Daniel Luban, co-author with Jim Lobe of a superb analysis of what befell Chas Freeman, writes:
Not sure if you've read the Times and Post stories on Freeman yet, but
thought you might be interested as they fit the "shifting parameters of
debate" theme you often talk about on the blog. I was really startled when reading them to see how willing they are
to cut through all the bad-faith arguments about Saudi and Chinese ties
and baldly state that the Israel lobby is the main story here. (The
Times one is a little better than the Post in this regard.) In fact
they are not so different in tone from the stories Jim and I wrote. I
cannot imagine that the Times and Post would have covered the story
this way five years ago, or even one.
thought you might be interested as they fit the "shifting parameters of
debate" theme you often talk about on the blog. I was really startled when reading them to see how willing they are
to cut through all the bad-faith arguments about Saudi and Chinese ties
and baldly state that the Israel lobby is the main story here. (The
Times one is a little better than the Post in this regard.) In fact
they are not so different in tone from the stories Jim and I wrote. I
cannot imagine that the Times and Post would have covered the story
this way five years ago, or even one.
Weiss: Credit should go to the Post's Walter Pincus, whom I blasted on this site yesterday for refusing to broach the lobby in his original story on Freeman's exit, for addressing the issue more straightforwardly in his piece. But Pincus, I must say: Pinkhas is my Hebrew name. I was not raised with very much Zionism, and I thank my parents for saving me from the slopbuckets of nationalism. I wonder what infusion of Zionism you received. Can we talk?
The articles and editorials on the Times and Post that I read, referred to in another thread were NOT sympathetic to your theme at all.
They more or less described Freeman as unqualified as indicated by his angry letter.
Phil's point is that progress is slow, and there are a few more cracks revealed lately in the heretofore security wall of silence regarding the Israel Lobby. Freeman helped by at least mentioning that wall.
Clearly the usual ad hominem approach to discrediting Freeman is at work, with R Witty enthusiastically plowing that furrow in every single comment: Freeman is temperamentally unfit by reason of some 'chip on his shoulder'(cue amateur psychologists to hunt for cod freudian tales about his upbringing). It always seems to work, because it flatters the peasantry to think that they also have become instant psychoanalysts, when they see this nonsense retailed in the posh papers and TV shows.
I think Pincus is miles above the ediorial. Who writes that? Do insiders know?
Besides admittedly I had the Valerie Plame affair vaguely on my mind while reading Pincus' account. Maybe he learned something from his involvement?
I agree with Daniel Luban, concerning the Times article, but Pincus does a better job in digging deeper into the larger scenario.
Glenn Greenwald says it was Fred Hiatt who wrote the editorial, but he's just the editor of the Washington Post's editorial page. My guess, and I have no inside info, is that Ruth Marcus is the one who writes their editorials on the Middle East, since she's just as irrational in her regular column when it comes to this issue.
JWells, please elaborate. We need more of you, less of intentionally foggy Witty, the accountant with his limited bottom line, what's good for the jews (as he sees it).
Thanks, for pointing out Greenwald's article, JWells.
Why is this editorial business so secret in the States? I have wondered about this before. Over here we have at least identification code beneath the article, usually the journalists initials. But I wondered before if I miss something in this respect. Could you check this for instance if you had the print edition in the masthead? And if so, why not give the author directly.
And nobody in the States finds it peculiar that editorials are anonymous?
And nobody in the States finds it peculiar that editorials are anonymous?
Now that you mention it, and in light of the information you provided in regards to how it's done where you live, I'd say yes, I do find it peculiar.
I'm not off to a good start with my first blog reply. My apologies to Ruth Marcus. Should've factchecked myself, because I was completely wrong. The Post lists their editorial board. She is on the list, but she doesn't write about foreign policy, a fact that she noted in a recent post on the Post website about having breakfast with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. I may have confused her with the Harvard professor of Yiddish, Ruth Wisse, who wrote about Walt and Mearsheimer after their book came out. I regret the error.
As to the strange practice of running anonymous editorials, even stranger is the practice across the pond, at the Economist. They don't even put bylines on their regular articles or opinion columns. We're left to assume that it's all written by a bunch of anonymous Economist gnomes.