Time's Joe Klein versus Foxman's Anti-Defamation League on THE NEOCONS! (Plus Clifford May Weighs In)
This is some exchange of letters.
The whole thing started when Joe Klein blasted the neocons for instigating the Iraq war. It started here, I think, with Joe Klein simply letting the neocons have it. His language was very strong and the neocons at Commentary and National Review went ballistic, calling out Klein for being anti-semitic. Then the ADL's chairman, Abe Foxman, jumped in to tell Klein he was out of line.
This is the point where the apology usually comes. Not Klein. Klein is a Jew -- and an unapologetic one. He also knows that he's right.
He is sticking to his guns. Read this fascinating exchange. First Foxman.
Then Klein.
Fascinating. And important.
My favorite part: Klein to Foxman.
The neocons "are constantly spewing canards against those who favor talking to the Palestinians, or who don't favor witless bellicosity when it comes to Iran. Their campaign of defamation has cost people jobs, damaged reputations and careers. I am very tired of having reasonable people accused of being 'soft on terrorism'or 'unpatriotic' or favoring 'surrender'--Joe Lieberman's favorite--by Jewish neoconservatives who seem to have a neurotic need to prove their toughness.....They should know that most Jews disagree with their politics and many Jews are disgusted with their behavior."
Not many, Joe. The overwhelming majority.
Amen.
ALSO SEE MICKEY KAUS
on Klein hanging tough and EZRA KLEIN
who notes that Walt-Mearsheimer changed the terrain.
On Saturday, Cliff May, one of the neocon B-team weighed in with an attack on liberals for wanting the US to lose the Iraq war that he helped lead us into. Watch Ed Schultz smack him down. Also read about May in case you doubt that there is such a thing as neocons who have a common agenda and that it is embroiling the United States in Middle East wars whether in our interest or not.
I love the "witless bellicosity" comment. That fits Lieberman, particularly, so well! As well as the "gleeful warmongering". Klein is right on, and he shouldn't back down!
July 3, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow.
Bravo Joe Klein for sticking up for the truth.
If he keeps this up I may have to start reading him.
July 3, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute. Do you mean that Saddam Hussain didn't plan 911? Now that is real news. Someone should tell Cheney and Bush. And Rudi and McCain. Oh, and whatever percent of knuckle-draggers who still believe the fiction that they handed out.
July 4, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille,
no, Saddam didn't plan 9/11, it was Iran*!
*after they sent Saddam those WMD.
July 5, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
WMD's? You mean the ones Saddam never used to defend himself but instead secreted off to Syria so that George W. Bush would be embarrassed once we invaded Iaq and captured him? Those WMD's?
July 6, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the cassus belli that dare not speak its name"-- sweet! wish I'd written that.
I second the bravo for Joe Klein. the war in Iraq had to do with George Junior finishing the job that Daddy left undone (oh, yeah and oil--and how's that working out for ya?).
however to be honest, the far left was also peddling Iraq as "the war for Israel"--if you recall, that was one of Cindy Sheehan's more intemperate claims. but anyway.
a coming war with Iran would reach an almost unheard-of level of stupidity, even from the gang that brought you Guantanamo. let's hope we're not in for an October surprise.
July 3, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . my first born . . . was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. Cindy Sheehan
Doesn't seem "intemperate" to me -- "spot on" might be a better modifier.
July 3, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you please cite some "far-left" examples of wanting to go to war with Iraq for Israel? Cindy Sheehan? Are you crazy?
July 4, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to answer this post here but either I posted it under the wrong post by CVille Dem or TPM cafe is too stupid to understand which post a person is responding to.
July 4, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it was my mistake. But I was frustrated by my previous abortive attempt to post.
July 4, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Went to Time.com to email Joe Klein to express my support for his line of thought but--guess what--can't reach Joe Klein through Time. Maybe someone has an email that works that can reach Joe Klein. He needs to know that there are thousands who want to express their support for him.
July 4, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Looks a very lopsided argument. But then personal attacks are always the sure sign that the argument is lost.
July 4, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm usually not a fan of Joe Klein. But today I am, a little.
July 4, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
My own snark was meant to convey the same sentiment.
Klein has done a lot of damage, specifically in the way that he's fed right-wing talking points in the previous two Presidential cycles. The fact that he's not going to be a servile information pimp for the Right this time is a good sign.
Back in the mid-90's I considered myself a moderate Liberal. I was looking for a better, less combative politics, and the DLC looked like it had a handle on the way things really worked. As the attacks on the Clintons began to mount I came to the realization that I had better start being a real Liberal (meaning that I needed to stop being so will to compromise with the Right) because if I didn't, I might not be able to be any kind of Liberal at all.
Possibly Klein is reaching a similar conclusion. One can hope anyway.
July 4, 2008 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dave Adams,
Not when it's personal, anyway. Let's see what happens when it's back to business as usual.
July 7, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The recent uproar over General Clark's comment on McCain and the habit of some quarters to throw around the "anti-semitism" charge so easily reminds me of an incident that happened back in boot camp, 1943 at Camp Blanding, Florida.
We were told that a spit and polish full bird colonel was going to inspect the barracks. Alerted
to this event, we went full bodied to prepare to pass this upcoming inspection; cleaning, scrubbing, dusting, putting all our possessions in order.
On the big day, Saturday?, I forget, this Colonel, actually wearing white gloves, comes in for the shakedown. This guy looked at everything, cots, over and above, foot lockers, he rubbed his white gloves on the windows, the woodwork, he eyeballed the floor, and when he couldn't find anything, he meandered into the
showers and the latrine. The shower fittings were polished, the floor immaculate. Nothing there. He checked the 5 toilets, stopping at the last one.
He knelt down and rubbed his white glove underneath the rim. Here, he found what he was looking for and we flunked the inspection.
The lesson I got from that inspection is this: If you start out looking for shit, you're going to find it.
July 4, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great story!
But I'm with the "bird colonel." Slaves -- oops! draftees -- have got to be regularly reminded that they can never prevail in a competition with their masters.
Colonel -- 1. Training Co. G -- 0.
July 4, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
um, I was not a draftee, I enlisted, January 7, 1943, 6 months out of high school.
I grow old, I grow old,
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled..........
July 4, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hereby award you the honorary title of Old Codger, with two ribbons. You are an inspiration to us youngsters in our 70's.
July 5, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
hoppy,
Why, thank you sonny.
July 5, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
DON'T MISS THIS ONE BY AttAckerman -
Reputation Gained Through Intimidation, Pacifism No Longer Tradition
By: Spencer Ackerman
Oh look. It's the Yid Gestapo.
Joe Klein, in a column supporting the surge, mentioned......
ARTICLE- http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/06/27/theyhavecomeforyouruncoolneice/
July 4, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at the start of the Bush Administration someone (Cheney most likely) hired about 12 people from the AEI to fill top advisory positions in the administration. Bush likely used them as advisors. Bush attacked Iraq.
I guess the question is, was the AEI a supporter of the Iraq invasion. Kristol certainly was as he wrote a letter to Clinton in '98 advising him to attack Iraq.
What exactly does this have to do with anti-sematism?
July 4, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Antisemitism is a great charge because there is no defence against it. Disagree with a Jewish person and you are an antisemite. Also Jewish? Even worse, a self-hating antisemite!
July 4, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damned tpm cafe and it's stupid login system strikes again. I wrote this once and it wouldn't let me post? Unknown user, even though it knows me. When oh when is TPM going to get its shit together?
CVille - I think you are misinterpreting gretz's point. I had the same initial reaction as you, but his support for Klein's current statements indicates that the meaning we both perceived is not the correct one.
I think what gretz must have meant was simply that the "far left" was peddling years ago the notion of the war for Iraq being a war for Israel (in the eyes of many of its perpetrators) and that Klein is a johnny-come-lately to this position. Odd use of the word peddling and terrible writing, but that seems like what he must have meant.
July 4, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then I go and post the preceding under the wrong post by CVille Dem.
July 4, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVilleDem,
Indeed. And alot like racism in that way.
July 7, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I notice at the bottom of Klein's response to Foxman, Foxman had a link to his response to Klein's response. http://www.adl.org/media_watch/internet/Joe_Klein_Response.htm
Here is a quote from it:
"Our concern is with the term "Jewish neoconservatives" and the distressing claim that those individuals are eager to serve Israel's interests against the interests of their own country.
None of the issues you raise has anything to do with a person's religion or religious beliefs. None of the neo-conservatives, whether Jewish or of another faith (or no faith), has expressed his or her views about foreign policy in terms of religion. It is inappropriate to identify a group that clearly has Jews and non-Jews within its ranks by singling out the Jews or, worse, identifying all of them as "Jewish." Again, if you consider the history that has seen Jews vilified as a group that keeps to itself, is conspiratorial and has dual loyalties, you will better understand our concern."
The problem that I see is that Foxman sees any complaint against an American Jewish supporter of Israel as being based on religion. Yet the real problem of so many Neocons isn't their religion. It is their Israeli nationalism. And there really is a dual loyalty there. The Neocons see a threatened nation of 7,000,000 people in the middle east to which they have strong nationalistic ties of loyalty, and they want the other nation they belong to - the 303,000,000 people USA - to take military action to defend Israel or at least to take military actions that will "benefit" Israel - in that military "quick fix" that is so enamored by conservatives impatient with learning about their enemies so that common ground can be found to lessen tensions.
Foxman quickly slides all criticism of conservative Israeli nationalism by Israel's American supporters who happen to be Jewish over to "antisemitism" based entirely on religious prejudice. That way all opposition to nationalistic policies proposed by Neocons can automatically be ignored and attacked as being based on bias against the Jewish religion.
Jewish fear of another Holocaust, which I presume motivates Foxman's blindness to the Israeli nationalistic motivations is quite unsurprising. But Jonathon Pollard was a Mossad spy in the Pentagon for nationalistic reasons. It is hard to forget either Pollard or Larry Franklin who passed secrets to members of the Israeli lobby, AIPAC.
It is also very hard not to see elements of Israeli nationalism motivating many of the hardline Neocons. Foxman's attempt to conceal their motivations behind cries that opposing them is somehow "antisemitism" based on their religion simply overlooks the fact that the policies the Neocons pushed and still push are hardline conservative militaristic policies assured of failure because of their very nature.
It's a shame that Foxman refuses to apply any nuance to who he claims is antisemetic. Antisemitism does still exist and needs to be exposed and refuted where it can be. Calling Joe Klein Antisemitism because he opposes the Neocon proposals for self-defeating military actions by the US against Islamic nations simply makes Foxman look foolish and impotent. Foxman discredits the more appropriate ADL efforts to combat real antisemitism.
That's a risk single issue extremists always run, I guess.
July 4, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem . . . Jewish . . . religion . . . nationalism . . . dual loyalty . . . threatened nation . . . nationalistic . . . nation . . . . Richardxx
"For you are a holy people to YHWH your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth." Deuteronomy 14:2
Religion? Nationalism? What's the diff?
July 4, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
In European cultures nations are not religious entities since the 17th century. Nationalism and its associated patriotism is not the same as being religious.
Similarly, the holocaust did not occur because the Jews were considered foreign nationals patriots of a different nation, or a group who wanted to overthrow the government. Instead they were more like the Gypsies, often despised just because they were different. The holocaust occurred because they lived culturally different within Europe, especially but not exclusively German-speaking Europe.
One of the practices of nationalism was to try to standardize the people within the national boundaries. That's why Great Britain tried to eliminate the non-English languages like Cornish and Welsh and why Parisian French dominated Breton. At the time Italy was unified I have read that only 2% of the people spoke what we today call Italian. The Jews resisted such national standardization to a surprisingly successful (and apparently infuriating) degree. The same is true for many of the German-speaking people of South Tyrol, given to Italy after WW I. As a tourist to Barcelona in Franco's Spain in 1968 I learned that the language Catalan was actively suppressed by the central government, again in an effort to standardize the people of the nation.
It was pure nationalism, and not based on religion. It was to a large extent the failure of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to achieve any significant degree of nationalistic standardization that led to the total breakup of that government into (roughly) its linguistic components.
July 5, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have read that at the beginning of Hitler's road to power, the intelligentsia and very wealthy Germans mocked him as an inconsequential little up-start with nowhere to go but out of sight. Because there were some very prominent Jews in those ranks, Hitler (whose thinking processes can easily be compared to the blob occupying the WH) declared 'war' on the 'evil' Jews of the world.
What was a personal vendetta became the reason to murder 6 million Jews.
July 5, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Similarly, the holocaust did not occur because the Jews were considered foreign nationals patriots of a different nation, or a group who wanted to overthrow the government. Instead they were more like the Gypsies, often despised just because they were different. The holocaust occurred because they lived culturally different within Europe, especially but not exclusively German-speaking Europe."
It's complicated, to be sure, but I'd have to disagree with you. The Jews weren't just considered "different"; they were different in pernicious ways. They were always considered to have "dual loyalties"--or rather, they were thought to have loyalties only to their own tribe, race, nation--take your pick. So the argument about loyalty to another country (Israel) is simply a pick-up of the previous argument that Jews were "rootless cosmopolitans" with no loyalty to any landed people or nation, but only to their own unlanded, transnational "race."
Unlike the gypsies, who were always marginal to the societies they lived in, the Jews sought to be full participants. At the height of their assimilation, they considered themselves to be "good Germans," Italians, French--and then found out that "good Germans" thought of them as something wholly alien to the host people and culture. So, in terms of living "culturally different...especially in German-speaking Europe," the Jews there were remarkable for doing largely the opposite of what you say here: They were proud Germans who loved the German language and customs. Any number of men who perished in the holocaust had earned the Iron Cross in WWI.
July 6, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Yet the real problem of so many Neocons isn't their religion. It is their Israeli nationalism."
Then why use the phrase "Jewish neocons"? Isn't that making religion at least part of the problem? Is this just another form of the argument against using the phrase "Islamic extremists," when we're really just mean "extremist"? Or this parallelism unfair, because "Islamic extremists" take Islam to be their guiding light and justification while "Jewish neocons" don't?
Of course, the problem here is the problem any minority faces. When a black actor plays a role--except as a cop or criminal or rapper or some other stereotypically "black role"--it at least used to be the question: What are they saying by casting a black person in the role? IOW, it was hard to impossible for a black person just to be a person playing a role that had nothing to do with his race.
Similarly here. Yes, a lot of neocons are Jews. Is that sort of an accident of nature, as it were, or is there something about being Jewish--or being a certain kind of Jew, just to add nuance here--that draws these people to being neocons?
If so, what do we make of the many others, the prominent Protestants, who are drawn to the same philosophy? What do we make of the fact that it was these people--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell (though he does speak Yiddish)--who were the actual decision-makers? Were they dupes of the conniving Jews, such as Perle, who had little real decision-making power? Or do we simply overlook their religion as, for some reason, being unimportant because, like white skin, it doesn't "stick out" as noticeable (and therefore "important") in the way that being Jewish, like black skin, does stick out in a society that is predominantly Christian/Protestant and white?
In thinking about the term "Jewish neocon," it's also worth noting that the VAST majority of Jews don't support this philosophy nor the military actions that issue from it. The VAST majority of Jews, unlike their Christian brethren, did NOT vote for Bush either time and DID vote for their opponents, and thus voted AGAINST empowering these "Jewish necons." So making a point of saying "JEWISH neocon," at best, seems a way of pointing out a surprising anomaly--i.e., that some Jews have these crazy beliefs while NORMALLY, it's the gentiles with the crazy beliefs.
I guess it should also be remembered that neocons believed/believe in using American military might to transform whole swaths of the world--and not just to defend Israel. They were early supporters of the intervention in the Balkans, for example. Though I deplore their philosophy and their influence, I think their philosophy has more to do with a misguided way of spreading democracy and its attendant values than with making the world safe for Israel, though the former entails the latter.
July 6, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting and informative set of comments above after my earlier post. Thank you all of you. It is more clear to me now that untangling religion from nationalism is harder than I thought it might be.
I would say, thought, that AIPAC appears to me to be a primarily nationalist organization (in its goals at least) working here in the U.S. to lobby for American government support of the nation of Israel. This gets complicated by the clear goal of Israel to be a Jewish nation, but AIPAC's actions seem to me to be nationalist in nature.
But how to explain the strong concentration of Jews as Neocons? Dual loyalties? And if there is any accuracy to that, can it be an accusation spread to all American Jews? To address the second of those first - certainly not. That would by like accusing Anglophile Americans who are members of the renamed American branch of the Church of England as having dual loyalties just because they are Episcopalians. As an Anglophile Episcopalian myself I would consider that simply wrong. But I took fencing and wrestling in college from a coach who dropped the "Von" in front of his last name during WW I because American Germans were thought to have dual loyalties, and I have read that Hitler expected the German-speaking Americans to rise up in America to support him.
But there are American Jews with a very strong attachment to Israel, and it's as important to them while Israel is under attack as Great Britain was to many Americans during WW II. And Jews do succeed as academics to a disproportional degree.
The difference between them and fundamentalist Americans is interesting. Fundamentalist Americans have had to set up their own separate institutions to succeed academically. The Neocons appear to me to be cosmopolitans who have generally succeeded academically or professionally in a generally gentile world. It should not be surprising that there are successful and cosmopolitan individuals who have a strong attachment to Israel and who gravitate to working in American foreign policy. And since "cosmopolitan" is not an adjective normally applied to most American conservatives (unlike "economically knowledgeable"), it similarly does not surprise me that such individuals could find each other, group together and have an unusual impact on American foreign policy especially as related to the nation of Israel. But I think they are an unusual small group, not representative either of American supporters of Israel or of individuals who are religiously Jewish.
As for the non-Jewish Neocons, there seems to be a group norm that holds all of them together. They seem to me to all be proud of their ability to scam others. I'd guess that explains their attraction to Intelligence operations. Ahmed Chalabi was a proud member of the Neocons, and his history of conviction for bank fraud is well known. Condi Rice is distantly related to this group, but the hardcore Neocons were happy to use a bright, successful academic who also was attractive and Black. She has let them use her so that she could get close to the levers of power.
Since I don't know any of these people personally, obviously I can't be sure that any of this is accurate. But if it is, I still think there is good reason to separate nationalist behavior from religious behavior.
July 7, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Joe Klein's views. I guess he has come to realize perhaps lately that Iraq war is disastrous and totally unnecessary. With regards to Bush Administration's encouragement Israel to attack Iran this is what I wrote on my blog and I hope media takes note of the consequences of such an attack:
Is the Bush Administration Encouraging Israel to Attack Iran?
While the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) says Iran has either stopped or slowed down development of a nuclear weapon, Bush Administration is adamant that Iran is developing one. Apparently no lessons have been learnt from the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" fiasco, when Bush Administration hurriedly started the war preempting UN inspectors report which would have contradicted such a claim.
The recent and very visible exercises by Israeli air force have been described by some eager Pentagon officials as preparation for an attack on Iran. To many Middle East watchers this is probably just saber rattling and may in fact be to pressurize European allies to get on with it in Iran or else!
Has the White House or the Pentagon seriously considered consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran? Iran is neither Iraq or Syria and the fanatical Ahmedinajad regime will respond with everything he has got. Iran will retaliate by launching missiles on Tel Aviv (probably devastating the city) and close the Straits Of Hormuz sending crude oil price to $250 a barrel or higher causing massive problems for many economies of the world. An instant casualty will probably be the Iraqi Government as Moqtada Al-Sadr (supported by Iran) will bring the pro US Government down and cause chaos in Iraq.
The Israelis are not that stupid to launch another war. Their attack on Lebanese cities was watched in horror by the world. Instead of recovering two kidnapped soldiers it lost another 169 soldiers plus several hundred civilians killed. The most damage to Israel was to its invincibility built so impeccably in the six day war. Their super efficient army suddenly did not look so super any more. Israel seems to have learned its lessons and is now negotiating with its adversaries.
The larger question for the U.S. is, where is the US media in all this? Are they going to sit idly by while another war is launched and not challenge Bush Administration as they did before Iraq war? Why is media not analyzing and presenting to US public the consequences of such a misadventure?
A far fetched idea though, but is Bush Administration so worried by an Obama win and Democratic majorities in Senate and House this fall that it rather not have judicial probes opening up into the missing billions in Iraq, and massive no bid contracts to favorite companies etc. that it may cause another war and a security situation leveling the way for McCain to win - I hope not.
July 4, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
ajazhaque,
Can you provide a link to your blog?
July 7, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Surprising from Klein of all people. Let's not forget that he said this "in support of the surge".
How hard it is these days to be a liberal hawk. Truly so little room to maneuver. Oh well, two cheers for Joke Line, anyway.
July 4, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
what gretz meant--and I'm a she, btw, and gee thanks for the nice comment about my terrible writing--is that you can't have it both ways. it's either a war for Israel or it isn't. oh--but I forgot--as long as Cindy Sheehan says it it's ok.
Ellen, my use of the word "intemperate" was a stand-in for the word I wanted to use, which is "utterly stupid and hateful." I forgot where I was for a minute...I live in a country that mostly saw Sheehan as an ass. I forgot that she's a tin-pot saint on this site.
July 4, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not who said it, gretz; it's whether what was said was correct.
P.S. I'd rather not think the country you live in is as partial to the argumentum ad hominem as your comment implies. But, then again, I really don't know what country you do live in, do I?
July 4, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, gretz, looks like I did misinterpret you. Silly me, I tried to make sense out of a post that wasn't very clear to me and to another user. It really did sound like you were saying the left was peddling the war in Iraq. I still don't think you're saying that, but I'm no longer sure what you were saying.
But I guess I don't understand your position now at all. You approve of what Klein said but not of what Cindy Sheehan said. I know there are many differences between them, but on this point I don't see much of a distinction. In degree, yes, Sheehan is more out front, but in general thrust, I don't see all that much difference. Both are saying that many people supported the Iraq war at least in part because they thought it would make Israel safer.
July 4, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
gretz said:
"I live in a country that mostly saw Sheehan as an ass."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I disagree with that assertion.
and
I think we invaded Iraq for 3 reasons; oil (Cheney), Israel (neo-cons), and to finish what Bush's daddy didn't (Bush).
It was the "perfect storm", something for everyone.
July 5, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
John - you forgot #4,
to make the Middle East safe for Democracy (liberal hawks like Friedman and Packer and Klein.)
Or should I call this #2a? As ridiculous as it may seem, some of these people actually believed this.
July 5, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
sTiVo says:
"to make the Middle East safe for Democracy (liberal hawks like Friedman and Packer and Klein.)
Or should I call this #2a? As ridiculous as it may seem, some of these people actually believed this."
Agreed.
These people you mention are supposedly well educated, intelligent, and rational. Unfortunately, given the history of Iraq, they must also be brain dead to believe such tripe.
Here's my long held view of Iraq; there are no Iraqis, there are only Shiite, Sunni and Kurds living there. When Bush ended Saddam, he ended Iraq.
Isn't "Liberal hawk" an oxymoron? (chuckle)
July 5, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You might as well throw in End Time Prophesy so the Fundies don't feel left out.
July 6, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. I wonder where Israeli citizens stand in their government’s saber rattling, and what portion of the population favor how Palestinians are treated?
July 4, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question. Read Haaretz and Jerusalem Post, both available in English and on line, and you'll get some answers.
July 8, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Joe, it is very important that all Americans understand that the majority of the American Jewish community does not share the same war monger views represented by the "Neo-Cons" nor are all "Neo-cons Jewish. I think it is a shame that the "Neo-cons" have done more to hurt Israel's cause then ever could have been done by the so call "enimies of Israel. It would appear that some in the Jewish community use the word "antisemitism" as a weapon for decent....even accusing those in their own community of hating themselves. Endless war will not solve the problem. Jewish Americans and all Americans refuse to and can not support another war that is not in our own national interest. American's National Interest that is.
July 4, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Americans have finally caught on and it has nothing to do with antisemitism. AIPAC can no longer be allowed to dictate American's foreign policy in the Middle East. It is as simple as that.
July 4, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like very much to know how many "Neo-Cons'" sons, daughters, husbands and wives are fighting and dying in Iraq. AIPAC should be able to provide this information.
July 4, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please consider a few comments.
1. Since when does Aipac dictate US foreign policy in the Mideast? The US sells all kinds of arms and has all kinds of trade and other relationships that Aipac opposes.
2.Israel's treatment of the Palestinians (including Egyptians like Arafat etc.) is subject to legitimate criticism. But calling it genocide and comparing Israel to the Nazis is absurd. Remember, the Nazis took millions out of their homes and killed them. There are over a million Arabs living peacefully inside of Israel, and the Palestinians have not been subject to mass murder. Again, Israel is subject to legitimate criticism, but not demonization.
3. TPM readers on the Joe Klein bandwagon, huh? Let's see if Joe can get two base hits in a row.
4. Just because not every attack on Israel is antisemitic doesn't mean there is no antisemitism, or that it doesn't motivate some people. The near fixation of some on the sins of Israel (real and imagined) without any corresponding attention paid to the Arab world's shortcomings, including its enduring hostility to Israel and to the Jewish people, calls for some explanation. Is it a real discussion that leaves out suicide bombers in pizza places, rockets hitting schools and homes, and the refusal of all but two Arab nations to even recognize Israel for 60 years?
4. Guess what? Jews are not running the Bush administration.
5. Most of those behind the Iraq war are not Jews, either, but does anyone here ask whether their sons/daughters are in combat? Remember Mitt Romney saying his sons were doing more important work on his campaign? Anyone here want to suggest that Mitt's kids, and Cheney's, and Bush's, and the non-Jewish Cabinet's, etc. send their sons and daughters to Iraq? Or is it only the "neocons" that are of interest? And if so, why?
Well, if you read this, thanks for considering these various thoughts.
July 4, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess what? Jews are not running the Bush administration.
But it's not for not trying: Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, I. Lewis Libby, Josh Bolten, Ari Fleischer, Ken Mehlman, Dov Zackheim, Elliot Abrams . . . .
July 5, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, I'm not sure of your point, except to essentially agree that Jews are not running the Bush administration.
Yes, of the dozens and hundreds of powerful people in the Bush Administration, some were or are Jews. Ari Fleischer? Didn't he leave about 4 or 5 years ago? And he was a press secretary, hardly having war-making powers.
Is there a reason you don't talk about all the people making decisions and wielding power that are not Jewish? Let's put this into perspective.
July 5, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
that crowd is just one segment of the whole. You also have the boys in the corporate board rooms segment, the Religious Evangelicals segment, the Energy segment, the Imperalist segment, The Imperial Presidency segment, and the Ignore the Law and Constitution segment.
And they all get their pound of flesh.
July 5, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
But where Jews only TRY, gentiles SUCCEED.
What are we to make of THAT?
That THAT is okay because, at bottom, this is Gentile Country, and it's only right and proper that Gentiles control our foreign policy--but somehow improper if Jews even TRY to have a say?
July 6, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, dcsmithie -
I DID consider Mitt Romney's remarks about his sons' contributions to the war effort disgraceful - and I'm sure we'd be hearing tons about that if he had somehow become the nominee - which is probably one reason why he didn't.
July 5, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying that when Mitt withdrew his nomination his 5 sons didn't run out and join up?
I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED!!!!!!!
July 5, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for speaking truth to ignorance.
July 5, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, Foxman did not accuse Klein of being anti-Semitic. He wrote: "The notion that Jews with "divided loyalties" were behind the decision to go to war is reminiscent of age-old anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government, ..." Not a claim about Klein, a comment on what he wrote.
Klein then does some more distortion:
"You write: "There can be no question that in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, legitimate and serious American security and foreign policy interests played a critical role in President Bush's decision to attack Iraq." Well, I question it. And so do a fairly thick slice of the diplomatic, intelligence and military communities, who believe that Iraq was a tragic, costly and, above all, bloody diversion from the battle against those who actually attacked us on September 11."
Yes, the war is "ragic, costly and, above all, bloody diversion from the battle against those who actually attacked us". At the same time, however, "legitimate and serious American security and foreign policy interests played a critical role in President Bush's decision to attack Iraq". That Bush and Company screwed things up and made terrible decisions does not mean there were not legitimate interests behind the decision. Klein position, and one I see implied in many places, is that since things were screw up they must have had a different goal in mind. How about this, this administration is incompetent? They take real problems and make them worse because they are terrible at their job. Not because they are really trying to help Israel because they didn't see that attacking Iraq was a really bad idea that was not going to achieve their goals.
July 4, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
NAME ONE LEGITIMATE AND SERIOUS AMERICAN SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY INTEREST that influcenced Bush's decision to attack Iraq. Name ONE! Because Bush sure didn't, except the "mushroom cloud" message. Now, Cheney DID say that Saddam helped 911 happen, but even YOU know he was lying about that, don't you?
Iraq was an oil field waiting to be stolen.
And since when is it not accusing someone of being anti-semitic to say that what they wrote parrots anti-semites? Give me a break!
This whole ridiculous meme that the illegal and pre-emptive war was just and sooooo necessary; they just screwed up right after "shock and awe" is nothing but neocon talking points and has not one scintilla of truth to it.
I'm sure you won't answer this, but maybe I'll get you another time!
July 5, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You underestimate clever Jews. They always have good reasons for their evil actions:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/why-iraq-was-inevitable-11456
It is too often forgotten, not least by historians, that George W. Bush did not invent the idea of deposing the Iraqi tyrant. For years before he came on the scene, removing Saddam Hussein had been a priority embraced by the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton and by Clinton’s most vocal supporters in the Senate:
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
These were the words of President Clinton on the night of December 16, 1998 as he announced a four-day bombing campaign over Iraq. Only six weeks earlier, Clinton had signed the Iraq Liberation Act authorizing Saddam’s overthrow—an initiative supported unanimously in the Senate and by a margin of 360 to 38 in the House. “Iraqis deserve and desire freedom,” Clinton had declared. On the evening the bombs began to drop, Vice President Al Gore told CNN’s Larry King:
You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed. [emphasis added]
What these and other such statements remind us is that, by the time George Bush entered the White House in January 2001, the United States was already at war with Iraq, and in fact had been at war for a decade, ever since the first Gulf war in the early 1990’s. (This was literally the case, the end of hostilities in 1991 being merely a cease-fire and not a formal surrender followed by a peace treaty.) Not only that, but the diplomatic and military framework Bush inherited for neutralizing the Middle East’s most fearsome dictator had been approved by the United Nations. It consisted of (a) regular UN inspections to track and dispose of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) remaining in Saddam’s arsenal since the first Gulf war; (b) UN-monitored sanctions to prevent Saddam from acquiring the means to make more WMD’s; and (c) the creation of so-called “no-fly zones” over large sections of southern and northern Iraq to deter Saddam from sending the remnants of his air force against resisting Kurds and Shiite Muslims.
The problem, as Bill Clinton discovered at the start of his second term, was that this “containment regime” was collapsing. By this point Saddam was not just the brutal dictator who had killed as many as two million of his own people and used chemical weapons in battle against Iran (and in 1988 against Iraqis themselves). Nor was he just the regional aggressor who had to be driven out of Kuwait in 1991 by an international coalition of armed forces in Operation Desert Storm. As Clinton recognized, Saddam’s WMD programs, in combination with his ties to international terrorists, posed a direct challenge to the United States.
In a February 17, 1998 speech at the Pentagon, Clinton focused on what in his State of the Union address a few weeks earlier he had called an “unholy axis” of rogue states and predatory powers threatening the world’s security. “There is no more clear example of this threat,” he asserted, “than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq,” and he added that the danger would grow many times worse if Saddam were able to realize his thoroughly documented ambition, going back decades and at one point close to accomplishment, of acquiring an arsenal of nuclear as well as chemical and biological weapons. The United States, Clinton said, “simply cannot allow this to happen.”
July 5, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan,
Clinton was urged by some, Bill Kristol for one, to invade Iraq. He refused. Clinton did support regime change in Iraq, but not by invasion.
And for you to refer to Commentary Magazine for reinforcement of your argument is akin to referring to Bush/Cheney for the same reinforcement.
July 6, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given that there was no such arsenal in Iraq, it's apparent that Clinton was successful in protecting this country from that threat, wasn't it?
July 8, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I the only one here who finds tnathan's opening sentence repulsive? He is apparently serious in this jew-hating remark. Apart from that, I really don't see his point. The issue of deposing Saddam was "up" since Gulf War I and it because a focal point of the neocon critique of American policy. Remember the Republicans stormed into control of Congress in 1994 and the neoconservatives, who advocated aggressive, "forward-leaning" use of American power in the service of American values which are, I believe they argued, universal. By the way, Israel shares those values, they thought; we are very much alike, they thought.
Clinton was working very hard to stay "relevant" as they had it at the time and to deal with the new Republican resurgence in Congress, which clearly pointed toward retaking the White House. Ideological Republicans, neocons if you will, never really accepted the Clinton win in 1992 and why should they? Perot came in to mess with Bush and Bush was a disappointment. But still, the White HOuse belonged to them.
By toughing his stance on Saddam, and embracing regime change, I believe Clinton was triangulating; trying to appropriate the language of his opponents and thus defuse it.
The real action during the later years of his administration (no, not that) was the Bosnia intervention. Look back at the scorn and derision with which that was met; George Will predicted that we would have to bring in ground troops and "General Winter: would defeat our pathetic efforts. Clinton kept the dogs at bay with that rhetoric.
But what does the fact that the idea of deposing Saddam did not start with GW Bush have to do with anything, except as related to how damn clever those Jews are.
July 8, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always thought it was fairly obvious that our invasion of Iraq was mostly about Israel. Of course no one is allowed to say that without being blasted with the usual accusations. It's all so drearily predictable. At least Klein is indemnified somewhat against charges of antisemitism. Is "Zionist hawk" the definition of the word neocon? Maybe so, but don't breath a word of it in public.
July 5, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate the responses to my comments by people who disagree. Still, when people say that "Jewishneocons/Zionist hawks" are the deciders for foreign policy and the decision to invade Iraq, it seems to ignore Cheney, Bush, Rice and the other motivations for the invasions (oil, W's daddy envy, empire building). JohnW1141 makes a good point on this.
July 5, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are in denial. Jews are the deciders for foreign policy and are responsible the decision to invade Iraq. They are responsible for WW1, WW2 and all the wars. They are responsible for the death of Jesus Christ .
Hopefully, finally we can start openly talk about crimes committed by Jews against humanity. We need to take our country back from Jews. We should all applaud brave people like M.J. Rosenberg for joining our fight against evil Jews. However, let's don't forget that majority of Jews are good Jews, so we only should fight against evil Jews. neocons, zionists, bankers and so on.
July 5, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well my eyes can detect a yellow star, but they aren't good enough to pick out the different shades that designate the good ones, the apathetic ones, the Democratic ones, the neocon ones, those for Jesus, those who are captains of industry, the bankers, the bakers or the candlestick makers.
I need a program.
July 5, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
When in doubt, assume that a Jew is an evil Jew.
July 5, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan,
yep, da Jews did it.
July 5, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I think it is the exact opposite: the idea makes no sense, but gets repeated over and over. People keep mentioning the names of Jews in the administration as evidence, but somehow I suspect that under secretaries do not run the DoD. Somehow I suspect that a president who holds hands with a Saudi prince, a long term family friend, is not going to act solely for the benefit of Israel.
July 5, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are wrong.
You don't know history. Jews have always worked as advisers behind the scene. They have always had dual loyalty. They even have chutzpa to celebrate act of betrayals of the host countries. Remember Esther, Joseph and Moses, Purim and Passover.
July 5, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, you are the perfect "non anti-Semite" to answer the following question:
Since Jews who support the Iraq War are guilty of "dual loyalty" involving Israel, what about the Gentiles who support the Iraq War? Towards whom is their "dual loyalty"?
By the way, accusing Jews of dual loyalty is plagiarism. Integrity dictates that you credit the original source, which is the book Mein Kampf.
And Hamas has now violated the cease fire by firing rockets into Israel to kill Jews. Congratulations on containing your rage about that depravity, MJ.
July 5, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 5, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here we go again. How do we tell which Gentiles are the innocent ones, which are the putative bombers of child care centers, which are the crooked real estate lenders, which voted for Bush, which still plan to vote for Nader, etc.?
I still need a program.
July 5, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
ALL Gentiles are the innocent ones. They all are being mislead or manipulated by Jewish neocons.
July 5, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan says;
"ALL Gentiles are the innocent ones. They all are being mislead or manipulated by Jewish neocons."
tnathan, you just harshly criticized and denigrated ALL gentiles, accusing them of being as gullible as Limbaugh Dittoheads and Hannity fans.
July 5, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not all. Only Gentiles who supported Bush because ther were misled by the Neocon-Zionist media.
July 5, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question.
The answer would be the Federal Republic of Halliburton, the Emirate of Exxon, the Royalty of Dutch Shell, and the Protectorate of British Petroleum.
July 9, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ:
One question that's been bugging me, and I'm not sure whether its off-topic here or not:
American fundamentalists believe in the Book of Revelation of the Bible. A number of really-not-so-good-for-Israel things are predicted in this book, for example invasion and death of a large portion of the Isreali population. While many Fundamentalists are content to let these events happen in "due course", the most vocal and ardent believers also believe that they themselves are agents of divine will who will help bring this about, and that the events of Revelation are imminent. Its no coincidence at all that these people are the most vocal and militant supporters of Israel in the Christion Right.
So my question is, is it not known (or lets say fully appreciated) that the most most vocal "friends" of Israel in the American Christian Right are also the same people who not only believe in the inevitable destruction of Israel, they also believe that they themselves will help bring this about? Is this an issue in Israeli politics?
July 6, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Dave,
No. Right-wing Israelis (and their American friends) have no problem with the Christian right. Their motto would seem to be: we don't care if you are anti-semitic so long as you support the occupation now.
In other words, a Haggee can pray for the destruction of Israel (the rapture, etc) and be called another Moses by Joe Lieberman. But if a liberal expresses opposition to West Bank policies, he's condemned.
Sheer stupidity.
July 6, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks MJ.
Showing my ignorance here, but what about the Israeli Left? Is this a non-issue for them?
On one level it's merely a theological question. However, what makes me wonder is that the Right in this country has not been above clandestinely meddling in foreign matters in a way that bolsters their "tough guy" stance at home. An example is the Iran-Contra affair.
What if these people get it into their head that promoting war in the Middle-East is some sort of divine mission? Given Iran-Contra, its not out of the question to me that some of the more radical End-Timers might consider arming Israel's enemies as a way of sparking conflict. I know its a tinfoil-hat scenario, but stranger things have happened.
July 7, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hamas is not praying for the destruction of Israel, Rosenberg...it is launching rockets at Jewish children. Yet your next column won't condemn Islamic murderers sworn to reprise the Holocaust. As always, you will condemn Jews.
That is not merely sheer stupidity - it is sheer malevolence.
July 6, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Lane says:
"Hamas is not praying for the destruction of Israel, Rosenberg...it is launching rockets at Jewish children. Yet your next column won't condemn Islamic murderers sworn to reprise the Holocaust."
If what you say is true, and MJ's next column doesn't condemn Islamic murderers sworn to reprise the Holocaust, are you inferring that this absence on MJ's part is condoning the murders?
MJ never wrote a column condemning Yogurt, what does this mean?
July 7, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Klein: The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives--people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary--plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties
It's great to see Klein growing a backbone, especially when it comes to standing up to the McCarthyite scum at Commentary. But it seems only fair to point out that while the neocons (like, for example, the people who write for Commentary) did indeed plump for the Iraq invasion, the Israel Lobby (i.e. the AIPAC) did not.
True, the Lobby went along -- for many of the same reasons others went along: post 9/11 hysteria, a desire to have good relations with an overwhelmingly popular president (seems like a lifetime ago, doesn't it?) and the expectation that its support would be repaid later.
But my sense, based on conversations with people who were close to the action at the time, is that the Lobby actually had very deep reservations about the invasion -- in large part because it shared the fears of many in the Israeli security establishment: that an attack on Iraq would only strengthen Iran, a much more serious potential threat to the Jewish state.
In other words, the neocons have to take the rap for the Iraq fiasco, and they may well have been influenced by dual loyalty. But the Lobby, which explicitly has a dual loyalty, is NOT responsible -- in part because its dual loyalty led it to share official Israeli doubts about what Bush was trying to do.
Ironic, but that's politics.
July 6, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The recently proposed notion that AIPAC and the Israeli Lobby didn't till soil for the Iraq War is one of the more striking - and thoroughly predictable - milestones in the course of this most unpopular conflict. As John Judis notes in a New Republic post last fall:
July 7, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
We're all talking about "Joke Line" here, right? Nope, no canards or ad hominems are ever issued from Our Side, no siree....
July 7, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink