The New Republic and National Review fabricate Middle East news – Say it Ain’t so…
Blatant fabrication in Middle East reporting by two outlets that take themselves very seriously – The New Republic Online (TNR) and the National Review Online (NRO) – has the blogosphere buzzing. The story went mainstream when the New York Times ran a piece relating how NRO, after months of sniping at TNR for carrying ‘Baghdad Diarist” reports of US military misbehavior in Iraq that proved to be false, was itself found out. But in this story there are only villains- neither TNR nor NRO can be trusted on the Middle East – and it goes way beyond the particular stories in question.
NRO published reports from Lebanon by W. Thomas Smith Jr. in which the former marine stated at that 4,000 – 5,000 Hezbollah soldiers were deployed to Christian neighborhoods in Beirut and, in a different piece, that upwards of 200 heavily-armed Hezbollah militants had formed a tent-city near the Lebanese Parliament. Both of these statements have since been deemed entirely false (see this article by Thomas Edsall in The Huffington Post and this one by Glenn Greenwald in Salon ) NRO carried a pathetic excuse for an apology. Mother Jones’s Jonathan Schwarz has produced a delicious dissection of the anti-Arab racism in online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez’s ‘apology.’
But knifing NRO should not become an exercise in defending or relativising the misdemeanors at TNR and not only for the obvious journalistic-ethics-related reason. TNR are the good liberals and NRO the nasty conservatives right? Well, when it comes to the Middle East, Arabs, and especially Israeli-Palestinian peace, wrong! They both suck.
That TNR and NRO’s untrustworthiness on the Middle East would somehow be a new discovery is an astonishing notion. There are exceptions, but the thrust of Mid-East coverage in TNR and NRO excels in finding that dangerous meeting point between neo-cons and liberal hawks, the comfort zone of the pro-Likud, anti-peace crowd. TNR and NRO are, in this respect, almost indistinguishable. Both, for instance, have highlighted bellicose responses to the NIE Iran report in the last days, see Michael Ledeen’s “I’m not a Believer,” at NRO and Yossi Klein Halevi’s “An Insult to Intelligence,” at TNR for an example of what I mean.
The track record of Michael Ledeen, contributing editor of NRO, of Iran-Contra, Iraq/Niger yellowcake forgery and ‘Ledeen Doctrine,’ (summarized by Jonah Goldberg as, "every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business,”) fame, hardly needs expanding upon.
The NRO stable also boasts David Frum who I debated here and Noah Pollak (previously at the AEI.) Pollak is Deputy Editor of “Azure,” a publication of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem where, guess who, none other than Yossi Klein Halevi, TNR’s Israel correspondent, is a senior fellow. The Shalem Center has been identified with Benjamin Netanyahu, while Natan Sharansky, (Bush’s favorite author) heads Shalem’s Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies. Yes, that Adelson, Sheldon – the principal funder of Freedom’s Watch. (Shalem also lists Weekly Standard Editor, Bill Kristol among its board members and Giuliani advisor, Martin Kramer on its staff.)
There is no conspiracy here, just the cozy camaraderie of Likud-land. And we haven’t even mentioned TNR’s Marty Peretz yet. Read Eric Alterman in The American Prospect on the effect Marty Peretz’s leadership had on TNR and its foreign policy positions. Here is an extract:
My Marty problem -- and ours -- is just this: By pretending to speak as a liberal but simultaneously endorsing the central crusades of the right, he has enlisted The New Republic in the service of a ruinous neoconservative doctrine, as the magazine sneered at those liberals who stood firm in the face of its insults. He has done so, moreover, in support of a blinkered and narrow view of Israeli security that, again, celebrates hawks and demonizes doves. Had the United States or even Israel followed the policies advocated by those genuine liberals whom TNR routinely slandered, much of the horror of the past four years would have been happily avoided
When it comes to TNR and NRO on the Middle East, it really is a case of a plague on both your houses.
No matter how many times you tell a lie, if it
was bull to begin with, eventually people will
find out...fill er up?
December 7, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. I hear that the new owners of New Republic only keep Peretz around because he was the poison pill they had to swallow to purchase the magazine.
Peretz really destroyed it. Its circulation is about a third of that of the NATION. It is, now, essentially a Jewish and rightwing Zionist magazine, but of far lesser quality than Hadassah, which takes a human and humane approach to Palestinians and the I-P conflict.
Peretz took a magazine that was the classiest and most influential progressive publication in the country and transformed it into the magazine equivalent of Ed Koch or Jackie Mason.
I will say, however, that because the only thing Peretz cares about is retaining the West Bank and rooting out imaginary anti-semites, the new New Reoublic has pretty good coverage on everything else, especially US politics. Once the new owners dump the oldest teaching assistant Harvard has ever employed, TNR could return to its former greatness. There are some terrific writers there (they are the ones who are not allowed to write about the Middle East).
December 7, 2007 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
They still do some really good profiles, have to admit. And some of the art/book/music reviews are simply fantastic.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 9, 2007 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 9, 2007 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, davai, which is why you will be sure to be given a prominent place in future Jewish museums, for your brave postings, standing alone against the rabid Arab hordes, unreconstructed KKK members and the 'self-hating Jew minority' that congregate here at TPM.
December 9, 2007 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ‘Baghdad Diarist” stories were not proven false (except for one I think when the author admitted early on to changing a location) but there were too many questions unanswered.
The military's response was as questionable as anything.
December 7, 2007 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That TNR is a right wing rag is hardly news; this has been recognized for the past 20 years. It would be nice to see it revive, but it seems unlikely.
But having said this, hasn't the Baghdad Diarist story help up?
December 7, 2007 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh oh.The Stalinist intestinal worm Davai is now stinking up Levy's post.What a miserable loser. Davai, you are an immigrant here. Why don't you pay some attention to the country that took in your poor ass and not spend all your time Jew-baiting.Ths isn't Russia, tovarich.
December 7, 2007 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, Daniel Levy ended up like MJ writing hit posts without any substance. What's a shame. I thought that tpmcafe had at least one I/P contributer who is not pure propagandist.
I'm just curious Daniel, what are the boundary of your tolerance. If TNR is a case of a plague on TNT house, what publication or commentator do you respect with whom you disagree?
December 7, 2007 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greenwald is almost on the verge of defending TNR (that'll be the day). Nice post, Mr. Levy, thank you.
December 7, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
TNR's Middle East coverage is mostly nonsense. But the Baghdad Diarist has admitted only a few mistakes and stands by what he wrote, even if TNR wasn't able to fact check it to Franklin Foer's satisfaction. Frankly, I believe that the bulk of the Baghdad Diarist pieces are accurate and that whatever mistakes were made don't seriously undermine them.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 8, 2007 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you say that "TNR's Middle East coverage is mostly nonsense" do you mean that you don't agree with them? Is there any publication that you disagree with is not "nonsense"?
December 8, 2007 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 8, 2007 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 8, 2007 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's toss the Weakly Standard into this mix, ok?
Their source, oppositional to the Baghdad Diarist, Marine reservist Matt Sanchez, is reportedly under investigation by the military for fraud, and has a film past in gay porn using the screen name, Rod Majors. Michael Goldfarb, online editor of Weekly Standard, did say that Matt Sanchez "stands behind his work", though...
December 8, 2007 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be nice if once, just once, the "peace" crowd here actually tried to rebut the arguments of those with whom they disagree instead of just taking for granted that anyone from this or that publication or this or that political label must be, by definition, wrong. Even worse, they assume that anyone who has a connection to someone else with whom they disagree must be necessarily suspicious. Thus Yossi Klein Halevi, a centrist journalist, is guilty by association with Sheldon Adelson, a far-right casino mogul. It's just so much easier than actually responding to the substance of what they have to say.
Take the TNR article by Yossi Halevi. It is about how the Israeli security establishment is reacting to the disclosure of the American NIE which claims that Iran has suspended its nuclear weapons program. The article presents a picture of how Israeli security experts are feeling betrayed and how they don't think what the NIE says is all that meaningful. Now if Daniel Levy has information about how this is NOT the view of Israeli security experts, or not the full view, then I for one would love to hear it. I imagine there are some dissenting voices that could be found. Who are they? What are their arguments? We don't know, because Daniel Levy would rather lump TNR with anyone and everyone who disagrees with his opinion.
To me, the Halevi article was pretty darned convincing. Especially this section:
My emphasis. Now it's perfectly possible to say that while the NIE may not be the last word on Iranian nuclear intentions, in the Bush Administration's hands, such information is likely to be misused and abused. I think I might believe that. But if Daniel Levy or anyone else has a good argument about why Shabtai Shavit's assessment above is actually misguided, then please state it and we can discuss it.
Let's just say I won't get my hopes up.
December 9, 2007 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 9, 2007 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who believes Ledeen, or who would cite him as evidence of anything but lies is a fool. Is that ad hominem enough for you? A bit of a history lesson is in order.
In 1985, Ledeen , back in the states after completing his prior employment in a foreign government's intelligence services (Italy, remember this, because it has relevance later), became embroiled in Iran/Contra.
Ledeen was Manucher Ghorbanifar's original US Sponsor (Walsh Report; Chapter 8 - The Enterprise and Its Finances). Ledeen seemed to have been less than forthright in the Iran/Contra Investigation regarding the timeline of his association with Ghorbanifar (Walsh Report; Chapter 1: United States v. Robert C. McFarlane-McFarlane and the Iran Arms Sales. Note especially Ledeen's claims in footnote 88). After several Arms trades to the Iranians using Ghorbanifar as the Iranian contact had failed dismally, the then CIA director, Casey, told Ledeen on December 19, 1985 that he wanted Ghorbanifar to take a polygraph test (Walsh Report; Chapter 15: William J. Casey-Casey and the Iran Arms Sales).
In the January 19, 1987 Time Magazine, Ledeen is quoted defending the honesty of Ghobanifar:In December, 2001, Ledeen, along with two of Douglas Feith's OSP team, Larry Franklin and Harold Rhode, had a secret meeting in Rome with Ghorbanifar without telling the Italian Embassy or the CIA station chief, a violation of protocols. (Joshua Micah Marshall, Laura Rozen, and Paul Glastris, "Iran-Contra II? Fresh scrutiny on a rogue Pentagon operation", The Washington Monthly, September 2004)
Ledeen again defended Ghorbanifar in print, May, 2004. (Michael Ledeen, "Lying into the Mirror", National Review Online, May 21, 2004)
The Three-Part investigative series regarding the Niger Yellowcake forgeries, by Carlo Bonini and Giuseppe d'Avanzo in the Italian paper, La Repubblica, brings into light the Italian Intelligence Agency, SISMI's role in the manufacture of the tale (Translated into English on Nur al-Cubicle's blog: Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3).
Given Ledeen's former ties to Italy's Intelligence services and Ghorbanifar, he should be hauled in front of a Congressional hearing. Ledeen is a known liar, who associates with a known pathological liar, Ghorbanifar, and whose ability as a freeboot to command meetings with high officials in both Italy and Israel bring into question his ultimate loyalty. It is his own acts, contrary to CIA recommendations, which have been the cause of much disparagement cast upon the CIA. He has himself been at the forefront of insulting the Agency. You are a damn fool to cite and/or believe anything the man has to say.
To note that a man is a habitual liar, whose primary nation of loyalty is in doubt, can hardly be truthfully passed off as ad hominem in this instance.
December 9, 2007 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What this has to do with Yossi Halevi? Brad commented on his article.
December 9, 2007 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
duh, PCA is replying to the blockquote which comprises the first sentence of Brad's post, and, iirc, Brad has previously linked to Ledeen as source material.
Do you have Attention Deficit Disorder, or just Situational Attention Deficit Disorder?
December 9, 2007 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct, still what about What this has to do with Yossi Halevi's article? Does anybody have a good argument againts his opinion?
December 9, 2007 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you note in the first quoted section by BradtheDad, Ledeen and Halevi are mentioned. I was previously unaware of Halevi, but you motivated me to do a bit of data diving, and I now respond with what was found in just a 1st pass shallow dive.
There seems to be an error of omission on the part of The New Republic by not completing exactly what Halevi is a senior fellow of: Institute for Zionist History and Thought. A less than inspiring curriculum vitae when it comes to Foreign Policy. Strike one: weaslie misattribution of wonk status: think tank credentialing bloat.
Back to BradtheDad:
Hilarious, guess what, I live in Las Vegas, and Adelson is a Two-Timing Far Right-Sided casino owner. Adelson secretly taped attorney/client advice with one of his contracted attorneys and then attempted to use it as a weapon against her when the ran for House of Representatives. Her name is Shelley Berkley, and she is both Jewish and an avid supporter of Israel, so the only reason Adelson opposed her was because she is a Democrat. Adelson made a great deal of his initial fortune with which he purchased his first casino, The Sands, with a very astute forward looking multi-year contract with the Las Vegas Visitors and Convention Authority (LVVCA). More power to him, but after he had built his own Convention Center from those profits, has now turned into a big detractor of The LVVCA, whining about their use of room taxes, which is the way they have been funded for my whole life. That's just guilt by association for Halevi though, so I'll call it a foul tip.
The Centrist claim is laughably incorrect with just a cursory analysis though.
By his own admission, Halevi is an "extremist", and Meir Kahane wasn't just "controversial", now was he? His followers in Israel are identified by the Israeli Government, as well as the State Department as terrorists; and note that publish date of 1995, it seems relevant, since it came a year after Israel's terrorist tagging.
Halevi, looking like a Neocon chasing a Chalabi curveball, swings wildly and blindly for the fences at a ball low and away in the dirt; Strike Two.
But it didn't appal Halevi, and even though it is another guilt by association, allowing this to be reprinted in the zine of the Self-Confessed American Traitor, David Horowitz speaks poorly of his judgment. I have disliked Horowitz, since he was a NewLefty Poseur Ramparts Editor, for my own personal reasons, and would never miss the chance to point his hypocrisy out, no matter if it is ad hominem or not. Halevi swinging at a pitch forehead high, fouls it back to the fence behind home plate. The count is still 0-2
That's all I have time for tonight, but go ahead and challenge me again: It looks as if there is a wealth of data to be mined for Halevi.
One last pitch, a fastball, high and tight at the chin: Halevi was born in Brooklyn, but claims he is a citizen of Jerusalem. His loyalty to America should be rightfully questioned. The count goes to 1-2.
December 10, 2007 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good, now tell me what's wrong with his article in TNR?
December 10, 2007 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I figured you wouldn't leave it rest. I'll begin with Halevi's over the top distortion:
That's quite a bit of revisionism.
Halevi would have us believe that Israel's knocking out of an unfinished civilian reactor put an end to Iraq's Nuclear program. It wasn't Israel that kept Saddam from going Nuclear, it was the 1st Gulf War, and International sanctions agreed to by the U.N., which was largely enforced by the U.S., The Brits, and The French throughout the 90's. You know, the same sanctions regime about which GW Bush said:
Yet after Iraq Survey Group (ISG) Final Report was published, it was apparent that the sanctions regime had indeed done a fine job, and the justification for the War Upon Iraq was revised in the 2004 SOTU to the downgraded, "Dozens of Weapons of Mass Destruction-Related Program Activities". This bit of Orwellian Semantics attempted to justify War Upon Iraq with an argument of "Saddam would of if he could of". Now we are told we must believe in unsubstantiated prophecies of Iranian Doom by a self-professed radical Zionist who gets angry about Israel closing down a few illegal west bank settlements. Israel did not stop Saddam from going nuclear. If Halevi really was worried about keeping Iran from getting the bomb, he should be supporting their plan for a WMD-Free Middle East. I won't be holding my breath waiting for him to publish that opinion. Halevi continued:
As I noted previously, Halevi is senior fellow in the Shalem Center's Institute for Zionist History and Thought. His specialty is History, and he has admitted his past associations with radical groups presently considered to be terroristic. I'm sure he has a direct conduit into the Israeli Government's Intelligence Services; more likely he's down in the disinformation feedlot.
Halevi's lamentations begin wailing a bit louder:
All over again? Where was the first round of (apologies for using this next word that so many contemporary conservatives believe is obscene) EVIDENCE? It has all been speculation, and exaggerations regarding Iran's uranium refinement program which the IAEA has never even come close to stating was at purity levels even beginning to approach weapons grade. Are we supposed to believe the uncited harpy screeching of a zealot, or the rational reports by the IAEA, which had it right about Iraq's Nuclear Program, and were ignored in the build-up to War Upon Iraq, The Evidence Notwithstanding?
Add to that, a very logical interview with the Chief Iranian Representative for the IAEA Inspections in Iran, Ali Asghar Soltanieh by the Turkish think-Tank, International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO) and aired on Turkey's NTV on November 2005: "Iran's Nuclear Program". Soltanieh has a unique perspective on Iran's Nuclear program, because he was:
He clearly explained why Iran feels it is imperative that they possess their own indigenous uranium enrichment capabilities:
Hard to argue against that, and the only argument heard is that They Lie! Soltanieh also cited four significant IAEA Documents, and claimed that Iran was in full compliance with all of their dictates:
That's right boys and girls; Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, and claim the right guaranteed in the Charter of IAEA to enrich their own Uranium for peaceful purposes. Israel along with Cuba, India and Pakistan are the only non-signatories in the world. A song comes to my mind (explicit lyrics warning).
Halevi then started citing anonymous sources: a former top security official, a key security analyst and this one:
Is this security analyst the same one identified as "key" earlier? Why wasn't Halevi more specific regarding "the Syrian nuclear project"? Didn't his Israeli Intelligence contacts clue him in? The International Press originally assumed that Israel had attacked a Syrian Nuclear Reactor, but there have since been downward revisions; one to a Nuke assembly plant (Steve Weizman, "Israeli: Syrian Site Hit Not a Reactor", Associated press, November 22, 2007); others have been even less substantive. (von Daniel Dombey, "Mystery still surrounds Israel's attack by the Euphrates", Financial times Deutschland, November 29, 2007). More Halevi spinning with less than fact. Three Israeli Journalists, employed by Israeli news media: Yedioth Ahronoth, Maariv, and Channel 10, who were sent to Syria to investigate the claims, have been questioned by The Israel Police, and could face charges that upon conviction imprison them for up to four years. (Asaf Carmel, "3 Israeli reporters probed over travel to Syria, Lebanon", Haaretz, July 12, 2007) We are constantly bombarded with assertions that Israel is a free state, yet there can be no free state without a free press.
Halevi did get around to naming a few names for sources. Shabtai Shavit former head of Mossad was one. Shavit carried much less credibility with right-siders,when Representative Burton (R-IN) was investigating the Clinton pardon of Marc Rich because of his November 20, 2000 letter to President Clinton requesting Rich's pardon. Shavit also seemed to have a bit of ethics problems, and a love for crony capitalism:
I can't wait for Shavit references to be dropped into the Neocon NIE circlejerk; I think noting it has the same hue as Perles of Unethical Greed would be quite appropriate.
Halevi's last name-dropping in the article was, Eliezer Shkedi, commander of the Israeli Air Force, which provides a strong indicator that I can now add plagiariser to my list of descriptive terms for Halevi.
There is one thing that Halevi did right, and that was his choice of titles: The Article was truly an Insult To My Intelligence...
December 10, 2007 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 10, 2007 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have exposed your self as a contemptible contemporary conservative with this despicable post. Tell me, has your political perversion sunk so far into the miasmic pit of moral relativism, that you also count the calf hairs on the legs of unsuspecting souls by peeking under the wall in an adjoining public restroom stall?
The situationalist tactics are betrayed by your dissembling within just this subthread. I responded first to your claim that there was only content of ad hominem vacuity with direct evidence that Michael Ledeen has been a behind the scenes manipulator, who has engaged in illegal actions, all the while putting up a public facade of deceptions and lies. Toss in his two-decade plus personal association with Manucher Ghorbanifar, and any of analysis of his, especially regarding Iran, cannot be trusted.
You replied with a query regarding Yossi Klein Halevi, and I provided evidence of his admissions and omissions which indicates he is a less than forthright person, who also should not be trusted. You asked for my critique of the specific article, and I complied.
I just did a textual analysis of my three posts: in total they contained 3432 words, 31 live URL linked citations, plus one Time Magazine Citation, which I had previously found when only subscribers were allowed access to their database, and didn't bother to go dig up the URL, now that their archives are freely available.
This was in response to your four posts of 44 words and zero citations. Now you reply with a defamatory ad hominem attack without substance implying that my judgment is clouded by a belief in Zionist Conspiracy? Pardner, you're calling me out with fighting words. The fact that your pistol is just for show, only serving a purpose when holstered as a cod-piece, and Fyfe-like you keep the sole live round in your posession tucked away in your shirt pocket is no longer germane. The protestations that your wide-stance has thrown you off-balance, positioned waist deep in ripening cow-chips is not my concern. You should have considered all of this before you spewed off half-cocked.
Let's investigate the usage of the term Zionist in my two posts regarding the poseur, Yossi Klein Halevi. In 2488 words, it appeared 5 times for a shocking frequency of 0.2%. In three of those five instances, it appeared in reference to what Halevi's Think Tank that provides him with wonk credentials is officially called, "Shalem Center's Institute for Zionist History". The fourth instance was in the review of Halevi's book, "Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist: An American Story". I used it once, prefaced with "radical" describing Halevi, and even in that instance, I tried and was unable to come up with a fitting description of a Brooklyn boy who grew up to be associated with BETAR, the JDL, as well as Meir Kahane, and now is a producer of poorly sourced pro-Israeli diatribes.
For this, you responded with a slanderous implication that I am somehow caught-up in Zionist Conspiracy Theories? Dialectical insults reminiscent of Trotskyites only succeed in making you a personal target of opportunity in this namespace, and proves that your stated opinions are of nugatory value.
Here's the final pitch for Halevi's at bat, which I decided not to use in my previous post. Halevi's plagiarised reference to Eliezer Shkedi, lifted from an article published on the website of JTA, is reprehensible hyperbole. The comparison of the marionette tool, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Adolph Hitler is a brutal insult to anyone who fought, died or suffered in the WWII fight against Nazi Germany, and that includes my father, an American GI, who was severely wounded in a German field, as well as Halevi's father, who was a holocaust survivor. It speaks loud and clear regarding Halevi's rectitude of intent.
Halevi is called out looking at strike three, a fast ball at the knees.
December 11, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, dear, Davai is a "conservative"! Quick, lock the kids in their rooms!
Boy, Pseudo, you really put him in his place with that one.
BTW-Yossi Klein HaLevi broke with the Kahanists decades ago. Is it possible, in your eyes, for anyone ever to do repetance for past wrongs?
December 12, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would I be correct in assuming that Shabtai Shavit did not rise through the science and technology side of Mossad? I am utterly baffled by the fascination with highly enriched uranium, to the extent of ignoring Iranian work with plutonium reprocessing. In round numbers, you need about ten times much HEU as Pu-239 to build a basic bomb. With missile delivery, keeping the warhead weight down is critical.
I'm not trying to take this out on you, but I am incredibly frustrated with WMD fearmongering that might even have something to monge (or whatever the verb may be), but focuses on a largely irrelevant point. Someone else posted about the Iraqis having mixed Tabun and sulfur mustard -- which makes no sense, because the Tabun would kill long before the mustard produces its delayed damage. If you are engaging in chemical warfare, there are reasons why you might use either, but not together.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 10, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Might it have something to do with trying to make it seem like the uranium enrichment is for peaceful energy purposes? My limited understanding is that enriched uranium can be for either energy or weapons purposes, with the level of enrichment being over 90% in a bomb. I don't know if there is a similar dynamic with Plutonium. If the Iranians wanted to do uranium enrichment for the purposes of nuclear weapons, but wanted to not make it completely covert, then they would want to make the public case that it is for energy purposes and the only way to do that is to choose a technology that can be plausibly said to be for energy.
December 10, 2007 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Insufferable Daniel Levy
December 10, 2007 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet some of us have expended a great deal of effort attempting to understand this modern world, and have followed the threadings of connections back into history, as well as untangled the present day Gordian knots and chased them to their terminus.
It is not sloth which was a determinate factor in our conclusions, they were instead a product from a collating of fact. You bring up Ledeen deep down here in this thread, after questioning the relevance of my pointing out his very long and inauspicious past as a habitual prevaricator that continues on to this day. It is not an ad hominem attack to question Ledeen's veracity based upon his multitudinous past fabrications and forgeries of truth.
The facts are very clear regarding William Kristol, AEI, Michael Ledeen, as well as several other closely connected individuals. They are majors participants in the NeoCon circlejerking proliferation of lies. Peretz, I have not dug into much, but as his name seems to keep popping-up in all the wrong places, that task has now been placed upon the back-burner. Benjamin is of little concern to me, and as long as he doesn't come into my country to spread his perverse poisonous political perspectives, and still suffers with enough elective impotency in his own country, that he must work within the constraining framework of coalition from a position as an intermittent possessor of a 2nd tier ministry portfolio, I am quite content to not even contemplate his existence.
In fact, it is you, who by advancing the inaccurate claims that others' valid complaints are naught but ad hominem attacks, that is playing the rhetorical tactic of insulting the messengers who bear truth. Throughout this whole thread, you have attacked with personal insults, distorted others' posts with small out of context blurbs, which you leveraged into insinuations of antisemitism. You even went so low as to intimate it represented personal persecution. Yet not once did you provide even the slightest shred of cited evidence to back up your assertions that the critiques of NRO and TNR are without merit.
December 12, 2007 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was an interesting article in the Israeli Hebrew weekly newspaper Makor Rishon by a women, Dr Yona Hadari who collected and published a series of discussion between Israeli Left and Right wing intellectuals. She identifies with the Left herself, but as she went over the discussions as she edited them, she noticed how the Right-wingers would bring in various facts and try to analyze them. The Leftists, as a rule, ignored all the facts they were presented with and would accuse their opponents with "lying" if they showed that the Leftist were wrong, without them bringing any counterproofs.
This ridiculous piece by Daniel Levy is in the same spirit....simply dismissing what Yossi Klein HaLevy states by using guilt-by-association. This proves Levy really has nothing to say.
December 12, 2007 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink