Get Ready: Jeff Goldberg Kicks Off Iran War Campaign In Atlantic Next Month
A few weeks ago I wrote that the Atlantic's Jeff Goldberg was busy at work on a magnum opus for "The Atlantic" calling for a bombing attack by the United States on Iran.
The article will appear as a cover story in August.
The war party decided that Goldberg is to play the role on Iran that Ken Pollack played for Iraq. He will be the first out to define the terms of the debate and get the engines revved up for our 3rd simultaneous Middle East war.
Goldberg, of course, played a key role in spreading the lies that got us into Iraq. He is just the man to do it again.
Note: Goldberg, the former IDF soldier, is very very close to Netanyahu.
Advertisement
This is beyond disgusting, MJ.
My head just spins contemplating that specious arguments that will be used to promote this.
July 21, 2010 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Peter isn't that the issue, however, that at this point what is to be written in the article is unknown to any of us?
At this point, my hope would be that Goldber will address the following two issuws:
1. Is it in the national interest of the United States to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?
2. If the answer to one is yes, what can we do short of a war that just about all of us agree seems to be an untenable option to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?
It is not for me to defend Goldberg about his views before the Iraq War, but let's not lose site of the fact that many people on what is defined as the left, including Josh Marshall, who presented all sides back then, supported a military response to Iraq. The issue for many liberals back then was how Bush was going about it. Indeed, Josh coined the phrase "petulant unilateralism" in describing Bush's policies.
Check out Josh wrote in both supporting the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein with force and recommending Ken Pollack's book in October 2002, i.e. at the same time that Jeffrey Goldberg's article that MJ decries as part of a conspiracy came out. Here's Josh on Pollack [the other guy Rosenberg blasts up above] and in support of Sadaam's overthrow:
"As the title [of Pollack's book] states, the book argues that there is no other good solution to the Iraq problem save a military one. Pollack is an ardent critic of the slapdash and petulantly unilateralist way the Bush administration seems inclined to go about it. (This actually is the new TPM catch-phrase for Bush administration foreign policy: petulant unilateralism) But at the end of the day he thinks that the only real option is to topple Saddam's regime and that the only real way to do that is by force.
"Now, I know many regular TPM readers don't agree at all with that proposition. It's one I find both deeply troubling and, I think, inescapable. But even if you don't agree -- perhaps especially if you don't -- I think you'll get a lot out of this book.
"This is the most honest, candid, and intelligent discussion I've read of this topic. Pollack explains very clearly why serious people -- and not just yahoos -- believe that the current Iraqi regime represents a serious threat. Pollack, who spent most of the last decade formulating Iraq policy for the US government, also makes a compelling case that the policy we pursued toward Iraq in recent years was and is just a losing game."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/146707.php
This is not a criticism of Josh; hindsight is 20/20 and that is one of the points I think we should consider. Indeed, how many among us, including MJ Rosenberg, did not support John Kerry for president in 2004? How did Kerry vote on Iraq in November of 2002?
I submit that Josh Marshall and many others were not part of a Jewish conspiracy to send American boys and girls off to die in the deserts of Iraq. I think this is key, and although itis outside of my control, people like MJ Rosenberg are driven by an agenda, as reflected in this latest piece, that is based on the notion that the source of yet another war will be a cabal of Jews directed by Israel. And to me that is pure and unmitigated filth.
Finally, here's what MJ wrote back in 2003 in the weeks preceding the Iraq war, a war he was hardly opposing judging by this article, which is about the brilliance of Ken Pollack's book on Iraq--yea the same Pollack and the same book Rosenberg attacks above. Here's MJ:
"In short, this is a strikingly honest book [by Pollack], which should be read by anyone trying to understand the current situation and seeking to come up with his own conclusion about the best course America might take. (From what I have seen on the Metro and in other places around Washington, everyone here is reading it!)"
http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/commentary/ken-pollacks-case-war-and-peace
Strikingly honest. Yes.
Bruce
July 21, 2010 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about the typos, etc.
July 21, 2010 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually the second major trial balloon of the "strike Iran argument." The first was written by our good friend Amitai Etzioni, as M.J. pointed out a few weeks ago.
The reality is that there is a security caucus on the left that favors some military actions of this sort. Many of them dominated the early discussions of foreign policy here at the Cafe. We had our most spirited debates with "Truman Democrats" and Anne Marie Slaughter, Etzioni and others on these topics.
I might change your questions a bit. I do it this way:
1) Is it in our interests to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons? To this I say yes. A non -nuclear Iran is preferable to a nuclear Iran.
2) What non-military tactics can persuade Iran not to go nuclear? On this question I'm agnostic, or at least open to any and all ideas.
3) Is our interest in a non-Nuclear Iran so vital that the failure of the solutions proposed to answer question 2 gives us no choice but to seek a military solution?
On question 3 I say no. I say it's in our interests that Iran doesn't have nukes. That it's our preference. That there are no advantages to a nuclear Iran and there are obvious risks, but I also think they're risks that we can live with if the only answer is warfare.
