot and does not pose a threat to the U.S., particularly if there is an agreement in place to ensure Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons (such an agreement had been in place that, by all accounts, provided a comprehensive inspection regime at Iranian facilities before it was nullified in 2017 by the U.S.).

The very idea that the U.S. should even consider sending its own citizens to fight a war against Iran is the consummate example of Israel having Americans fight wars that serve Israel’s national interest but not Americans’ interests. In the days leading up to Netanyahu’s latest in a series of visits to the U.S., Israeli officials began publicly threatening that they would attack Iran on their own if Trump refused to do it for them.



If Israel actually wants war with Iran, Israel can go fight it itself. Invite their most impassioned, loudmouthed American advocates, such as Mark Levin and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), to join that fight. But leave the U.S. out of it.

The towering question, as always, is how much Trump is actually willing to defy not only Israel but his top Israel-centered donors and advisors, such as Miriam Adelson and Stephen Miller. The record on that front has been quite poor thus far. One once again watches to see whether the U.S. will make policy and war decisions not based on its own interests but on the interests of this one foreign country.

Read full Article
post photo preview
The U.S. is Not "Liberating" Anything in Venezuela (Except its Oil)

[Note: The article was originally published in Portuguese in Folha de. S.Pauloon January 5, 2026]

 

The United States, over the past 50 years, has fought more wars than any other country by far. In order to sell that many wars to its population and the world, one must deploy potent war propaganda, and the U.S. undoubtedly possess that.

Large parts of both the American and Western media are now convinced that the latest U.S. bombings and regime-change operation is to “liberate” the Venezuelan people from a repressive dictator. The claim that liberation is the American motive – either in Venezuela or anywhere else – is laughable. 

The U.S. did not bomb and invade Venezuela in order to “liberate” the country. It did so to dominate the country and exploit its resources. If one can credit President Donald Trump for anything when it comes to Venezuela, it is his candor about the American goal.  

When asked about U.S. interests in Venezuela, Trump did not bother with the pretense of freedom or democracy. “We're going to have to have big investments by the oil companies,” Trump said. “And the oil companies are ready to go."

This is why Trump has no interest in empowering Venezuela’s opposition leaders, whether it be Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado (who Trump dismissed as a “nice woman” incapable of governing) or the declared winner of the country’s last election Edmundo Gonzalez, in whom Trump has no interest. Trump instead said he prefers that Maduro’s handpicked Vice President, the hard-line socialist Decly Rodriquez, remain in power. 

Note that Trump is not demanding that Rodriguez give Venezuelans more freedom and democracy. Instead, Trump said, the only thing he demands of her is “total access. We need access to the oil and other things.”

The U.S. government in general does not oppose dictatorships, nor does it seek to bring freedom and democracy to the world’s repressed peoples. The opposite is true.

Installing and supporting dictatorships around the world has been a staple of U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II. The U.S. has helped overthrow far more democratically elected governments than it has worked to remove dictatorships.

Indeed, American foreign policy leaders often prefer pro-American dictatorships. Especially in regions where anti-American sentiments prevail – and there are more and more regions where that is now the case – the U.S. far prefers autocrats that repress and crush the preferences of the population, rather than democratic governments that must placate and adhere to public sentiments.

The only requirement that the U.S. imposes on foreign leaders is deference to American dictators. Maduro’s sin was not autocracy; it was disobedience.


That is why many of America’s closest allies – and the regimes Trump most loves and supports – are the world’s most savage and repressive. Trump can barely contain his admiration and affection for Saudi despots, the Egyptian military junta, the royal oligarchical autocrats of the UAE and Qatar, the merciless dictators of Uganda and Rwanda.

The U.S. does not merely work with such dictatorships where they find them. The U.S. helps install them (as it did in Brazil in 1964 and dozens of other countries). Or, at the very least, the U.S. lavishes repressive regimes with multi-pronged support to maintain their grip on power in exchange for subservience.

Unlike Trump, President Barack Obama liked to pretend that his invasions and bombing campaigns were driven by a desire to bring freedom to people. Yet one need only look at the bloodbaths and repression that gripped Libya after Obama bombed its leader Muammar Gaddafi out of office, or the destruction in Syria that came from Obama’s CIA “regime change” war there, to see how fraudulent such claims are.

Despite decades of proof about U.S. intentions, many in the U.S. and throughout the democratic world are always eager to believe that the latest American bombing campaign is the good and noble one, that this one is the one that we can actually feel good about. 

Such a reaction is understandable: we want heroes and crave uplifting narratives about vanquishing tyrants and liberating people from repression. Hollywood films target such tribalistic and instinctive desires and so does western war propaganda. 

Believing that this is what is happening provides a sense of vicarious strength and purpose. One feels good believing in these happy endings. But that is not what Americans wars,  bombing campaigns and regime-change operations are designed to produce, and that it why they do not produce such outcomes.
 
 

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals