Warmongering Jeffrey Goldberg calls on Obama to use missile strikes against Iran

Israel/Palestine
on 92 Comments

We can now say for sure that after Jeffrey Goldberg smashed the New Yorker’s credibility to bits by publishing a bogus story about Saddam Hussein getting nuclear weapons, paving the liberals’ path to that disastrous war, he smashed the Atlantic Magazine’s credibility to bits last year by using the magazine to hysterically push an American attack on Iran– “The point of no return… who if anyone will stop Iran?” We can say as much because Goldberg is now plain about his agenda at Bloomberg News.

Here he is personally advocating what he covertly advocated in the Atlantic, in the earlier instance putting the argument on Netnayahu et al: America must act, so that Israel doesn’t have to. And once again, he cites an olio of anonymous Holocaust-inflected sources saying Israel has no choice but to go to war against Iran, and so America must do the job because it will do it better. So, Obama should be prepared to use missile strikes.

I believe, based on interviews inside and outside the White House, that he would consider using force — missile strikes, mainly — to stop the Iranians from crossing the nuclear threshold. ..

This isn’t to say that Obama has decided to use whatever means necessary to stop Iran. (He faces opposition in the Pentagon, for one thing, though the U.S. military has much greater capabilities than Israel.) Nor is a U.S. strike something desirable, even if done in concert with Western allies. …

But numerous Israeli officials have told me that they are much less likely to recommend a preemptive strike of their own if they were reasonably sure that Obama was willing to use force. And if Iran’s leaders feared there was a real chance of a U.S. attack, they might actually modify their behavior. I believe Obama would use force — and that he should make that perfectly clear to the Iranians.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

92 Responses

  1. dumvitaestspesest
    November 8, 2011, 9:43 am

    Oh let’s just send this Goldberg guy, on the first kamikaze plane to an unknown, fully deserted , desolate location.

  2. pabelmont
    November 8, 2011, 9:55 am

    War-mongering pure and simple. Who keeps twerps like him on the air-waves?

  3. annie
    November 8, 2011, 10:12 am

    there is an option at the link to enlarge his photograph. i recommend. he’s got the slightest smirk in his determined expression and his eyes and jaw look clenched/fixed. kinda creepy.

  4. Chu
    November 8, 2011, 10:19 am

    That sun rising on his morning trip to Masada will forever be ingrained in the memory of an IDF soldier, Jeffrey is no exception.

    We’ve witnessed the endless supply of pork that floweth to Israel for decades, and the traffickers like Jeffrey will always be gunning for more pork for their Israel project. Their loyalty should be called into question, for they don’t understand the problems that they cause. Let Israel fight their wars, or make peace with their neighbors. America is not the mercenary army on call for Netanyahu and his American comrade journalists.

    • Mooser
      November 8, 2011, 11:49 am

      “We’ve witnessed the endless supply of pork that floweth to Israel for decades,”

      There’s something about that phrase which bothers me, and I keep trying to figure out what it is, but I just can’t bring home the bacon, so to speak.

      • Chu
        November 8, 2011, 12:18 pm

        It may be floweth, or using pork analogies when talking about the Jewish state.

        • split
          November 8, 2011, 4:10 pm

          What Jewish state ?
          ———————–
          when talking about the Jewish state.

      • seanmcbride
        November 8, 2011, 12:23 pm

        I had the same response. :)

  5. BillM
    November 8, 2011, 10:20 am

    Sadly, I think Goldberg will succeed. The Obama Administration in not only not standing against this warmongering campaign, it is aiding it with claims about the absurd Scary Iran Plot and Iranian nuclear program. Even if Obama doesn’t actually want war, he’s helping box himself in politically to eventually force his hand (all in the name of pre-empting those crazy Israelis from doing anything dangerous, of course).

    Keep an eye on the carriers. When a 3rd one reaches the Arabian Sea, buy gold.

    • dumvitaestspesest
      November 8, 2011, 10:39 am

      I agree. They want this war ,and they will have it.
      They are masters in making up excuses. They will find one.
      They need this war for many reasons.

      • petersz
        November 8, 2011, 10:18 pm

        There will be no war! Obama does not want $200 a barrel oil unless he wants to be a one term president. There will be no more UN sanctions either as Russia and China will not agree to it. There will be a lot of huffing and puffing but going to war against a country 3 times the size of Iraq is out of the question. Robert Gates the previous Defense Secretary ruled it out and so does the present one. Israel will not bomb Iran either they cannot and will not do anything without permission from Washington DC which will not be given.

        • Jeffrey Blankfort
          November 9, 2011, 12:40 am

          That’s more Chomsky blather that has little to no connection to reality. Israel’s launching of its wars in 1956 and 1967 were done without notifying Washington in advance, as was Begin’s attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 which caught Reagan unawares as he was visiting Europe.

          In 1982, they had an orange light to go into Lebanon but I have seen no proof that they knew exactly when and they only expected Israel to penetrate 25 miles, not go all the way to Beirut.

          When Reagan ordered Sharon to stop the bombing of Beirut, the Israeli butcher answered by bombing the city at precisely 2:42 and 3:38 in the afternoon which, by no coincidence, happened to be the numbers of the UN resolutions demanding that Israel with draw from the OT.

          On Friday, CNN reported that an unnamed US military official told the network that although in the past, U.S. officials thought they would receive warning from Israel before it took military action against Iran, “now that doesn’t seem so ironclad.”

          Then, three days ago, Israel’s Ha’aretz reported that during a visit to Israel last month, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta failed to get a clear commitment from Netanyahu and Barak that Israel would not take action against Iran without coordinating the operation with Washington.

          According to the paper, “the two Israeli leaders only answered Panetta’s questions regarding Israel’s intentions toward Iran in a general manner.”

          Now, that may or may not be BS, but with Israel’s control over Congress, perhaps, greater than ever before, Netanyahu believes he can do whatever he wants regarding Iran, with the assurance that during an election year, Israel is untouchable.

        • Shingo
          November 9, 2011, 2:22 am

          Now, that may or may not be BS, but with Israel’s control over Congress, perhaps, greater than ever before, Netanyahu believes he can do whatever he wants regarding Iran, with the assurance that during an election year, Israel is untouchable.

          Jeffery,

          Gievn thjat unlike Lebanon and 1967, it is generally agreed Israel cant pull off an attack against Iran without help from the US, do you believe that Netanyahu believes he can get away with not telling the US, but that that US would rush to support Israel after the attack?

  6. Dan Crowther
    November 8, 2011, 10:25 am

    So, Goldberg I guess would be fine with the 25,000 or so Jews living in Iran getting killed in “the attack on Iran?”

    Iran wants to “kill the Jews” but Iran’s constitution specifically protects Jews, Jews have representation in the government AND its the largest jewish community in the Middle East outside of Israel.

    This guy defines “full of shit.”

    • dahoit
      November 8, 2011, 10:46 am

      This whole shebang is nonsense,how could Iran nuke Israel without murdering fellow Muslims?But of course the opposite is much more likely,if no less stupid.

    • Am_America
      November 8, 2011, 10:54 am

      ahhh my favorite talking point. The Jews of Iran have representation. LOL, they have a lone seat in a farce parliament.

      • Dan Crowther
        November 8, 2011, 11:16 am

        Is it or is it not the second largest jewish population in the middle east outside of Israel?

        In a country of 80 million, a “community” of 25k having ANY representation should be considered “progressive”

      • Mooser
        November 8, 2011, 11:51 am

        “The Jews of Iran have representation. LOL, they have a lone seat in a farce parliament.”

        So in that case, it’s all right for the Jews of Iran to be killed?
        Damn, Am_America, you’ve got some irrefutable logic!

      • Chu
        November 8, 2011, 12:21 pm

        why when I look at your comments it says you’re a muslim?

        I’m an Arab Muslim. The reason that you don’t hear us as much is simply because we WANT to talk, but who is there to LISTEN without thinking, “Take everything they say with a grain of salt. The fact that…

        • tree
          November 8, 2011, 12:38 pm

          why when I look at your comments it says you’re a muslim?

          I think its a glitch in the comments archive. There was a poster here earlier who went by “AM”. If you read all the comments, they are pretty consistent with an Arab Muslim voice. Am_America’s comments don’t show up at all when you click on his name. Only AM’s comments are there, and AM’s comments are nothing like Am_America’s. I think the underscore causes the programming to ignore anything after it. If anyone knows how to notify the web gurus at Mondo to point this out to them, let me know.

        • annie
          November 8, 2011, 12:46 pm

          for some reason the archives don’t work for Am_America. it’s some glitch in the system that brings up our old poster AM. i wrote phil and adam about it last week so they are aware of it but it’s probably not worth forking out the dough to fix this one archive problem at this time. so for now Am_America has got a free pass wrt the archives. with some posters that would really be a shame (imagine not being able to easily access hostages comments!!!) but Am_America is so predictable i hardly see what kind of difference it makes.

        • Am_America
          November 8, 2011, 1:01 pm

          I didn’t know I was that big of an influence on you. Thank you for emailing the admins regarding this issue!

        • tree
          November 8, 2011, 1:03 pm

          Annie, its the same with Avi and Avi_G., who I think are the same person, but none of Avi_G.’s comments show up, only the early Avi comments. Maybe they(the web people) could just make it impossible in the future for anyone to create a username with a space or underscore. I think that would solve the problem in the future, and probably wouldn’t cost a lot of time or money to fix.

          And Avi G.’s comments are certainly worth archiving. Am_America’s, on the other hand, are probably only worth it for mining the contradictions in what he says.

        • annie
          November 8, 2011, 1:09 pm

          i regularly use the archives to find old conversations and for a number of reasons. i would have written them had it been anyone i could not access just to inform them there was a glitch in the system. can’t recall now why i looked you up, probably to remind myself how long you’ve been on this blog. it seemed like you just appeared one day recently out of the blue and then became a voracious poster. what did you do with your days before you found this place? maybe they miss you where ever it was you hung out before 2 weeks ago or when ever it was you arrived.

        • annie
          November 8, 2011, 1:12 pm

          avi and avi g are the same poster. he told me one time in one of the threads. in fact you can use his archives to find the comment.

          ;)

        • Am_America
          November 8, 2011, 1:16 pm

          you two are too kind. it must be an issue w/ an underscore.

          is it ok to have multiple persona’s on here like Avi has? usually it is frowned up in online blogs.

        • tree
          November 8, 2011, 1:28 pm

          avi and avi g are the same poster. he told me one time in one of the threads. in fact you can use his archives to find the comment.

          Actually, I can’t. That’s my point. If I click on any of Avi_G’s comments all I get is comments by his earlier name Avi. The last comment there was September 17th.

          I don’t have as much time to spend here as I used to, so I like to check the comment archives to help catch up a bit on what I’ve missed. I noticed the glitch first with Avi, who’s comments I usually find informative, then later with AM/Am_America, when trying to find one of his comments that I wanted to respond to, but couldn’t remember which post I saw it under.

        • annie
          November 8, 2011, 1:58 pm

          here it is tree. i just googled “mondoweiss avi_g avi”

          Avi_G. October 25, 2011 at 5:31 pm

          annie,

          Avi_G. is the same Avi, Avi_

          At this rate, by next year, I should have my entire name spelled out. ;)

          In other words, my comment above was sarcastic in nature.

          could we move this discussion to the comment policy page? i’m just concerned about it clogging up the thread even more.

      • eGuard
        November 8, 2011, 12:38 pm

        The Jews of Iran [...] have a lone seat in a farce parliament.

        Sir prefers a majority of Jewish seats in a farce parliament. Now how would that look like? Could one find an example?

      • Woody Tanaka
        November 8, 2011, 12:40 pm

        “The Jews of Iran have representation. LOL, they have a lone seat in a farce parliament.”

        And, as such, they have more representation than half of all the people who are subject to the whims of the Israeli Knesset.

      • NimaShirazi
        November 8, 2011, 1:49 pm

        Actually, considering Parliamentary representation is based on population (think House of Representatives), recognized religious minorities in Iran are rather well represented in the Majlis.

        The population of Iran is nearly 74,000,000 and there are 290 parliamentary ministers. That breaks down to about 255,000 citizens per representative. However, as mandated by the Iranian Constitution (Chap. V, Sec. 1, Art. 64), five seats are always reserved for recognized minorities regardless of the total numbers of those minority populations. The Constitution states:

        “The Zoroastrians and Jews will each elect one representative; Assyrian and Chaldean Christians will jointly elect one representative; and Armenian Christians in the north and those in the south of the country will each elect one representative.

        These requirements do not mean that members of religious minorities can not run for election for other seats in the Majlis (though admittedly and sadly it would be difficult to win – imagine if Remi Kanazi had run for Anthony Weiner’s old Congressional seat!), but it does require that even populations with very small populations in Iran will have at least one representative in government.

        In fact, looking at those figures, we can see that – purely by represented constituency – Jewish Iranians are actually ten times more represented than the average Muslim Iranian.

        Additionally, I’d love to know why you call the Majlis a “farce parliament.” If it is – as I would assume – because all potential candidates are vetted and approved by the 12-member Guardian Council (6 clerics, 6 jurists), please think for a moment about how we vet our own candidates here in Freedomtown, USA: money, money, fealty to a hegemonic surveillance state of endless war and empire, money, money, and then there’s also money.

        Abhorring a theocratic-republican hybrid political system and/or the reservation of representation by religious affiliation is one thing (and on that I believe we would agree), but getting the facts right about the reality of the Iranian government is important.

      • Shingo
        November 8, 2011, 3:25 pm

        LOL, they have a lone seat in a farce parliament.

        How many seats should 25,000 have?

      • Charon
        November 8, 2011, 7:14 pm

        Am_American, I’m glad that is your favorite talking point. Demographically speaking, (no offense to Persian Jews) why even have a seat at all? Why not fill It with another Zoroastrianist seat? The Faravahar is a huge Iranian identity symbol these days after all. That and of course the influence it had on Abrahamic faiths and later Shias.

        Even if Iran had nukes, who cares? North Korea has them. India and Pakistan have them. Keeps others from doing exactly what Israel wants to do to Iran. Iran isn’t going to attack Israel and risk the destruction of all their major cities. Israel is risking their existence by playing their war trumpet due to their smal size and the parties who would come to Iran’s aid.

        Do you think the US would counter an attack that annihilated Israel? No way, Obama would break out the bottle champagne to celebrate 45+ years of nuclear blackmail finally ended

  7. dahoit
    November 8, 2011, 10:44 am

    See here Corporal Goldberg,stop being so nice to your prisoners,one blow to the balls is not enough.You gotta kick them repeatedly in the nuts for discipline.Look how that Obomba character has reacted,just the way you want him to,on his knees prostrated.But his private conversation with Sarkosi shows he’s not yet kissing feet,but only at the ankles.Run him out of town for his temerity.(And you can bet the MSM will frame Yahoo as the good reasonable guy.)

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      November 8, 2011, 2:04 pm

      There are still cages in Khiam prison in Southern Lebanon where Corporal Goldberg served and where Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners were tortured and interrogated, one of which just might fit Goldberg despite his increased corpulence. We can even throw his laptop and Blackberry in there with him. We might expect to see his columns take on a different perspective.

      • Donald
        November 8, 2011, 2:34 pm

        Khiam–

        link

        Here’s a paragraph from Goldberg’s account in the link–

        “The centerpiece of Hezbollah’s propaganda effort in the South is the former Al-Khiam prison, a rambling stone-and-concrete complex of interconnected buildings, a few miles from the border, where I stopped on the way to Kfar Kila. For fifteen years, the prison was run by Israel’s proxy force in Lebanon, the South Lebanon Army, with the assistance of the Shabak, the Israeli equivalent of the F.B.I. Prisoners in Al-Khiam-which held almost two hundred at any given time-were allegedly subjected to electric-shock torture and a variety of deprivations. The jail has been preserved just as it was on the day the Israelis left. There are still Israeli Army-issue sleeping bags in the cells. Hezbollah has added a gift shop, which sells Hezbollah key chains and flags and cassettes of martial Hezbollah music; a cafeteria; and signs on the walls of various rooms that describe, in Hezbollah’s terms, the use of the rooms. “A Room for Investigation and Torturing by Electricity,” reads one. “A Room for the Boss of Whippers.” “A Room for Investigation with the Help of the Traitors.” And “The Hall of Torturing-Burying-Kicking-Beating-Applying Electricity-Pouring Hot Water-Placing a Dog Beside.” A busload of tourists, residents of a Palestinian refugee camp outside Beirut, were clearly in awe of the place, treating the cells as if they were reliquaries and congratulating the Hezbollah employees.”

        • Jeffrey Blankfort
          November 8, 2011, 4:02 pm

          I don’t know when Goldberg was there but in 2007 Khiam appeared fairly run down. There were no sleeping bags in the cells, there having been no room in those to lie down and sleep as Goldberg well knows. When Gilad Atzmon was there as a soldier during the occupation, he thought the cells were cages for animals and it was one of the experiences that turned him into an ex-Israeli. It evidently turned Goldberg into a propagandist of the worst kind.

          I saw no cafeteria, nothing that could be called a “gift shop,” and the prison was being maintained by a father and son. I saw no evidence of the signs that Goldberg described here. But then Goldberg does not have to worry about telling the truth since doing so has never been a part of Zionist culture.

        • Donald
          November 8, 2011, 9:58 pm

          The New Yorker article was in 2002–those were the days when Goldberg was also writing articles linking Saddam with al Qaeda. I printed out the paragraph above because it shows Goldberg’s contemptuous attitude towards claims that Israel committed war crimes at Khiam. He obviously doesn’t want his liberal New Yorker readers to take seriously the possibility that Israel was guilty of torturing prisoners–he treats it as a ridiculous propaganda stunt by Hezbollah.

  8. piotr
    November 8, 2011, 10:54 am

    I really do not know how Iran can be “stopped” without 300,000 “boots on the ground”, so to speak. And even if we had such a force to spare, outcome would be quite uncertain.

    Either the attack will be semi-symbolic and it will result in a triumphal declarations from Tehran and low-grade retaliations, or it will really hurt and Iran will resort to MAED, mutually assured economic destruction, by closing Strait of Hormuz. Oil prices would probably double, world economy would go into tailspin, Europeans and Chinese would be quite irritated (and American public as well) and the question is: who will get principal blame? And since the blamegiver would include are main allies, creditors etc. we can be much worse for the wear when the dust settles.

    Profound risks are justified only by profound dangers, which USA manifestly does not experience. Neither does Israel — would a nation perceiving real dangers in the international arena nominate idiot on the caliber of Lieberman as FM? Whose previous post included infrastructure (meaning, patronage network for settlements) and “special task to study Iranian danger”. And who produced such “out-of-the-box” ideas like bombing Dam of Asuan (while out of the box, the idea is straight from insane asylum).

    The truth of the matter is that our hostility to the Islamic Republic is only tangentially connected to the nuclear program. What sanctions is out government ready to drop in the eventuality that Iran offers to close the uranium program? I actually never hear about a concrete proposal couched in those terms.

    Starting a war with Iran is much easier than ending. We flatly cannot afford it, nor we have any real reasons. Can’t we find a better way to spend a trillion dollars? (This is how much it would cost not to loose very humiliatingly.)

    • tree
      November 8, 2011, 12:45 pm

      Can’t we find a better way to spend a trillion dollars? (This is how much it would cost not to loose very humiliatingly.)

      If we spent twice that, we would still lose very humiliatingly. What’s not to like about a plan that will kill massive numbers of innocents AND bankrupt us totally, both economically and morally? Win-win for the neocons!!!1!

      • pabelmont
        November 8, 2011, 1:51 pm

        Maybe the BIG OIL oligarchs (that help run USA) want to shut down a lot of oil to see the price shoot up. Big profits for them. But you’d think the other oligarchs (that help run USA) would NOT want to interrupt the flow of oil, or its dollar-pricing.

        But it would be wrong to think that each and every CEO of a “BIG” has thought through all of this. More likely, they have been scared by the idea of an Iranian “nuke” and think the war is necessary. (Why should they be immune to the scare talk that the media parrots?)

        And it probably seems natural to those who have , ahem, an Israel sensitivity, to imagine that Iran would shoot a nuke anywhere in the vicinity of the dome of the rock, the third most holy site in Islam.

    • lysias
      November 8, 2011, 3:43 pm

      300,000 boots on the ground would not be enough to occupy a country the size of Iran.

      I just do not think a conquest and occupation of Iran is feasible.

      And, even if it were, given the terrain and the countries that border on Iran, an Iranian insurgency would make our attempts to resist the Iraqi insurgency a couple of years back look like a cakewalk.

  9. dumvitaestspesest
    November 8, 2011, 11:49 am

    Public officials and prominent people ,who publically call for a war with Iran should be tried for a treason on court. In the situation when the US is experiencing huge financial /economical depression, have to support many troops that are overseas, there is NO well documented threat of a war coming from Iran, the calls for war should be treated as actions of 5th collumn trying to weaken/destroy USA from within.

    • annie
      November 8, 2011, 11:57 am

      In the situation when the US is experiencing huge financial /economical depression

      tsk tsk, no connecting our wars for israel to our domestic economic problems~ that’s anti OWS…

  10. dumvitaestspesest
    November 8, 2011, 12:13 pm

    Wise words, but I’m afraid that it is too late. The bells are tolling already. For Whom??
    “Traditional people of Indian nations have interpreted the two roads that face the light-skinned race as the road to technology, and the road to spirituality. We feel that the road to technology…. has led modern society to a DAMAGED AND SEARED EARTH.
    Could it be that the road to TECHNOLOGY represents A RUSH TO DESTRUCTION, and that the road to spirituality represents the slower path that the traditional native people have traveled, and are now seeking again?
    The earth is not scorched on this trail. The grass is still growing there.”

    William Commanda, Mamiwinini, Canada, 1991

  11. seafoid
    November 8, 2011, 12:24 pm

    1 billion muslims can’t be all wrong dude

  12. Chu
    November 8, 2011, 12:27 pm

    This is a blog, and cult members usually squat together.

    Like Israel, a massive state-sponsored cult with rotating
    leaders who promise more war for safety. Although the cult
    members haven’t figured out they have been played for decades.
    Some leave disenchanted, but the believers are there to fight.

    (comment intended for DBG, aka Yoni, must’ve been
    deleted for general stupidity)

    • annie
      November 8, 2011, 12:40 pm

      speaking of cults, i think i will head on over to the federation liveblogging and see what the gang is up to today.

      • Chu
        November 8, 2011, 12:47 pm

        keep your distance. Cults can suck you in when you least expect it.
        just saw a movie about a girl leaving a cult. very entertaining…

        • dumvitaestspesest
          November 8, 2011, 1:04 pm

          Cults use brainwashing as the very effective method of keeping their herd in order. Independent , free thinking is not welcomed in cults.

      • annie
        November 8, 2011, 12:52 pm

        i did no such thing. i called the people at the federation, the ones referencing ‘celebrating a “the cult of death’ and kicking out jewish people who do not agree with them and stuff like that. i called that a cult.

        if you have a problem with getting a comment yanked write phil and adam.

        • Am_America
          November 8, 2011, 1:13 pm

          The Jewish Federation represent Judaism in America, you called it a cult.

        • annie
          November 8, 2011, 1:16 pm

          The Jewish Federation represent Judaism in America

          then why don’t they call themselves the judaism federation? i was reading the live blogging and their not talking very much about judaism. where does it say they represent judaism in america? i will have to check out there website. i thought they represented jewish americans who support israel’s government. it seems to be their main focus.

        • Am_America
          November 8, 2011, 1:20 pm

          Annie, I am a member of our local Jewish Federation, we barely ever talk about Israel. You need to get more educated about Judaism and our institutions before you start calling them cults.

          The Jewish Federations of North America represents 157 Jewish Federations & over 300 independent Jewish communities.

          The Federation movement, collectively among the top 10 charities on the continent, protects and enhances the well-being of Jews worldwide through the values of tikkun olam (repairing the world), tzedakah (charity and social justice) and Torah (Jewish learning).

        • Woody Tanaka
          November 8, 2011, 2:32 pm

          “The Jewish Federation represent Judaism in America, you called it a cult.”

          Oh, for pete’s sakes. Calling the representative of “X” a cult is not the same as calling “X” a cult.

          And, anyway, look up “cult” in the dictionary. It is not necessarily a bad word. You will find primary defintions similar to: “a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies” or “a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.” If your vision of Judaism doesn’t comport with this definition, then you’re doing it wrong.

          So, yes, Judaism, as with Christianity, Islam, and just about every religion out there, is a “cult.”

        • Chaos4700
          November 9, 2011, 3:18 am

          Right, you don’t talk about Israel AT ALL there, which is why you’re so laconic here, AM_Radio.

      • Mooser
        November 8, 2011, 12:57 pm

        “At least we know what kinda site MW is.”

        Yes, it’s the kind of website you seem completely incapable of tearing yourself away from. But then, I bet you were the same when they tried to switch you to solid food.

      • annie
        November 8, 2011, 1:00 pm

        dbg, did you see this from chu (comment intended for DBG, aka Yoni, must’ve been deleted for general stupidity)

        you’re all over accusations of cults aren’t you? it’s all fine and dandy for you to inject it into the conversation (jack up the inflammation) but you whine when others turn around and use the same reference for team israel.

        apparently enough people saw the comment before it was yanked. maybe you could try some constructive dialogue/exchange instead of whatever it is you are doing here.

        • Hu Bris
          November 8, 2011, 3:11 pm

          Personally I think that Zionist Israelis and ANYONE that supports the psychopathic Zionist State should henceforth only ever be referred to as “That bunch of cults”

  13. seanmcbride
    November 8, 2011, 12:38 pm

    DBG,

    Isn’t it a fact that the neoconservative and Christian Zionist wings of the Israel lobby have been the prime movers behind a succession of failed multi-trillion dollar wars (the Iraq War, the Afghan War, the Afpak War, etc.) that are driving the United States towards economic ruin? Do you dispute this? Wouldn’t it be wiser for Americans to spend those trillions of dollars on domestic programs for Americans, or not to spend that money at all?

    (In response to a comment by DBG which seems to have since been deleted. But my point stands.)

  14. seanmcbride
    November 8, 2011, 12:40 pm

    Every day Americans are barraged with demands from pro-Israel activists to hate, cripple, crush, kill or “totally obliterate” a long and ever-expanding list of the enemies of Israel. I am guessing that many more Americans are tired of this relentless and hysterical pressure on behalf of a foreign government than they have admitted in public. At some point it is a safe bet they will express their displeasure in a highly public way — no doubt after the policies being promoted by the Israel lobby have caused a massive collapse of the American economy.

  15. seanmcbride
    November 8, 2011, 1:15 pm

    Who is behind the campaign to drive Americans into a war against Iran? These are some of the key parties I’ve noticed so far:

    1. Alan Kuperman 2. Abram Shulsky 3. AEI (American Enterprise Institute) 4. AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) 5. Avigdor Lieberman 6. Ben Chouake 7. Ben Stein 8. Benjamin Netanyahu 9. BPC (Bipartisan Policy Center) 10. Bret Stephens 11. Caroline Glick 12. Charles Krauthammer 13. Christian Zionists 14. Cliff May 15. Commentary 16. CSP (Center for Security Policy) 17. CUFI (Christians United for Israel) 18. Dan Meridor 19. Daniel Pipes 20. Danny Dayon 21. Danny Yatom 22. David Brog 23. David Horowitz 24. David Makovsky 25. David Wurmser 26. Dick Cheney 27. Dick Morris 28. Dore Gold 29. Douglas Feith 30. ECI (Emergency Committee for Israel) 31. Ed Koch 32. Ehud Barak 33. Elliott Abrams 34. FDD (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies) 35. Fox News 36. FPI (Foreign Policy Initiative) 37. Frank Gaffney 38. Fred Kagan 39. Frontpage Magazine 40. Gary Bauer 41. Glenn Beck 42. Greater Israelists 43. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 44. INSS (Institute for National Security Studies) 45. Israel lobby 46. Jack Keane 47. James Woolsey 48. Jeffrey Goldberg 49. Jennifer Rubin 50. Jewish World Review 51. JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) 52. Joe Lieberman 53. John Bolton 54. John Hagee 55. John McCain 56. John Podhoretz 57. Jonathan Schanzer 58. Joshua Muravchik 59. Kevin Bergner 60. Lester Crown 61. Likud 62. Lindsey Graham 63. Liz Cheney 64. Malcolm Hoenlein 65. Max Boot 66. Meyrav Wurmser 67. Michael Ledeen 68. Michael Makovsky 69. Michael Rubin 70. Mike Evans 71. Natan Sharansky 72. National Review 73. neoconservatives 74. New York Post 75. Norman Podhoretz 76. Oded Tira 77. Pajamas Media 78. Pamela Geller 79. Randy Scheunemann 80. Reuel Marc Gerecht 81. Richard Perle 82. Rick Santorum 83. RJC (Republican Jewish Coalition) 84. Rudy Giuliani 85. Rupert Murdoch 86. Shabtai Shavit 87. Sheldon Adelson 88. Steve Rosen 89. UANI (United Against Nuclear Iran) 90. Weekly Standard 91. William Kristol 92. Yaron Brook 93. ZOA (Zionist Organization of America)

    Corrections and additions welcome.

    All of them are intimately associated with the Israel lobby. All of them were ringleaders of the worst foreign policy disaster in American history to date — the Iraq War. They seem hell-bent on producing an even worse foreign policy disaster by prodding and goading Americans into attacking Iran. They couldn’t care less about the best interests of Americans or the long-term survival of America.

    (Jeffrey Goldberg has managed to get me pretty worked up today. Now I think I finally understand where this supposed reasonable moderate is really coming from.)

    • seanmcbride
      November 8, 2011, 1:29 pm

      Three additions: 1. Jamie Glazov 2. Michele Bachmann 3. Robert Spencer.

      • Am_America
        November 8, 2011, 4:04 pm

        LOL, i just love your lists sean, I am SO sold!

        • seanmcbride
          November 8, 2011, 4:24 pm

          Am_America,

          Glad to hear that you’ve SO fully assimilated the items on that list and connected the dots. Do any particular patterns in the data catch your eye? Are any special interest groups overrepresented among the collection of Iran War ringleaders?

          Be sure to let us know if any names do not belong there (I want to be fair), or if other names should be added.

          Another addition: Newt Gingrich.

          These are the parties that are going to take the brunt of the blame if an Iran War turns into a disaster for Americans.

    • Cliff
      November 8, 2011, 4:40 pm

      I think all of the neocons behind the fear-mongering ‘documentary’, Iranium, are listed in your comment Sean.

      The majority of the speakers interviewed for that load of crap came from 2 neocon orgs as per the wiki page.

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      In an opinion piece for the Tehran Bureau on the PBS Frontline website, journalists Eli Clifton and Ali Gharib questioned the film’s accuracy. The authors claim that “most of the analysts interviewed in the film are drawn from two neoconservative Washington think tanks…”, the Center for Security Policy and Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

      • seanmcbride
        November 8, 2011, 7:07 pm

        Cliff,

        These neocons are an incredibly incestuous group who have constructed a large echo chamber of richly interlinked policy centers and propaganda outlets that are carbon copies of one another: AEI, CSP, ECI, FDD, FPI, PNAC, etc. — a new one seems to spring up every month or so. The name of the game is to make themselves seem much more formidable and numerous than they really are. A few dozen billionaire oligarchs or less fund the entire operation — all of them pro-Israel militants. You’ve got to hand it to them: they have pushed the art and science of war propaganda and psychological operations to a high level. They are working with all their might to drive Americans into a genocidal war against the entire Muslim world on behalf of Greater Israel. They may well succeed. The failure of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars has not slowed them down. They are accelerating their efforts.

  16. Richard Witty
    November 8, 2011, 1:27 pm

    “And yet, a preemptive Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could be a grievous mistake. ”

    I’m not sure why you omitted this unequivocal statement of opinion by Goldberg.

    Your headline is insulting in that light, negligent, abusive. Insulting to Goldberg and insulting to readers. I don’t have a clue why you pursue this approach.

    • seanmcbride
      November 8, 2011, 2:40 pm

      Witty,

      I’m not sure you why have so much difficulty in parsing prose that is even slightly shifty, slippery and complex.

      Goldberg’s game is obvious: he is taking pains to try to qualify his views on an Israeli and/or American attack on Iran while framing the discussion in such a way that such an attack will be inevitable. He keeps trying to steer policy thinking in that direction, while being too weak to take ownership of the policy that he is clearly promoting.

      Everyone knows that Iran will not be the least intimidated to change its policies based only on political and economic pressure. Goldberg certainly knows that. He is trying to light a fuse leading to total war against Iran. He’s an open book.

      • Richard Witty
        November 8, 2011, 3:15 pm

        “He is trying to light a fuse leading to total war against Iran. He’s an open book.”

        His open book is his explicit recommendation NOT to attack Iran.

        Any mind-reading is silly.

        He writes MANY articles that are descriptive of potential political and military chains that are nowhere near as explicit as his recommendation in this case.

        The reaction to his posts is a choice, not an observation.

        And, it enables the ridiculously impotent and malevolent name-call form of dissent, rather than the better argument form.

        • James North
          November 8, 2011, 3:37 pm

          Richard Witty said, ‘Look again at the one Goldberg sentence I cling to:

          “And yet, a preemptive Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could be a grievous mistake.”

          ‘Notice how I twist it around

          His open book is his explicit recommendation NOT to attack Iran.

          ‘I must assume Mondoweiss visitors are stupid, that they cannot see the word “could” in Goldberg’s sentence. What Goldberg is doing here is covering his ass, in case Israel does attack and it does turn out to be a disaster, (for Israel. He and I don’t care about the Iranian people who would be killed or hurt in such an attack. Goldberg has been wrong so often that he has to include such a disclaimer.)
          ‘I’ve turned the single cautionary sentence in his otherwise warmongering article into what I call an “explicit recommendation NOT to attack Iran” — adding my usual irritating ALL CAPITALS for emphasis.
          ‘Do I really think other Mondoweiss visitors are fools?

        • Richard Witty
          November 8, 2011, 4:07 pm

          “The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who once told me he believes that Iran is led by a “messianic, apocalyptic cult,” is correct to view Iran as a threat to his country’s existence.

          And yet, a preemptive Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could be a grievous mistake. For one thing, it may already be too late. The Iranians may have dispersed and hardened their nuclear program to the point that an Israeli strike would do only glancing damage. The Israeli Air Force, as good as it is, would be stretched to its limit by such an operation.

          The morality of a strike, which could cause substantial Iranian casualties, would be questioned even by those sympathetic to Israel’s dilemma. Israel will have succeeded in casting Iran as a victim and itself as something of a rogue nation. The international isolation it would experience could be catastrophic in itself. A strike might also endanger Americans in the Middle East and beyond.

          A bigger problem posed by an attack, from Israel’s perspective, is that it could bring intense retaliation by Iran against civilian targets. It’s not clear that Hezbollah, which maintains an enormous rocket force in Lebanon, would join an Iranian barrage of Israel, but it’s a threat that can’t be discounted. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of Israelis could die in retaliatory missile strikes and terrorist attacks. In other words, by countering a theoretical nightmare, an Iran with nuclear weapons, Israel could bring about an actual nightmare: an Iranian conventional attack.

          There are other options. Sabotage by Israeli, American and British intelligence agencies has already stymied the Iranian nuclear program, and these efforts could conceivably be accelerated and intensified. That’s certainly the view of intelligence officials I’ve spoken to in Washington and Israel. ”

          Whether stated alone, or in context, Goldberg is arguing against a military attack on Iran, for different reasons than you are concerned with, but still arguing against it.

          The headline is innaccurate, misrepresentative.

          Its an MO at this point, attack messengers, ignore message.

          RATHER than argue here why an attack on Iran is a bad thing to do, from multiple parties’ perspective, the choice of approach is literally only to attack messengers.

          An impotent and immoral approach.

        • Shingo
          November 8, 2011, 6:44 pm

          The Iranians may have dispersed and hardened their nuclear program to the point that an Israeli strike would do only glancing damage.

          The Israelis don’t even know what to strike. All they want is an excuse to bomb Iran and destabilize the country. As Meir Dagan as reveled, he Mossad does not believe Iran is producing nukes.

          A bigger problem posed by an attack, from Israel’s perspective, is that it could bring intense retaliation by Iran against civilian targets.

          That’s only one of them. The other is that it could lead to global economic collapse, which would be catastrophic for the US, Europe and therefore Israel.

          Whether stated alone, or in context, Goldberg is arguing against a military attack on Iran, for different reasons than you are concerned with, but still arguing against it.

          No Witty, he’s arguing against an attack by Israel. He’s advocating an attack by the US on behalf of Israel, who while pointing out the consequences. Norman Prodhoretz did the same thing when he admitted that the repercussions for the US would be catastrophic, but in his mind, justified.

          An impotent and immoral approach.

          Talk about projection!

        • seanmcbride
          November 8, 2011, 6:45 pm

          Witty,

          You didn’t get my point or chose not to respond to it.

          Goldberg is playing a clever game in which he is pretending to adopt a nuanced view on whether or not America should attack Iran, but is framing the options in a way that will make an attack inevitable. He would make an excellent David Mamet-style con man and fraudster — he’s got quite a line of manipulative patter.

          Two key options that he tries to keep out of view while he runs his con:

          1. We let Iran acquire nuclear weapons. Certainly it has as much right to possess them as Israel or Pakistan. Israel should be able to live under the same MAD regime with Iran that the United States has had to manage with the Soviet Union/Russia and China. We haven’t bombed North Korea to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons, despite the fact that North Korea has credibly threatened to use nuclear weapons against the United States. Why should we bomb Iran under any circumstances that don’t directly threaten Americans, and especially considering that the political and economic consequences would be disastrous? The military option for Iran should be totally off the table.

          2. We promote a vision of the Middle East in which all parties relinquish nuclear weapons and WMDs. That happens to be the policy I support. Perhaps we could formally place Israel (a modern Western democratic Israel which has abandoned its illegal settlements in the occupied territories) under the protection of NATO.

          Goldberg is interested in none of that. He wants to play the sanctions and economic pressure game for awhile and then, after it inevitably fails, bombs away. In his scheme of things, only Israel should have the right to possess nuclear weapons in the Middle East, and he is quite willing to use American military force to maintain that state of affairs.

        • Jeffrey Blankfort
          November 8, 2011, 8:00 pm

          A question that needs to be asked is how Goldberg, not a particular good journalist or compelling writer, came to hold the important position that he does in American journalism, but then when you see the likes of neoconartist Jennifer Rubin lifted from the pages of Commentary to the blog of the Washington Post, no doubt on her way to its op-ed pages when there’s an opening, where Krauthammer and Cohen await her, I guess we really don’t have to ask since we already know the answer

          Query: I wonder how many papers pick up and run the AP’s Matt Lee’s articles on the White House and State Dept. press conferences? I have a hunch it’s not many. Why? See above.

    • Shingo
      November 8, 2011, 3:35 pm

      I’m not sure why you omitted this unequivocal statement of opinion by Goldberg.

      Witty’s obviously never read Macbeth.

      • Richard Witty
        November 8, 2011, 4:10 pm

        Shingo,
        Didn’t you for months and months declare that Iran had no nuclear weapons intent or program?

        The AIEA report isn’t public yet, but the leaks indicate that that is nearly certainly a false assertion.

        If so, then the appropriate question is what is the best approach?

        Does it change the world if Iran has a nuke, versus only tens of thousands of missiles?

        For the better or for the worse?

        For whom?

        Its too easy to focus on Israel only, read lazy. In some ways this period strikes me as 1956, in which the primary beneficiaries of an Israeli attack would be other parties, in this case Saudi Arabia and gulf states.

        • Shingo
          November 8, 2011, 5:43 pm

          Didn’t you for months and months declare that Iran had no nuclear weapons intent or program?

          Yes, and I maintain that position. This IAEA report is based on BS. pure and simple. The 12 page appendix has been gathering dust at the IAEA becasue until now, no one at the IAEA believed there was any legitimacy to these accusations.

          Nothing has changed except for the fact that IAEA has buckled to political pressure to release this garbage.

          It’s already been revealed that the Russian scientists named in the report has no expertise in nukes, but nano technology.

          The IAEA claimed a building in Syria was a nuclear reactor, until last week it was revealed last week to be a textile factory, so only a fool would accept the claims about the steel container at face value.

          The AIEA report isn’t public yet, but the leaks indicate that that is nearly certainly a false assertion.

          On the contrary. The plague of leaks, which is clearly coming from those on the inside (ie. Washington) suggests that the report will fall short of expectations and that this is a desperate attempt to muddy the waters.

          Does it change the world if Iran has a nuke, versus only tens of thousands of missiles?

          Stop acting like such an idiot for once in your life Witty. Everyone knows that nukes are a strategic game changer.

          Its too easy to focus on Israel only, read lazy.

          And it’s all to easy for you to demonstrate time and time against what a pathetic liar and Israeli propagandist you are.

  17. seanmcbride
    November 8, 2011, 1:50 pm

    Jeffrey Goldberg continues to wriggle around the matter of his views on an American attack on Iran:

    “Would An American Attack on Iran Be a Good Thing?”
    link to theatlantic.com

    My impression is that he is being cute and pretending to be a rational moderate on the subject of an American attack on Iran, while assuming that the end game will in fact require an all-out war against Iran.

    Nowhere in this current post does he mention the most pressing question from the American standpoint: would an American attack on Iran result in the collapse of the American economy and enormous misery for most Americans? (That is a likely outcome.) It couldn’t be more obvious that Goldberg doesn’t care: Holocaust politics trumps all other concerns for him.

    An option he doesn’t mention: remove *all* nuclear weapons from the Mideast. That region of the world is too heavily infused with primitive ethnic and religious fanaticism to entrust any player with WMDs.

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      November 8, 2011, 4:27 pm

      Another candidate for frog-marching into the Potomac. Not to drown, him heaven’s no! Just threaten him, maybe,with some outdoor waterboarding. until he ‘fesses up. The only wetting he’d experience would be in his underwear, front and back.

  18. seanmcbride
    November 8, 2011, 1:58 pm

    Add another name to the list of Iran War ringleaders: Evan Bayh.

    “Top US Democrat calls for bombing Iran” by Max Blumenthal
    link to english.al-akhbar.com

    BEGIN QUOTE

    Until this week, the most politically prominent advocates for mounting a reckless attack on Iran had been leading Republican presidential candidates appealing to their rapture ready Christian Zionist base of support. But this Sunday, a major figure from the Democratic Party, former Senator Evan Bayh, suggested that Iran was a ‘suicidal theocracy’ that needed to be bombed before it was too late.

    According to Barack Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe, Bayh was a “coin toss” away from the Vice Presidential nomination. Bayh was a member of the neoconservative Committee for the Liberation of Iraq that hyped up the case for invading Iraq. How much his involvement with the pressure group weighed on the Obama campaign’s decision remains unknown. But now Bayh is at it again, speaking from the center of the Democratic establishment for another disastrous war of aggression. His behavior raises the question: which country is the suicidal one?

    END QUOTE

    • seanmcbride
      November 8, 2011, 2:00 pm

      Is there a shred of evidence to support the charge that Iran is a “suicidal theocracy”? That it is interested in self-immolation?

  19. pabelmont
    November 8, 2011, 2:04 pm

    Phil — on the problem of identifying and searching for comments by name of commenter — ask the programmer to see if the comments (e.g., by “AM_American”) are in fact tagged accurately with the name (or whether the “_” somehow gets in the way of accurate tagging. Next, ask the programmer to see if the Search Function errs when the search key has an “_”. For example, it might be necessary to spell one or both items with “\_” [backslash-underscore] or the like.

  20. piotr
    November 8, 2011, 2:26 pm

    Indeed, current Israeli leadership lurches from one danger du jour to another, never finishing what they started.

    Wasnt’ it like two years ago the Enemy No. 1 were traitorous NGOs that were accepting (or even soliciting) money from hostile governments like Switzerland and Norway and making damn good living by delegitimizing Israel. Some MKs observed that certain traitors even have cars. For some reason, the issue seems to fizzled. If not for some citizen initiatives, there would almost no action on that front.

    Hamas was also Enemy no. 1, but it was vehemently disputed: is Hamas an arch-enemy, or Abbas who is more insidious?

    Iran brought some conceptual clarity. Enemy is evil, and the evil has its first origin, Iran. Vile emanations from the mullahs spread and infect various agencies, including Hamas and Hezbollah, and Syria — and PA? Anti-Zionist blogs are objectively (and actively, if you observe today’ discussion) following the directives of the mullas.

    So there is a genuine confusion: strike at the head — Iranian mullahs is tempting but not easy. So perhaps a mix: indict some NGO-like leftists for incitement, kill some in Gaza and de-fund PA. But then there is Turkey, Unesco,

  21. seanmcbride
    November 8, 2011, 2:45 pm

    It is a useful mental exercise to recall that for most of its history the United States of America was not disastrously bogged down in fighting endless political and military conflicts with much of the world on behalf of a small foreign nation in the grip of a messianic ethno-religious nationalist ideology that is radically in conflict with fundamental American values and interests. Those were the days — will we ever see them again?

    • Jeffrey Blankfort
      November 8, 2011, 4:37 pm

      The reason we are bogged down in fighting endless wars can be attributed not only to the enthrallment of our elected officials to that small, foreign nation, but to the absence of a military draft.

      Had it not been ended by Nixon and then wisely mothballed by every succeeding administration, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been over long ago because a vibrant antiwar movement, not the current pale imitation controlled by some ideologically encapsulated geezers from the 60s, would have been creating more havoc than what we saw during the Vietnam war days, not just with protests, but with hi-tech attacks on the war machine, Anonymous style.

      As it is, today’s youth, unless they have friends or family “over there,” pay no attention to it. Hopefully, the “Occupy” movement will take on US wars as well as our subservience to “that shitty little state.”

  22. eljay
    November 8, 2011, 7:54 pm

    >> The morality of a strike, which could cause substantial Iranian casualties, would be questioned even by those sympathetic to Israel’s dilemma.

    As it rightly should be.

    >> Israel will have succeeded in casting Iran as a victim and itself as something of a rogue nation.

    Israel has already cast itself as “something of a rogue nation”.

  23. chauncey
    November 9, 2011, 12:04 am

    Is Goldberg’s writing skewed in one direction?

    Here’s what he said about Rachel Corrie’s murder by bulldozer:

    “She came too close to one and she was plowed under” (pp. 300-1).

Leave a Reply