July 21, 2010 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that your three questions work better destor, thanks. On Goldberg, my threshold point is that we should wait until the article comes out; it could very well be a call to strike Iran, but I just think it's fair to wait and see.
July 21, 2010 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What, you want to read the article before you critique it? I've already written Goldberg an angry email, quoting passages that I invented from his unpublished article!
July 21, 2010 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't think for a second that you got there first!
July 21, 2010 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only are Destor's questions good, his answers are spot on too, I think.
I think a lot (probably a majority) of liberals were against the Iraq war right from the beginning. I know I was. When the Iraq resolution was being voted on, I called Senator Kerry's office multiple times to ask him to vote against the resolution. And I was terribly disappointed when he voted for it. Since then, I haven't given Kerry any campaign contributions and have voted against him in every primary where I've had the chance. I have voted for him in general elections, but only because his opponents were much worse.
Josh, I think, was acknowledging the fact that most "ordinary" liberals were against the war when he said, in the text you quote, "I know many regular TPM readers don't agree at all . . . ." It seems to me that it was only a rather small group--though maybe a rather visible and influential group--of liberals that supported the war.
Blaming the war on the Jews of course is unfair--especially given the fact that Jews opposed the war in greater percentages that almost any other demographic group. So ordinary Jews--like ordinary liberals--I think were strongly against the war. That doesn't, however, mean that there isn't a group of very influential Jews who take a hardline view on all things Israel and who certainly did lobby intensely for the Iraq war (as they are lobbying for an Iran war). Recognizing that this clique exists--and questioning whether their recommended policies are tainted by pro-Israeli bias--is, I think, not only fair but necessary. Biased people tend to distort the facts. Recognizing the existence of bias, therefore, is important to avoid being misled.
July 22, 2010 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. The people who brought us the failed War in Iraq never look at how much larger and stronger Iran is and how many ways it has of screwing with us if we or Israel attack than Iraq had.
There really are ways to live with a hostile nuclear power. The whole last 50 years of the twentieth century proves that. Besides, Iran doesn't want to destroy the US.
Israel and its friends should really take a good look at the changing demographics in the US. Jews are what--a 3% minority? Sure, those folks have allies among evangelicals and right-wing Christians, but with the fastest growing groups being Hispanics aqnd seculars, I think they will find that after two failed wars against Muslim countries the appetite for a third is very, very reduced, especially given that we are in a deep recession.
July 21, 2010 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And so in your opinion its that 3 percent of the population that is Jewish that caused us to go to which wars? I'm trying to keep my conspiracy theorist allegations straight. They keep changing all the time; I think it's a conspiracy.
July 21, 2010 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course not!
It's the .00003% of the 3% who are teaming up with with the .00000000001 of the gentile population to do it. But it's that .000003% that's oh-so-critical.
July 21, 2010 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is a non-nuclear Iran preferable to one with nuclear weapons? Yes, but only so far as an non-nuclear Ecuador is preferable to a nuclear-potent one. Since the hostage crisis 30 years ago our relations with the Persian state have been distant but not militant. And because there is zip, zero, nada evidence it's actively launching terrorisism against us, that remains so.
What non-military tactics can persuade Iran not to go nuclear? Have we tried any without accompanying them with sanctions? In 45 years of Cold War with the Soviet Union, negotiation sure worked. In our hostile treatment of Iran, we only reveal our drive to push them into an armed conflict so we can hammer them into subservience. At least, try to do so.
Is our interest in a non-Nuclear Iran so vital that the failure of the solutions proposed to answer question 2 gives us no choice but to seek a military solution? Of course not. We're manuevering to surround Iran and reduce it to a state weak enough to never again threaten Israel. That's the sole intent of our antics.
There remains no evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program. If it's true we're demanding Iran prove a negative. We need another was like we need Israel. Not at all. We're lashed to it by an extremely powerful domestic lobby that can move mountains for or against politicians.
July 21, 2010 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it is preferable that any country is non-nuclear rather than nuclear, but comparing Iran and Ecuador is like comparing apples and oreos. Ecuador does actively interfere in ALL of it's neighbors' internal affairs and sponsor terrorist groups and support coups. And, Ecuador doesn't arm, train and fund militants that are killing our soldiers in Iraq. Do you know what an EFP is?
This doesn't mean we should go to war with Iran, but don't fool yourself. Iran is actively involved in trying to kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.
July 22, 2010 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peter isn't that the issue, however, that at this point what is to be written in the article is unknown to any of us?
Peter: Yes, and I confess to jumping the gun. MJ has that way with words, which makes him a good pamphleteer, but a poor analyst--at least here. I apologize.
BL: At this point, my hope would be that Goldber will address the following two issuws:
1. Is it in the national interest of the United States to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?
2. If the answer to one is yes, what can we do short of a war that just about all of us agree seems to be an untenable option to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?
Peter: Well, I think the answer to #1 is yes, and not really because of the Israel angle. It's in our and the world's interest for proliferation to stop and for these weapons to be rolled back. IMO. How one does that (#2)...does ANYONE really know? A strike, however, would almost certainly cause of a lot of innocents to die and would most likely have a lot of repercussions. Kind of a Pandora's Box.
BL: It is not for me to defend Goldberg about his views before the Iraq War, but let's not lose site of the fact that many people on what is defined as the left, including Josh Marshall, who presented all sides back then, supported a military response to Iraq. The issue for many liberals back then was how Bush was going about it. Indeed, Josh coined the phrase "petulant unilateralism" in describing Bush's policies.
Peter: To be honest, I don't remember Josh's response back then or the options he envisioned as falling within "how to go about it." I don't know if I could have supported any of the options, and now that we know Saddam didn't have WMD, all the options were bad, AFAIK. I also don't know if we should Josh as the standard for well-considered decision-making, though I respect him a lot. And finally, we've stepped into a different river here; so even if Iraq could have been done correctly militarily that doesn't mean that Iran can be done correctly now.
BL: Check out Josh wrote in both supporting the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein with force and recommending Ken Pollack's book in October 2002, i.e. at the same time that Jeffrey Goldberg's article that MJ decries as part of a conspiracy came out. Here's Josh on Pollack [the other guy Rosenberg blasts up above] and in support of Sadaam's overthrow:
"As the title [of Pollack's book] states, the book argues that there is no other good solution to the Iraq problem save a military one. Pollack is an ardent critic of the slapdash and petulantly unilateralist way the Bush administration seems inclined to go about it. (This actually is the new TPM catch-phrase for Bush administration foreign policy: petulant unilateralism) But at the end of the day he thinks that the only real option is to topple Saddam's regime and that the only real way to do that is by force.
"Now, I know many regular TPM readers don't agree at all with that proposition. It's one I find both deeply troubling and, I think, inescapable. But even if you don't agree -- perhaps especially if you don't -- I think you'll get a lot out of this book.
"This is the most honest, candid, and intelligent discussion I've read of this topic. Pollack explains very clearly why serious people -- and not just yahoos -- believe that the current Iraqi regime represents a serious threat. Pollack, who spent most of the last decade formulating Iraq policy for the US government, also makes a compelling case that the policy we pursued toward Iraq in recent years was and is just a losing game."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/146707.php
This is not a criticism of Josh; hindsight is 20/20 and that is one of the points I think we should consider. Indeed, how many among us, including MJ Rosenberg, did not support John Kerry for president in 2004? How did Kerry vote on Iraq in November of 2002?
I submit that Josh Marshall and many others were not part of a Jewish conspiracy to send American boys and girls off to die in the deserts of Iraq. I think this is key, and although itis outside of my control, people like MJ Rosenberg are driven by an agenda, as reflected in this latest piece, that is based on the notion that the source of yet another war will be a cabal of Jews directed by Israel. And to me that is pure and unmitigated filth.
Peter: That slant slipped my notice, but now I see the reference to Netanyahu. I was mostly reacting to the press for a military strike on Iran and less on the people pushing for it. Of course, I agree with you on this last point and see where you're coming from.
Bruce: Finally, here's what MJ wrote back in 2003 in the weeks preceding the Iraq war, a war he was hardly opposing judging by this article, which is about the brilliance of Ken Pollack's book on Iraq--yea the same Pollack and the same book Rosenberg attacks above. Here's MJ:
"In short, this is a strikingly honest book [by Pollack], which should be read by anyone trying to understand the current situation and seeking to come up with his own conclusion about the best course America might take. (From what I have seen on the Metro and in other places around Washington, everyone here is reading it!)"
http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/commentary/ken-pollacks-case-war-and-peace
Strikingly honest. Yes.
Peter: MJ, in general, should be a bit more humble about what he says and how he says it. I agree with you entirely. And I agree we should wait until the article comes out before we judge it. Thanks for the reminder.
Peter
July 21, 2010 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice work Peter.
July 21, 2010 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA should weigh in here inasmuch as she's done a fair amount of reading on this.
It's her view, I THINK, that a war with Iran is unlikely. I hope she's correct.
I know Obama's name is mud around here, but I honestly don't think he has it in him.
July 21, 2010 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
AA would have a blast in the Israel Policy Forum archives Peter; there is a treasure trove of stuff there.
July 21, 2010 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
no thanks. :-)
July 21, 2010 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I will say it was interesting to read Dr. Zawhiri's recent thoughts. And also to read of the recent suicide attack by the Sunni Jundullah on an Iranian mosque.
July 21, 2010 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and that that Jundullah thing is real complicated...
July 21, 2010 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
My own stand was against the war with Iraq even though I believed some of the reasons given as cause and justification for the U.S. to start that war which cannot be denied was a war of choice.
Many people from all walks of life wanted war with Iraq and were in agreement with our leaders who chose that war. Since none of them were born wanting that war it is obvious that things they saw and heard during their life brought them to that point. A great deal of what they saw or were told turned out to be wrong and a great deal of the wrong turned out to be deliberate lies and distortion.
