I'm told that last year in a panel at Columbia Journalism School, a writer for The New Yorker said that only one member of the magazine's staff who dealt with foreign policy opposed the Iraq war. Wow. Why did this leading magazine that told people how to think about Vietnam flub this one so bad?
There is no introspective spirit in this New Yorker piece by George Packer about why we went to war with Iraq. Apparently, Peter Beinart and Packer himself did so because of Republicans, and a spirit that fairies implanted in the American establishment:
Reagan’s rhetorical call for an end to the Soviet Empire prompted second-generation neoconservatives, such as Robert Kagan, William Kristol, and Elliott Abrams, to imagine that democracy could be delivered to the whole world by F-22s...
President George H. W. Bush’s invasion of Panama, in December of 1989, now seems hardly more consequential than Reagan’s splendid little war in Grenada. But, as Beinart reminds us, Panama became a dress rehearsal for the ideological battle over Iraq, and a key transition from the hubris of toughness to the hubris of dominance.
Lemme guess – misguided loyalties and divided loyalties?
But then, what about the goyim who were stupid enough/scared enough to buy into the blatant, and blatantly false, Likudist/AIPAC nonsense?
The former group [Beinart and his co-religionists] can be forgiven [though only with the greatest of efforts], as their mistake is in the end understandable [though again only with the greatest of efforts and with the most forgiving of natures]; the latter [the deluded/self-deluded/cowardly careerist goyim] will have my total and well-deserved contempt until I draw my last breath upon this earth.
“Overweaning” indeedy: Beinart, Packer, and Jeffrey Goldberg could perhaps use a bit more tit.
Except for a poem or two by Mahmoud Darwish, the New Yorker is also famous for its inability to find Arabs and Muslims to write about anything at all, and certainly not the Occupation. They would not have the objectivity of Stalaglieutenant Goldberg.
“use a bit more tit”
I think “underweaning” is closer to the mark. But then I always do.
But remember, my mother attacked me with a knife just after I was born!
Ah, now I understand. That’s why you choose a wife that killed her first husband?
Oddly enough, Packer’s book on the war gives plenty of responsibility to the folks who thought that war would be ‘very good for Israel”. But it was published before the war went south, and perhaps he wants to de-emphasize that now.
Does anyone know if Eliot Abrams was involved in the October Surprise supplying of weapons to Iran delivered by Israel on behalf of the Reagan campaign?
link to consortiumnews.com
Greenwald’s latest, The Jeffrey Goldberg Media, is somewhat related.
Saw it on the In Case You Missed It RSS Feed.
“Why did this leading magazine that told people how to think about Vietnam flub this one so bad?”
ZPC
They all march together. The whole of the u.s. mainstream media, print and broadcast, is tainted meat.
That’s why we got the internet, to put these goebbelsian propagandists out of business, once and for all.
Hey, great! George Packer! Peter Beinart! Two of our finest foreign policy intellectuals! One reviewing the other! In the New Yorker! Awe-some! Great!
Um, does anyone know a good onomatopoetic representation of vomiting? Not the quick easy kind but the painful sustained retching that goes on at least 30 minutes? Thanx!
Blurrrrgafzzztuhuhuhohgodnonotagainflzzzzzibereferbarghh, I think. I know the NY’er is known for its checkers but I have seen an amazing amount of spelling errors in the Times. And as yo may know spelling is not my strong point.
does anyone know a good onomatopoetic representation of vomiting?
The name of that Icelandic volcano would be close, if I remember correctly..(Actually I don’t).
Let’s try this again. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that Beinart’s position has anything to do with his Zionism? A column? A statement? Even hearsay? ANYTHING? Or are you trying to be Father Coughlin and attribute any position a Jew takes to Zionism if he is not an anti-Zionist?
Beinart is a guy who is willing to go before Establishment audiences and make the same criticisms he made in his article and then some. And buddy, if all you took from his article is that he’s willing to sacrifice his liberalism for his Zionism, you either didn’t read very closely, or you read with such blinkers on that your viewpoint isn’t worth much. I’m starting to believe you are a lot more obsessed with hating the American Jewish community than you are with hating Israel and Zionism.
I supported the Iraq War. Everyone here knows I’m a Zionist. My position had nothing to do with Israel. It had to do with my belief that human rights violators in long entrenched dictatorships who are in violation of countless UN Resolutions must be dealt with forcefully, the same sort of case made by a minority of left-wing supporters of the war. And I believed then, as I do now, that a large part of the left-wing in the West has completely lost its moral compass when it comes to issues like these, substituting a knee-jerk hatred of the United States and the West for actual moral decisionmaking. Those are my reasons. What were YOUR reasons for opposing the war, may I ask?
I resent your implications Phil, and I find them sad.
You don’t give a damn about human rights violations. We support human rights violations in Saudi Arabia. We support it in Egypt. We support it in Columbia.
Did you want to ‘liberate’ Latin and Central America in the 80s? We supported death squads and Christian evangelical dictators back then.
So does Israel. Israel continues to colonize another people’s land. Constant lies, theft, war, violence.
Israel can only maintain this control through violence and the subjugation of an entire population.
It flaunts it’s power in defiance of IHL and IL. In defiance of basic concepts of right and wrong (thou shall not steal).
So do you support military intervention w/ regards to Israel?
Should we violently force the Israelis to stop colonizing what remains of Palestine? Force them out of the territories?
Who are you kidding? You’re a Zio. You wanted the war w/ Iraq because of Israel.
“Who are you kidding? You’re a Zio. You wanted the war w/ Iraq because of Israel.”
Listen, chief. I just told you what my reasons were. Don’t tell me what I think. I am not the world’s only liberal interventionist.
“You don’t give a damn about human rights violations. We support human rights violations in Saudi Arabia. We support it in Egypt. We support it in Columbia.”
I would be thrilled if we knocked over the human rights-violating governments in Saudi and Egypt tomorrow, provided there was any chance of democrats taking over. Saudi in particular is an abomination.
I’m not old enough to remember the Latin American situation.
“So does Israel. Israel continues to colonize another people’s land. Constant lies, theft, war, violence.”
Israel is not a dictatorship, is not in violation of multiple Chapter VII resolutions, and spent ten years trying to negotiate a deal. But go ahead, please compare it to Iraq.
“So do you support military intervention w/ regards to Israel?”
No, obviously not, but why should it matter to you?
“Should we violently force the Israelis to stop colonizing what remains of Palestine? Force them out of the territories?”
I volunteer you.
Hop, you’re a Zionist – you don’t have a moral compass. And from one Jew to another, it’s clear you’re the kind of Jew who corrupts and endangers the rest of us. Moral perverts like you who are ferklempt that “the dumb American goyim” are fighting and dying for Israel need to be confronted and shamed. You’re a moser, a kapo, a rodef, the scum of the earth.
That’s an intelligent response. I won’t dignify it.
“I won’t dignify it.”
How could something like you dignify anything?
:D
OverweAning– maybe they were weaned too early? Or taken off too many different forms of milk, not only maternal??
Hop, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered during the war. Probably twice that many children were orphaned and lost limbs. Thousands of young Americans died, tens of thousands are maimed for life. The psychological damage many suffered is incalculable. Yet a Zionist chickenhawk like you can cast aspersions on those who justly opposed the War and walk away scot-free. Are you one of those who would enlist in the IDF? Or you too much of a coward for that too?
I’m not casting aspersions on anyone. Paul Berman has made the same arguments. And spare me the nonsense about being a chickenhawk. A position is either supported by argument or it isn’t. Ad hominem attacks are not going to get you anywhere. Your reaction is not one of somebody secure in their position.
I do cast aspersions on those who argue that this was a “Zionist” war. The case for this is thin and amounts to a conspiracy theory mostly promoted by bigots.
“And spare me the nonsense about being a chickenhawk.”
link to youtube.com
Callow sophistry, Hop.. An argument doesn’t stand in a vacuum. David Duke makes wonderful arguments for the U.S. to cut the cord with Israel. Why do I get the feeling you wouldn’t ascribe merit to his argument in the abstract? In other words – Fine for a Jew but not for you, Mr. Duke. You’re a Zionist chickenhawk, Hop. Like Mr. Duke, you don’t have a rubbery leg to stand on. Paul Berman, Jeffrey Goldberg, Pam Geller, they all wear a little bell that says: UNCLEAN ZIONIST. And, when centrist Joe Klein said in TIME that the Iraq War was conceived by neocon Jews – case closed. NO one but hasbara wackjobs disputes that anymore.
Again, not worth dignifying. Have a nice day.
I’m sorry, but Paul Berman. Ha, ha. That’s your hero? Paul Johnson, Paul Gaugain, Saint Paul, fine. But, Bernie Lewis’ twisted idiot step-son Paul BERMAN? Ai yi yi.