Neither a stenographer nor an enabler be

US Politics
on 5 Comments

A smart friend points out that Roger Cohen described Jeffrey Goldberg as Netanyahu's stenographer (days after I, less memorably, called him Netanyahu's amanuensis; shows you shouldn't use pretentious words), and then continues with this analysis of Goldberg on the Times Op-Ed page:

A boy-man
with no real journalistic conscience–the piece is pure propaganda, on the eve
of Netanyahu's visit, all for the sake of pre-legitimating Obama's approval of
Israeli bombing of Iran. Done in the form of a history lesson that takes in the
Hebrew Bible, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust; nothing else and nothing
less. The words "Palestinian state" occur in his second sentence, and in 1500
words they never re-appear. Impressive and revealing that the Times would print
this piece alone the Sunday before Netanyahu's arrival; no "balance," no "other

5 Responses

  1. Richard Witty
    May 17, 2009, 5:06 pm

    Of course it has posted other views. Why are you ostriching on this? The Times has consistently editorialized FOR the Obama approach, not the Netanyahu approach. If anything, the Goldberg article is in opposition to the Times.

  2. Ed
    May 17, 2009, 5:57 pm

    "Done in the form of a history lesson that takes in the Hebrew Bible, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust; nothing else and nothing less." Let's see, other than Goldberg's veneration of the Hebrew Bible, hammering away at those other two points is pretty much exactly how left-liberals and Statists have undermined Christian moral authority in the West for decades at the behest of their own “morality.” It seems to me, underhanded victimist rhetoric, exploitation and opportunism is exactly how the Left operates as well. Yet there is an effort afoot by the Left to scapegoat "the religious" for Zionism's crimes. News flash: most of the diaspora Jews who have been the primary enablers of the Zionists, and the linchpin in their enterprise for decades, aren't religious at all. They call themselves "progressives" and “liberals.” By setting up these red herrings implicating "the religious," the Left is merely compounding the Zionist problem by introducing the possibility that "the religious" Muslims might be getting exactly what they deserve. I'm not convinced this isn't deliberate.

  3. dalybean
    May 17, 2009, 8:06 pm

    Have you seen the latest? Rumsfeld's daily Iraq briefings for Bush were Crusade memos. ” target=”_blank”>…

  4. DICKERSON3870
    May 18, 2009, 2:09 am

    RE: "shows you shouldn't use pretentious words" MY COMMENT: Pretentious? That there's one of dem big, fancy like words. Ain't it? I sho wishes I had more book learnin!

  5. Jacobwolfen
    May 18, 2009, 11:27 am

    It would certainly help with the possibility you would post an opinion based on facts.

Leave a Reply