There are quite a few people I came to know about who, based on the record as I see it, I feel completely justified holding in absolute contempt.
I do not know enough about Jeff Goldberg to have an opinion on whether he was honestly mistaken to have believed that the U.S. was justified in breaking our laws and international laws by striking Iraq or whether he is a person who was willing to lie and spin and distort reality for the purpose of advancing an agenda or ideology even though, if successful, those lies would cause the death of hundreds of thousands while he sat comfortably and safe and earned a decent living and the admiration of many of his peers by his ability to effectively promote his chosen positions. Of course there is room between those extremes but for the most part wherever a person stand on that continuum just determines which circle of hell he deserves to inhabit.
If [emphasis on the "if"] he comes out justifying and/or pushing for an attack on Iran, especially with a bunch of mealy mouthed disclaimers about how he really wishes we could avoid war with Iran but there just doesn't seem to be any other choice, I will then know enough about him, or at least believe that I do, so that if God gives me the job of making the seating arrangements in hell I will move his nameplate towards the center. Or maybe not. Maybe he can change my mind.
Remember in the early days after the invasion of Iraq when they were throwing high-fives and thinking that it actually was a cake-walk? Some of them started saying back then that real men go to Teheran. Maybe I will get convinced that those guys were right all along. Maybe.
Also, if Artappraiser is right and we don't go to war in the near future it will not change the nature of those who try to make it happen and it will not change my opinion of them. That opinion includes the belief that those who continue to see wars of choice as a justifiable solution are dangerous because they might eventually be successful in getting their war. I think that in the contest for public opinion these people should be demonized as the war mongers and [usually] chickenhawks that they are.
July 22, 2010 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce is quite correct here. It was a very important group of liberals that helped move the US into the war in Iraq. They were part of the war coalition that made it impossible for the antiwar groups in this country to have much influence on the prewar debate. This group is what are often called the humanitarian warriors. Yes it includes Amitai, Josh Marshall, Friedman, Pollack as Destor pointed out.
This is not new. In the build up to the war in Vietnam during the Kennedy and Johnson years, it was a group of important liberals in the the Democratic Party that pushed our policy in that direction. That wing was seriously discredited for a good period of time. But they were reconstituted during the Clinton years and were the advocates for the humanitarian war against Serbia in 1999.
We can only hope that their advocacy of the Iraq war will have undermined their influence today. In any case, for those us who oppose going to war against Iran today we should be fully aware that our political enemies in this struggle are present among many of the appointments made by Hillary and Obama. In fact the neolibs should be more of a concern to us than the neocons since they hold power.
July 21, 2010 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ's December 2002 piece you have linked to is interesting, Bruce, but your comments on it are taking it rather out of context. Here is the key point MJ made then and there:
"If the President's decision is to go to war, he is going to need the moderate Arab support - support that will be far more forthcoming if America is actively engaged in promoting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. If, in the end, inspections do the job, the support of those same Arab states will be critical to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein to achieve Iraq's disarmament without an invasion. Either way, perpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian status quo is harming U.S. interests."
The context here is the GW Bush THEN was at his zenith. For some reason (Democrat spinelessness, cluelessness or whatever) he had very strong political support for his impending Iraq cock-up. He already also had the backing of NATO, the UN, and practically the whole rest of the world in the fight against the Taliban and Bin Laden, and they were even ready to swallow his horse excrement about this Afghan adventurism being a "war on terror." And the Repugs had just scored victories in the 2002 elections.
There was absolutely NO NEED for Bush to continue licking Ariel Sharon's behind as he did until the latter's demise. If he had instead heeded MJ's wise call, an Geneva plan type Israel-Palestine deal might well have been place three or four years ago (after Sharon and Arafat were finally both gone: a double good riddance). MJ was pretty damn right on in 2002 in calling out Bush on his stupidity re Israel-Palestine.
By the way, since the topic of the page is IRAN (after all), this (2002-03) is when the Iranians were also cowed versus the US. If W had pulled his head out long enough to get some half-way sane advice, and struck a new deal then with Iran, NOBODY today would have a clue who Ahmadinejad is, and Goldberg would peddling some other snake oil instead.
A-jad's populist rise to power came only many Bush screw-ups, exposed deceits, and squandered opportunities later, in 2005:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad
"2005 Campaign
Ahmadinejad was not widely known when he entered the presidential election campaign as he had never run for office before...
Ahmadinejad was the only presidential candidate who spoke out against future relations with the United States. He told Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting the United Nations was 'one-sided, stacked against the world of Islam.' He opposed the veto power of the UN Security Council's five permanent members: 'It is not just for a few states to sit and veto global approvals. Should such a privilege continue to exist, the Muslim world with a population of nearly 1.5 billion should be extended the same privilege.' He defended Iran's nuclear program and accused 'a few arrogant powers' of trying to limit Iran's industrial and technological development in this and other fields.
Ahmadinejad won 62 percent of the vote in the run-off poll against Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei authorized his presidency on 3 August 2005."
July 21, 2010 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that one of MJ's principal points was that aggressive pursuit of the I-P process was an imperative. I wish Bush would have listened to him back then, because MJ was correct on that score, as he is now to the extent that he continues to promote negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.
My other points are hardly out of context, however, and correctly demonstratethat : (1) MJ was a big fan of the "strikingly honest" Ken Pollack whom he now castigates for his role in promoting the war; and (2) MJ, on the eve of the Iraq invasion was not expressing opposition to the war, but rather is writing that we should make sure that we don't miss out on the opportunities of a more permanent peace in the Middle East--whether or not there was to be an invasion.
PT, the key is that we now live in a 20/20 hindsight world, where too many folks are castigating other folks for having promoted war with Iraq, when the truth of the matter is that most of us sat on our asses because we didn't know the extent of the bullshit we were being fed about Iraq's WMDs, etc.
So I just find it incredibly disingenuous for folks, including Rosenberg in this instance, to be castigating Pollack and Goldberg for positions they took back in 2002, when he wasn't out opposing the war, and when his castigation reeks of the theme of there having been then, and once again now, a Jewish cabal sending American boys and girls to die in the desterts of the Middle East for the benefit of Israel.
I think I understand why MJ writes this stuff--it sells records and he may even have drunk the kool-aid--but it still stinks to high heaven. And one can oppose settlement expansion, support settlement contraction, and smell the stench of blaming Jewish cabals for American military endeavors all at the same time.
Bruce
July 21, 2010 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Yes, hindsight is 20/20 but
2. You seem far too ready to swallow with little question the neo-con myth that we were all just sadly mistaken about Iraq, terrorism, and Bush in 2002-03. Brady Kiesling wasn't, to cite but one memorable example of many.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/international/27WEB-TNAT.html?ex=1227502800&en=1fc74d8d62dbb786&ei=5070
3. I don't see anyone talking about "Jewish cabals" here but you. Goldberg and Co anyway constitute about .001% of Jews. They are a vastly greater percentage of the Netanyahu propaganda bureau.
4. How strong or weak MJ was in opposing Bush's 2003 Iraq idiocy before it was launched is an interesting -but unanswered- question, that is of limited relevance. Were YOU for example in 2003, arguing that because Bush utterly failed to connect the dots and properly prepare for Al Qaeda's attack in 2001, that therefore his mad rush into Iraq was questionable? If so, please cite your statements -that would have been amazingly untypical then- and I will gladly sing your praises without hesitation.
July 21, 2010 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't think that a reference to an alleged closeness between Goldberg and Netenyahu combined with the alleged contents of an article not yet written, and the alleged authority that such an article will have, then you're just not looking at a description of a Jewish cabal staring you right in the face. No surprise there PT, but please do spare me your favorite and boarre reference to the Warsaw Ghetto mentaility.
As to my views in 2002 and 2003, to the extent it is relevant, I straddled the fence because I was able to I guess, and I wish that I had taken a cue from my oldest daughter at the time who actively protested against the war. But then again, I'm not criticizing others for supporting the war like your guy MJ is, which based on the contemporaneous written record of the man which I cite to and which you deem irrelevant, betrays once again an unmatched propensity for absolute and utter hypocrisy on your buddy's part.
July 21, 2010 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er. First sentence should begin:
"If you don't think that a reference to an alleged closeness between Goldberg and Netenyahu combined with the alleged contents of an article not yet written, and the alleged authority that such an article will have constitutes a description of a Jewish cabal. . .
And, PT, the Warsaw Ghetto mentality reference was meant as a friendly ribbing.
July 21, 2010 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are fishing for a way out of your unsupportable exaggerations here, Bruce.
I don't think you have a Warsaw Ghetto mentality; at least there is no indication of it here.
You DO have a grudge against MJ or a dislike of his style of arguing, or both. That is your right, and I am not going to defend MJ against criticism (not that he needs it!) of having personal feelings cloud his judgement at times, but if you have a scintilla of evidence that MJ actually SUPPORTED the botched-up 2003 Iraq invasion (which is quite a different thing than failing to take seize one particular opportunity to denounce it three months before it was announced) you had better put up or retract your (otherwise) baseless accusation.
In any case, your readiness to cry "cabal" is absurd. Plenty of people have had harsh words for Rush Limbaugh and George W. Bush, some even alleging "closeness" of the political views of the two. That does not mean that their criticism amounts to a "Methodist Cabal" "staring" us "in the face."
July 21, 2010 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish somebody would do us the favor of putting all the Jeff Goldberg's of the world out of our misery.
C
July 21, 2010 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
This may now be my time to finally quit the Atlantic. I considered it a few of years ago when they blackballed (after first accepting) the Mearsheimer-Walt essay which then got relegated to the London Review. Too bad because the Atlantic has always had good stuff but I can't fathom how a guy like Goldberg can be given a platform for his insane ideology.
The same thing happened with me almost 20 years ago when I quit The New Republic as I became aware of its pro-Zionist slant. I guess that opens me up to the label of anti-Semitic. How convenient.
War with Iran? Insane! Of course I thought the same about war with Iraq. Will we ever learn?
July 21, 2010 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Will we ever learn?" Goldberg is clearly betting against it. Hard to say if the odds, on balance, are favorable for him or not.
July 21, 2010 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reckless interventionism is thankfully something that has exited the halls of credibility in the current administration.
July 21, 2010 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a little confused. I thought the level of enrichment that the Iranians are working toward is useful for medical work and that weapons need a much more highly enriched product.
July 21, 2010 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, they would need 5% enrichment for a nuclear power station; 20% enrichment for medical isotopes; and >92% for a nuclear weapon.
Since it has taken Iran about two decades to develop the technology and cascades to enrich to their current 4% level, which is the reason why they are asking for external help to buy the medical grade uranium, I would imagine weapons-grade wouldn't be available for another ten years. That is what the 2007 NIE stated.
The current NIE is overdue. By about a year. Which led some former intel people to speculate recently that there must be push-back within the intel community to block an Israeli effort to get the NIE to say what it wants it to say. The 2007 NIE stopped the war with Iran in its tracks when it came out, which caused national hysteria in Israeli political circles.
Israel is more than bad apple in our foreign policy. It is a national security liability, and a threat to the US.
July 21, 2010 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you expect from a $75 billion dollar, 200,000 person intelligence community occupying space in 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies, in the Washington metro area alone amounting to 17 million square feet of space -- a report on "America's biggest military threat"™ ?
Cheeez.
July 21, 2010 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a perfectly logical reason a country like Iran would want nuclear weapons. It makes expansionist war-drum beating neighbors think twice about attacking. Look at what happened to non-nuclear Iraq. And compare what has not happened to nuclear N. Korea.
But guess what. There is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Lots of conjecture and innuendo, yes. And who is doing most of the conjecturing? Avid supporters of Israel, a country that did clandestinely develop the bomb over 40 years ago and continues to obfuscate that fact to this day! I guess a psychologist would consider this an example of projection, assuming one's own motives are those of the other party.
Any idiot understands this. All this hype about a supposed threat to wipe Israel off the face of the earth is so much B.S. That quote has been totally distorted and massaged and taken completely out of context yet we hear it referenced repeatedly and in the most ominous terms. You could say that was Ahmadinejad's "gift" to the Zionist cause. And now these drum beaters for another war are ready to drag the United States into another disaster.
But Israel needs to be perceived as a righteous victim so it can proceed with its expanionist agenda. Always.
July 21, 2010 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ almost sounds like Goldberg's publicist.
If I see Goldberg and Goldenberg eating pastrami together next week, I'll post the picture here....
Can two Jewish mens: a raving neocon lunatic and a prim-and-proper, media-matters man live together without driving each other crazy. One reads Commentary: the other loves Mondo-Weiss.
Sounds like Goldenberg has a spy in Goldberg's house. Maybe the maid or butler. Who knew?
Goldberg is busily typing his opus as we wait with baited breath.
July 21, 2010 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You want Goldberg, I'll give you Goldberg!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwtJhlKW47k
July 21, 2010 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great, Bruce. I swear she sounds like Gracie Allen!
July 21, 2010 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know Aviva...fine person.
But watch! She'll hit you up for money for her next production.
A good friend appears at the end of the flick--a contributor, of course.
July 21, 2010 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ almost sounds like Goldberg's publicist.
Almost?
Title says: "Get Ready." In P.R.-speak, that means: "Folks, this will be the article/movie/book of the century! Clear your schedules, fasten your seatbelts, start a countdown to publication D-day," etc. Lest you are from Mars and don't know the lingo, he finishes up with: "Why Goldberg matters."
P.R. rule No. 1: There is no such thing as bad publicity.
July 21, 2010 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Jeff Goldberg volunteers to ride down with the first bunker buster, I will definitely think about it.
July 21, 2010 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole thing in the middle east goes back to before WWI when the British ruled nearly that entire area. This infuriated the Arabs there no end because the British were upsetting their social and religious apple cart by educating their youth and women to "Western Ways". So when the German Nazis came in and kicked the British out, the Arabs of course were very cooperative and supported them. Which pissed off the Jews in the area since the Nazis were murdering the Jews in Germany and Poland and everywhere else in Europe. But the Arabs could have cared less about this...they just wanted the British out.
A large part of the problems there could have been avoided if after the war we would have insisted that the British stay out of the area completely. But alas we did not. Which as a side note was why North Vietnam went communist. Because we did not tell the French they could not go back there either.
C
July 21, 2010 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Old hatreds die hard.
C
July 21, 2010 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
> This whole thing in the middle east goes back
> to before WWI when the British ruled nearly that
> entire area. This infuriated the Arabs there no
> end because the British were upsetting their
> social and religious apple cart by educating
> their youth and women to "Western Ways". So when
> the German Nazis came in and kicked the British
> out,
North Africa is generally not considered part of the "Middle East". The closest that Nazi Germany got to the Middle East (besides diplomatic pressure on Turkey) was the southern Soviet Union. The Vichy French government in Syria was suspected of supporting German designs on Iraq, and was occupied by the Allies as a result, but no German troops were involved.
sPh
sPh
July 22, 2010 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg Jew baits, but he, and his ilk, have every right to differentiate, subtype, and particularize one Jewish subgroup from another. It isn't the first, or last, time it will be done. It has a rich history full of irony, stupidity, malice, and shame. And I have every right to call him on it.
Rosenberg, Sullivan, Weiss et all are a straight continuum from Gomulka's March '69 events in Poland where he differentiated 'good Jews' or the so-called socialist Jews of the 'mosaic' extraction from the zionist Jews with two more varietals thrown in for good measure. In the end, all were vilified, ostracized, attacked in the media, demonized and, ultimately, expelled for being more loyal to a foreign power(Israel) than to their own motherland of Poland. The same argument was made by the Nazis, the Soviets, the Czars and before.
Racism, anti-semitism, hatred of arabs, homophobia is just cowardice and shame, dressed up in pretty colors, but the stench lingers. Sullivan and Rosenberg know better but their "work" probably drives traffic. Breitbart, the disgusting coward who defamed a woman yesterday, today defends her while creating a distinction between her and the NAACP. Shameless, but he has an agenda, based on hatred of Obama/blacks/liberalism. But he's just the face Rosenberg sees in the mirror.
July 21, 2010 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike Sullivan, Josh 'TPM' Marshall, and MJ Rosenberg who all penned delightful ditties war-mongering in 2001-2002(Sullivan supported a nuclear attack on the arab states shortly after 911), I never penned an ode to Pollack, supported nuking anybody after 911, but I quite remember the spirit of the day... there were a hell of a lot of neocons at one juncture, if you want to classify half the country as neocons that is.
I do not agree with the neoconservative philosophy. I believe we have more than enough problems at home and that creating democracy abroad is not one of those problems at home. But I proudly call myself a Jewish Neoconservative in response to the words of Sullivan, MJ Rosenberg and their ilk.
July 21, 2010 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said Alan....
Double Standard Watch: J Street's McCarthyism
Posted by Alan M. Dershowitz
BOOKMARK or SHARE:
Print | E-mail
J Street, the leftist lobbying organization that claims to be pro-Israel, is currently running a television ad that divides the world into two groups: The good guys who support the two-state solution, the end of the occupation and peace; and the bad guys who oppose these results and instead favor a continuation of violence. Pictured as representing the pro-peace position are President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and General Petraeus. Pictured as representing the anti-peace, anti two-state, pro expansion of settlements and pro violence position are Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Senator Lieberman, Malcolm Hoenlein (Director of the Conference of Major Jewish organizations), and - you guessed it - me!
Now Jeremy Ben-Ami, who runs J Street and who is responsible for the ad, knows full well that I support the two-state solution and peace, and have opposed Israeli settlements since he was in diapers. (I began publicly supporting the two-state solution in 1970 and began opposing settlements in 1973). Ben-Ami knows this because we debated each other at the 92nd Street Y and he publicly acknowledged that I support these positions. He knows that I wrote a book called The Case For Peace, advocating precisely these positions, which was praised by President Clinton ("the blueprint for stability presented in this book is among the best in recent years"), Amos Oz (Dershowitz's The Case For Peace is an "enthusiastic voice for peace") and other advocates of a peaceful resolution.
Why then would he falsely lump me with Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin when he knows that I fundamentally disagree with their positions? Why would Ben-Ami knowingly put out an ad containing such defamatory McCarthyism? (Joe McCarthy infamously lumped together liberals with communists, and progressives with Stalinists.) There are several possible reasons.
First, Ben Ami cannot tolerate the idea that there are liberals, like me and Professor Irwin Cotler of Canada, who support the two-state solution, the end of the occupation and peace, while fundamentally disagreeing with J Street's general negativity toward Israel. As I argued during the debate and on other occasions, J Street and I tend to agree on many substantive issues, but I publicly focus on the 80% of issues on which there is broad consensus within the pro-Israel community; whereas J Street focuses on the 20% of issues on which there is disagreement, such as the policy toward Iran, the Goldstone report and nuclear policy. It would have been fair for J Street to have an ad putting me on the other side of those issues. But for Ben-Ami to try to persuade the public that I oppose the two-state solution (as Rush Limbaugh does), favor expansion of the settlements (as Palin does) and oppose peace is simply a lie, and a deliberate one at that. No softer word will suffice.
The second reason why J Street decided to include me in their insidious ad is to appeal to hard left elements such as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and others who pay lip service to supporting Israel while condemning everything the Jewish state stands for. Ben-Ami is trying to build a large organization and in order to attract the hard left, he finds it useful to demonize me, because the hard left hates my liberal support for Israel. That also explains why J Street rarely if ever praises Israel, even when the Jewish state takes risks for peace. To praise Israel is to risk losing the support and membership of the hard anti-Israel left - and Ben Ami is not prepared to lower his numbers, even if he is required to distort the truth, in order to increase contributions and pad his membership list.
The J Street ad is fraudulent in yet another way. It suggests that I am saying certain words, but the voice is not mine. Thousands of my words, in my actual voice, are available on YouTube, but none of them have me opposing the two-state solution, favoring expansion of the settlements or opposing peace. So they just make it up by including a video of me with my lips moving and a dubbed voiceover, suggesting that they have me (along with the others) on videotape opposing the two-state solution. (All the videos have moving lips, but some include words actually spoken by the person in the video while others could be attributable to any of the people in the video whose lips are moving - watch it and judge for yourself!) If this were a political campaign ad, J Street would be in deep trouble. But this is even worse, because it is an attempt to deceive the public into thinking that mainstream supporters of Israel all favor the expansion of settlements and oppose the two-state solution and peace.
J Street continues to destroy its credibility by posting deceptive and divisive ads of this kind. If they are willing to mislead the public in this manner, they should not be trusted to tell the truth about anything relating to Israel. They are more interested in increasing their own power and contributions than they are in supporting Israel or promoting truthful dialogue. If they want to have any chance at restoring their credibility, they must begin to tell the truth. A good first step would be to remove this ad and admit that it was fraudulent. Otherwise, everyone will begin to understand what the J in J Street stands for: Joe McCarthy.
July 21, 2010 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
David, can you provide us with a link to that ad?
July 21, 2010 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEeC6Vxn-MQ&feature=player_embedded
I think this is the add. Note the bogeymen with the almost alien-like Rush Limbaugh with his cochlear implant and a group of right wingers sounding crazed. Dersh is upset since he's linked with Limbaugh and Palin and he feels(correctly)his words are distorted with the add's message and his moving lips. It appears Dershowitz is speaking to AIPAC and has some sort of earplug/open mike or something. Either that or he's rapping somewhere.
Dershowitz' point is he supports a two-state solution and Israeli withdraw from the West Bank so he shouldn't be linked with Limbaugh, but, I suppose, Professor Dershowitz is annoyed(and perhaps flattered a bit)that he is being used as a fun raising tool from the far left. He obviously objects to being linked with Rush Limbaugh or Palin.
July 21, 2010 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dersh with the mouthpiece/headset... he could be rapping, talking to AIPAC but most resembled a guy who I know who works in the drive through at my local McDonalds.
The add was well done... in a mind-numbing, Orwellian manner. Worthy of a Stalinist show trial from 1936. I guess the next step will be to scrub Dersh from any photographs with Bill Clinton.
July 21, 2010 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
One man looks like Mike Pence, maybe the one with Dershowitz. If I stop it, it freezes, so I'm getting confused. Which one is you?
July 21, 2010 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Expecting me not to notice the Jewish neocons is like expecting me not to notice the Opus Dei zealots on the Supreme Court. This Catholic is not going to apologize for what the Roberts court is trying to do to this country and I can't understand why so many Jews allow themselves to be used by the zealots within their own faith. They count on you defending them right into the next war and, no, they are not going to be the ones suffering for their actions any more than Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are going to suffer from theirs.
July 21, 2010 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Say what?
July 21, 2010 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's try to untangle this...
Do you honestly feel that the "Opus Dei zealots on the Supreme Court" implicate you, as a Catholic, when they speak or write a certain way?
Do you feel Catholics should be blamed for what these few people say and do?
If you do, then I'd say you have a VERY hard job, nay an impossible job, ahead of you. There's a nut born every half second. That's a lot of people, an unending line of people, you'll have to address.
Do you think Scalia and Alito are "counting on you" to defend them? That your so-called defense or lack of defense has ANYTHING to do with what they do, why they do it, and in the name of which religion they do it?
I would say the same thing about Jews.
Let's put it another way: OBL did some pretty horrible things in the name of Islam. But I don't go around thinking that Muslims have to answer for his crimes. That would be insane.
Unfortunately, though, there is this history where Jews in general--or individuals, like Bruce--are blamed for the actions of the few if only because they didn't stop those few or appeared to defend the few or shared with those few this "essence of Jewishness" whereby the many partake of the sins of the few.
Bruce, like any other individual, has intellectual predilections, history, culture that mix into his thinking and judgments which need to be judged on their merits or demerits. It's simple.
Now, it's possible Bruce's Jewishness blinds him to certain things. Another person's Jewishness might OPEN his eyes to those same certain things. Either way, it should be possible to point out the merits and flaws of each. End of story.
But I can assure that Dershowitz, Netanyahu, and JJ Goldberg are in no way counting on Bruce to defend them or give them permission to think, write, and act the way they do. And if Bruce got in their faces and said, "What you're doing is profoundly un-Jewish and a sin," they might have an argument about it, but they wouldn't collapse and wave the white flag because Bruce was no longer defending them.
This is what Jews sometimes call nareshkeit. Nonsense.
July 21, 2010 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink