Here is a fabulous piece by the great Glenn Greenwald pointing out the insanity of the Israeli/neocon support for the Iraq war as a naked means of guaranteeing Israel's security. In one horrific quote Greenwald has discovered, Shimon Peres likens Saddam to Hitler. And Bill Kristol, in a parochial Jewish moment (a moment of transparency), seconds the idea. As Tom Lantos did in pushing the Iraq war back when: Saddam is Hitler. As Begin did in justifying the Lebanon war in 82: Arafat was Hitler. Always another Hitler.
Greenwald is justly outraged by the identification of American and Israeli interests that the lobby/Israel's rightwing supporters have forced on politicians. Where his analysis falls down is where it always falls down: declining to accept that this Jewish force for the Iraq war was in any way determinative. Greenwald hates Bush, as I do. But Greenwald's correct insistence that Bush is to blame for the Iraq war typically elides--as liberal Jewish intellectuals have elided from the jump in Iraq--the significant influence of intellectuals on policymaking. We never elided intellectual influence in the Great Society, in Vietnam (no Halberstam wrote a breakout book on that), etc. Nor did the neocons elide intellectual influence when they erected their war camps, the thinktanks, on the hills overlooking the White House. Ideas matter. They mattered in the destruction of Iraq. Were they the only thing that mattered? Of course not. But the moral inventory here will never be complete without a discussion of the large Jewish presence in the American establishment and the significance of that presence in pressing a Zionist agenda. Bill Kristol is on the Times op-ed page notwithstanding his terrible errors. Greenwald is at Salon. What does that signify, Glenn? (Phil Weiss)
Israel Firsters always point out that initially Israel was against attacking Iraq–once they found out the plan was only the first attack step,
after Iraq, Iran and Syria. Then they jumped on board BushCo bus, even sending over Israeli politicians to stump for the Iraq War on USA MSM.
Greenwald is more courageous than most, but not courageous enough. I suspect, as a control-freak left-liberal obsessed with social-engineering, he is worried about the implications of identifying a minority population (particularly his own people) as ground zero for subversion and treachery against American interests. If he was an authentic liberal (in the classic sense) he would be intellectually honestly zeroing in on the corrupt problem and letting the chips fall where they may.
This is another facet of the Jewish Zionist problem in America: they are ruining the reputation of other minorities, (many of whom are highly patriotic) as theoretical threats to the larger shared interests of all Americans. The subversion of Jewish Zionists raises the question of all minorities: are they pursuing their own ethnic interests at the expense of the majority as well? Jewish Zionists are doing this deliberately, hiding behind the presence of other minorities and portraying all their interests as common; in essence, using them for cover, just as they use non-Zionist Jews as cover.
Just another item in what is now a long laundry list of how the Jewish Zionists and their two-party-regime, gentile Establishment collaborators are ruining the US for everyone.
Greenwald is obviously smart enough to know all this, but his blind dedication to the left-liberal wing of the two-party-regime prevents him from following the problem through to its natural conclusion. I'm not sure whether or not he realizes that he's basically on the same team as Bush so long as he maintains his identity as a big government left-liberal. The Bushcon/right-wing half just concentrates their social-engineering abroad.
hitler as a tool for propaganda. maybe this is a clue that the standard holocaust narrative is propaganda. that the real history is not given because truth does not serve the desired purpose.
Greenwald is more courageous than most, but not courageous enough.I suspect, as a control-freak left-liberal obsessed with social-engineering,he is worried about the implications of identifying a minority population (particularly his own people) as ground zero for subversion and treachery against American interests.
Uargh!
Your suspicion is rather well known by now. No need to keep repeating it! Really!
Maybe Glenn Greenwald isn't at the New York Times because they tried to hire him and he refused (on principle) and it was all kept hush hush to preserve everyone's reputation?
Maybe there are actually all sorts of openings in the corporate media for someone opposed to all the Zionist meddling in American politics, but the journalists covering it are simply content with their blog incomes and their sense of liberty?
Maybe the New York Times is on a hiring freeze because they're going to have to become a bank holding company to receive access to TARP funds.
forgotten hitlers:
ben gurion, perez, meir(hitlerette), rabin (but…but), shamir(shitshak), sharon(equal to 4 hitlers), nutnyahoo, barak (nightlife tel aviv known as "pink lady"), olmert.
ersatz israel filled with hitlers and wannabe hitlers.
jews have given hitler a bad name.
Phil (and Ed too):
Be fair to great glenn now – he is simply being a lawyer. Once a lawyer – always a lawyer, because the study – and practice – of law tends to rearranges the brains' software to focus on provables – and therefore, actionables. To the non-lawyer citizen focusing on justice and fairness, using a technicality to successfully prosecute a criminal (such as capone) feels, somehow hollow, like a let-down. But to the lawyer, it is a lesson in compromise of means to achieve desirable goals. And so it is with Glenn. He (probably correctly) sees it as next to impossible to prove that Israel – and israel supporting neocons – were, in fact, the key determinant in the decision to make war on Iraq. We may all know it's what made the difference – but proving it is another thing. Just like the concept of "dual loyalty". many of us may know it's there – in their guts they know it – but can you see yourselves presenting a case based on "dual loyalty" in a court of law?
Greenwald's theme is accountability – in a legal sense. Phil and many who comment on this blog (perhaps including me, an almost-lawyer) want – deep in their souls – accountability in a moral sense. And that, we all know, is going to be next to impossible to get, except historically (ie, when history of these times is finally written). And to that end this blog – and others like it – serve an extremely useful purpose.
I say let greenwald do what he does best – getting the discovery process going – and sifting through the piles of evidence (which is what he is really doing through all the entries and talks). Something he does better than anyone else I know. It is through one such as he that the articles of indictment will ultimately be presented.
The jury, mind you, has not been assembled yet, as we are still arguing about venue and judge qualifications. Of course, that means we have to have patience – kind of hard while gaza is burning, I know.
Perhaps the great Glen should read this before it's too late.