What Bush Isn't Saying About Iraq
President Bush won't discuss two big reasons he wants to invade Iraq.


By Michael Kinsley


Slate - Thursday, Oct. 24, 2002


...Tariq Aziz has a theory. Saddam Hussein's deputy told the New York Times this week, "The reason for this warmongering policy toward Iraq is oil and Israel." Although no one wishes to agree with Tariq Aziz, he has put succinctly what many people in Washington apparently believe. They do not think the concern over potential use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons is negligible or insincere, but they do think that "oil and Israel" is a pretty good summary of what, for President Bush, makes Iraq different from your run-of-the-mill evil dictatorship. Yet this presumption about Bush, and these issues themselves, barely appear in the flood of speculation and argument about Bush War II...


...The lack of public discussion about the role of Israel in the thinking of "President Bush" is easier to understand, but weird nevertheless. It is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it. The reason is obvious and admirable: Neither supporters nor opponents of a war against Iraq wish to evoke the classic anti-Semitic image of the king's Jewish advisers whispering poison into his ear and betraying the country to foreign interests. But the consequence of this massive "Shhhhhhhhh!" is to make a perfectly valid American concern for a democratic ally in a region of nutty theocracies, rotting monarchies, and worse seem furtive and suspicious...

My God.  You really are committed to selling out the party, aren't you?

I have to agree with the other commenters -- after reading the exchange between Jim Moran and Raymond McGovern, while I would not want Raymond McGovern as the public face of the Democratic Party, I see nothing either anti-Semitic or conspiratorial in what Mr. McGovern said (BTW, it also appears both Kenneth Baer and Dana Milbank have misquoted James Moran as himself suggesting that Israel was behind the war in Iraq, when in fact Moran said nothing about Israel in his question). And FWIW, I am a Jew with relatives in Tel Aviv.   


If Raymond McGovern dominated the mock impeachment hearings, that would be one thing, but why would you focus on a 100-second segment of a 3-hour session?.  All Kenneth Baer is doing is calling attention to a non-issue here and providing fodder for Republicans. 

When McGovern said:

And I have to say that Israel is something that is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation. The last I did this the previous director of Central Intelligence called me "anti-Semitic."

It is possible to discuss Israel in this context without anti-Semitic undertones. The destruction of Saddam's military might has indeed reduced the threat to Israel along its eastern border, and removed someone who was funding Palestinian suicide bombers. This has made Israel more secure, and may be a factor in Ariel Sharon's breaking from the Israeli far right and taking steps to remove settlements. It would have been perfectly appropriate, in weighing the costs and benefits of going to war against Saddam, to consider a small benefit, though a small one.

It's the insinuation, which Moran has been guilty of in the past, that Jews are responsible for the Iraq War, rather than George W. Bush, which strikes many people as borderline anti-Semitic. Even if that is too harsh a judgment, it is clearly true that Moran in not an asset to the Democratic Party in terms of trying to win back the House in 2006.

Mr. Baer,

At this point, there are a number of us here who are wondering if you have some sort of learning impairment.  Today, after reading this first paragraph, I am again wondering this.

<i>Congressman Barney Frank has issued a statement condemning the pamphlets handed out at the DNC viewing of the Conyers mock impeachment hearing and "expressed strong disagreement and disappointment" with the Moran/McGovern exchange on the alleged Israeli plot to draw the US into war with Iraq.</i>

Let me explain again to you.  Congressman Conyers did not hold a mock impeachment trial and no matter how many times you write it, or continually mumble it to yourself while walking down the street, it will not become true. 

Again, when I read anything you write about this subject, i wonder if you were there at the hearing?

So, were you there?  Or did you watch it on C-SPAN?  And if you watched it on C-SPAN, when did you watch it, before or after writing any of your columns covering it?  And did you watch all of it?

Since your distortions of this event continues over multiple threads, I think it's time for you to answer the question.

I'm not going to impugn your motives.  I know your heart's in the right place.  I know that the purpose of policing the "extremes" is to keep them from undermining the Democratic message.   

But at some point we must recognize the futility of trying not to give Fox and Powerline "gotcha" fodder.  Imagine a hypothetical world in which every Democrat behaves exactly by the DLC playbook.  No gaffes, no extremism, no nothing but carefully scripted talking points meant to appeal to a particular woman in surburban Columbus.  In that scenario, would the right-wing noise machine say "oh look, the Democratic Party is truly moderate, polite, and reasonable.  Let's fold up our tents and go home"?  Of course NOT.  The task would simply shift to finding a way to paint our spokespersons as extreme and intemperate.  And as others have pointed out, that would result in shifting the entire spectrum to the right, as the absence of a true left would render the center the new left (Republicans won't stop differentiating themselves simply because we're in the center).

Ultimately -- and again, the point is not to impugn your motives; I know you're on our team -- the reality is that analyses like this suffer from the same logical pathologies as the right-wing attacks on Democrats.  (My stomach turns every time I see someone take a single statement or incident out of context from a three-hour event to bemoan its inappropriateness -- can anyone say "Wellstone's funeral"?)     

Ok, so far we have: a bit of self-important grandstanding by Mr. McGovern, which though not intentionally anti-Semitic could have been phrased more carefully so as not to incur the head-nodding of theoretical neo-Nazis, and a pair of quotes by Mr. Moran taken wa-a-ay out of context. And still no bona-fide anti-Semitism, or at least no meaningful argument why these events should count as such. <sigh>

Rick Heller, perhaps because of your comment I better understand a position stating that McGovern and Moran were being politically insensitive, not putting enough care to ensure that comparatively benign ideas could not possibly be construed as anti-Semitic. I would wholeheartedly agree with that assessment, and it's fair to pick on them for that.

But if you use the word 'anti-Semitic' to describe anything someone says that could possibly be construed as anti-Semitic once the context is removed, then the word loses all meaning. The sentence "I hate brussel sprouts" might be unfairly construed as "I hate Jews who eat brussel sprouts"; is my hatred of brussel sprouts anti-Semitic?

There's another reason political insensitivity should not be the bar to pass in this instance, and for good reason: charges of anti-Semitism inescapably equates the accused with Naziism. It's a very serious charge that leaves a lasting stain. With the Nazi association being so ingrained and intractable in both Jewish-American culture and American society at large, people such as yourself should take surgical care to make distinctions between someone being anti-Semitic and someone merely saying something impolitic - the same type of care you (to an important degree, rightfully) accuse Moran and McGovern of not using. Without this surgical care all you're going to get is a careless pissing match, with no moral or rhetorical victor.

Remember people, I'm Jewish, and if these people at the DSM hearing hate me for my ethnicity, I'd like to know. But I don't think they do: the ideas they were attempting to convey clearly don't invoke any Jew-hate or Zionist conspiracy theories (unless you take it out of context, of course), and I still haven't heard a good reason to classify their statements as anti-Semitic. 

Try harder. 

cmorris, we're in agreement on the issues but that last statement was awfully condescending and rife with insults. This is a tough issue for people to stay civil about once tempers flare, so let's not stoke a screaming match. This isn't Powerline.

Now I'm sure I'll be attacked just like Mr. Baer.

 Again, whatever.  This "debate" is sad. 

Why does Dean's statement make reference to anti-Semitic literature being distrubuted? Was there in fact anything anti-Semitic said or distrubuted?

I ask, of course, because usually any critical reference to Israel is often refered to as anti-Semitic. I wouldn't criticize Rep. Sanders for issuing his statement since it seems reasonable and good politics to distance himself from an argument he disagrees with or sees as a gross simplification. But I was struck by the way he equated criticism of Israel with criticism of Jews. So, if I criticize Israel's politics in the middle east then I'm automatically givning credence to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories?

The role that our alliance with Israel played in the Iraq war seems like a reasonable subject of debate. I'm not sure what Mr. Iglesias is driving at here, but it seems that he is suggesting that to even debate this question is beyond the realm of permitted discourse. 

It's all about line-drawing for Kenneth Baer. Rep. Moran asked a question about the reasons for the war.  McGovern answered with three reasons, one of which involved Israel.  At no point did either of the men reference any 'Israeli plot'.  

It is virtually impossible to have any debate inside the Democratic party on policy toward Israel, and on the relationship of U.S. actions in the region with that policy.  That line has been drawn already, by party insiders and funders, and it is constantly enforced by Baer, Heller, and others who wish to be able to define who can and cannot be a Democrat.

I didn't advocate anything. I didn't even say whether I agree with the arguments put forth in the excerpts. I don't.

I just find it curious that the exchange between Moran and McGovern is being portrayed at some kind of wacko hate speech, when supposedly mainstream media and political figures have made exactly the same arguments. I haven't heard anyone say they need to distance themselves from Michael Kinsley.

To label what McGovern said at the hearing as "International Zionist Conspiracy" mongering or to associate with flyers handed out by some random nutjobs - as Mr. Baer did - is inflammatory and wildly unfair.

Whoa ,Nelly!

Arguing that the US's alliance with Israel is one part of explaining US policy towards Iraq is a valid argument about the geopolitics of the Middle East. Where's the conspiracy theory? Where's the anti-Semitism?

Now, if you don’t agree that the US-Israeli alliance had anything to do with the war in Iraq, make the argument. But it is slanderously inaccurate to suggest that those who do make this argument are somehow engaging in conspiracy theories or anti-Semitic replies.

Thanks for the link.  I will go take a look.

Jim,

Thanks for your reasoned response as well.  I just have a couple comments:

"It's not exactly ridiculous to think that if the Jewish political community came out as a bloc against the war, the war could have been prevented. I think that if ANY sizable, coveted political bloc would have come out against the war before it started, it might have excited enough controversy to awaken the media from its flag-waving trance and treat the war like a bona-fide issue for debate."

Again, I ask you to read his words.  He said, "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this."

We may never agree on this, but to me, that's a painful thing to read about a community that, from all the polls, did not support the war more than the American public in general.  It's not mollified by the fact that he was answering a question by a Jewish person.

Having said that, I'm not interested in labeling anyone in this event - be it Moran or McGovern - anti-Semites, except for the people passing out pamphlets saying Israel was responsible for 9/11 (McGovern and Moran - and the people who organized the event as well - obviously had nothing to do with that).  I do think they are both huge jerks though, for what it's worth.

And I would not have had too much of a problem with McGovern's remarks at all until he added that thing about not knowing of any alliance between the U.S. and Israel, which I think is, unfortunately, a very revealing remark which necessitates reviewing the entirety of his remarks in a different light, because you can tell where he's coming from. 

I agree almost 95% with the Michael Kinsley column that Andy Vance posted - all of U.S. foreign policy should be up for debate, and not talking about a certain aspect (i.e. our relationship with Israel and the role it plays with our foreign policy in general, and in the Middle East specifically) can actually be bad for Israel and that it's far from self-evident that a U.S. war with Iraq would benefit Israel in any colorable way (that was Kinsley's point, actually - not what Andy Vance implied - that Kinsley had made the "exact same" argument as McGovern - he hadn't - not even close). 

You write: "But here's a thought experiment: take out Moran's references to the Jewish community and insert the phrase "Conservative Christian". The expression carries greater heft, and the logic is a bit more apparent. If Pat Robertson's footsoldiers came out early against the Iraq war, it wouldn't be happening, period. Right? And Conservative Christians wouldn't be insulted by the remark; they'd probably nod in righteous agreement. They have influence on power, via group and coalition politics - as does the Jewish community."

I'm not sure all ethnic groups/religions, etc., are easily substitutable and interchangeable in all situations given a certain set of facts.  There's a reason Conservative Christians would not be insulted in that instance but Jews would.  First, the right-wing Christian community in this country is enormous, and they are very up front about the fact that they want to shape this country in their biblical image, through many means, including the political process.  The Jewish community is relatively small, and they have no intention of making the U.S. a "Jewish" country that espouses "Jewish" values (although the right-wing Christians and Bill O'Reilly recently accused them, along with the secular Americans, of "an attack on Christmas.")  It's apples and oranges, so I don't think that such games interchanging different groups are always that helpful. 

Obviously, there is plenty of lobbying going on by certain Jewish organizations, and AIPAC, if you go by the lobbying rankings, is the "third most powerful" lobby in the U.S.   And yeah, they did supported the Iraq war.  But if they hadn't, it is not at all clear that this would have stopped, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc. from attacking Iraq.  In fact, I can't see how it would have. 

Lastly, I don't think people are equating the Moran-McGovern exchange with the "Israel is responsible for 9/11" pamphlets.  Clearly, they are not in the same ballpark.  But the existence of more egregious behavior on the part of some "activists" does not, in and of itself, excuse or negate McGovern's bizarre answer.  They are two different instances and can and should be judges separately.

I think that it's highly unfortunate that this side-debate has taken away from the larger discussion of the DSM and their importance.  But I don't blame that on either Dana Milbank or Kenneth Baer.  They're allowed to write about whatever they want, and accusations that Baer has sold out the party or that he shouldn't be advising Democratic candidates is completely foolish.  Maybe if Conyers had sought out his advice to begin with, this DSM hearing would have stayed on target and not given rise to a side show to begin with.

cmorris, you write: "What McGovern was talking about in that art of his remark is that Israel is not, in point of fact and law, our ally.  In order for Israel to be our ally, we would have to have somesort of treaty with them or other sort of pact with them.  As things stand right now, we do not."

No, he is wrong about that.  Israel is an ally of the United States - by law.

Here is that law:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=22&s
ec=2321k

22 U.S.C. 2321k. Designation of major non-NATO allies

(a) Notice to Congress
  The President shall notify the Congress in writing at least 30
days before -
    (1) designating a country as a major non-NATO ally for purposes
  of this chapter and the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751
  et seq.); or
    (2) terminating such a designation.
(b) Initial designations
  Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and New
Zealand shall be deemed to have been so designated by the President as of the effective date of this section, and the President is not required to notify the Congress of such designation of those countries.


A 20+ year intelligence agent should be aware of that.

The U.S. is a party to several treaties with Israel as well, including a free trade treaty that's been in place since 1985:
http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Israel/Section_Ind
ex.html and an agricultural treaty entered into in 1996: http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/agreements/israg.html

There's also a 1992 Agreement on agriculture (raisins and prunes) http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/agreements/mouisrael.html

The U.S. is also party to an additional three way Free Trade agreement with Egypt and Israel, entered into last year. http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2004/December
/United_States,_Egypt_Israel_to_Launch_Historic_Trade_Partnership
_USTR_Zoellick_to_Participate_in_Signing_in_Cairo.html

That took me all of 10 minutes to find on the internet.  Maybe Mr. McGovern should brush up on his googling skills.  The thing is, it appears he has his preconceived notions, why let a silly thing like the designation as a Major Non-Nato Ally get in the way of them.

You are absolutely correct on all points. 

Both on the law and on Mr. McGovern's 27 years as an intelligence agent background rending it likely that he did or should have known what it took you all of ten minutes to find in the public domain.

So it begs the question, at some point, why would somebody who either knows the difference, or should know the difference put in writing that Israel is not our ally?  I am not convinced that it's driven by anti-semitism, so much as it may be that he doesn't think that our relationship with Israel is doing us much good.

Now as far as our relationship with Israel, I personally don't care if it's not the best thing for us.  It's the right thing to do.  I also hope now that Arafat's dead, there may be a chance for peace.  I also believe what Golda Meir said about peace in the Middle East, paraphrasing here:" There won't be peace in the Middle East until people love their children more than they hate one another."

I appreciate the context, and I am glad to hear that you don't belong the pool of liberals who have decided Brent Scowcraft is a font of wisdom simply because he criticizes the Bush Administration.

On the otherhand, for the reasons I gave in responding to the anonymous poster, I find Moran & McGovern's Iraq war Israel conspiracy to be a subtler form of the lunatic 9/11-Israel conspiracy-mongering.

I respect Kinsley's point even if I think that essay was a bit sloppy.  The fact that many of the opponents to the US-Israel alliance are anti-Semites does not mean that all discussion regarding our policy towards Israel should be off limits.  I think it gives Moran and McGovern too much credit to attribute Kinsley's arguments to the points they were making.

Americans should be able to comment on any and all alliances without being branded anti-anything as long as they do so based on reason and fact.  Do I think our support of Israel somehow influenced this administration's war in Iraq.  Sure but why shouldn't it, Israel is after all an ally.  People can argue about what influence Israel or any other country has in our foreign and domestic policies and as long as they avoid conspiracy theories and canards I will be willing to at least listen.  Maybe Moran and McGovern are both anti-Semitc tools.  This is for others to decide but I don't think there is anything nutty or anti-semitic abouth believing OIL influenced our policy to some degree.