Maureen Dowd accuses the neocons of fomenting war — and is promptly tarred as an anti-Semite

Israel/Palestine
on 93 Comments

In the last day or two we have seen one of the most remarkable policings of the discourse that I’ve ever seen; and it seems to be one man’s achievement, Jeffrey Goldberg, in asserting that the longtime New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd was anti-Semitic in writing that the Romney braintrust includes the same guys who started the Iraq war. It is remarkable because so many people inside the Beltway have heeded Goldberg; even Joe Klein in defending Dowd says that she was crude – this from a man who wrote openly of Jewish neoconservatives, which Dowd didn’t do – and so the line has held: the idea that we are allowed to debate the Jewish neoconservatives’ role in the Iraq war for the sake of Israel, well that is an anti-Semitic idea. As Goldberg says, it is the idea that the gentiles didn’t start that war, but were manipulated into it by the likes of Wolfowitz and Feith.

There has been good pushback against the Goldberg policing by MJ Rosenberg at Huffpo and Andrew Sullivan at his site. Sullivan has a photo of Dowd doctored to look like Hitler and welcomes her into the anti-Semite club. Both writers say that Dowd was right to call out the neocons for pushing the Iraq war. But in polite discourse, Goldberg has a large following. Max Fisher who is starting a new website at the Washington Post tweeted approvingly of Goldberg’s accusation– between his tweets with Goldberg discussing their favorite Jewish foods—and of course Commentary was on the case. Even New York Magazine passed along the accusation as if it might have some basis: “she peddles Jewish stereotypes and uses anti-Semitic imagery, according to a number of writers, editors, and observers.” This reminds me of the time Wolfowitz was able to deflect a question about neoconservatives at the American Enterprise Institute by joking, Don’t you mean Jewish? I am now waiting for Spencer Ackerman to trace the history of snake and puppet metaphors in the literature of Jew hatred..

I don’t think Maureen Dowd will be going back there for a while.

Goldberg’s most absurd claim is there was a “major” discussion of this issue after the Iraq war. This is not true. Walt and Mearsheimer said what Dowd is saying, and said more explicitly that the Iraq war was the Israel lobby’s work, but the discussion took place at the fringes. Goldberg saw to that. He condemned the view as anti-semitic then, and was joined by Marty Peretz, Daniel Goldhagen and Columbia University Journalism Dean Nick Lemann.  

It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. Goldberg’s dismissal of Dowd because she uses metaphors like snake and puppetmaster only forces the belief that she is right back underground, sure to pop up again before long– as it did lately when Chris Matthews asserted that the neocons “pushed” a mindless president into an “idiotic” war.

Goldberg has his reasons to keep the conversation underground. He vigorously supported the Iraq war, on the basis of reports that turned out to be bogus, and before that he moved to Israel because he thought the Diaspora was unsafe for Jews. He has a keen sense of anti-Semitism lurking at every corner. This is an important part of the conversation. Joe Klein points out in defending Dowd that anti-Semitism is not a factor in American society, at all. “If what Dowd wrote constitutes anti-Semitism, then the term has no meaning,” Ilene Cohen writes. And Tony Judt made similar points when he pushed for one democratic state in Israel and Palestine– because Jews don’t need a national refuge (on ethnically-cleansed land that has seen unending conflict).

I think it would be great if we had Goldberg’s “major’ discussion. The simple question: Is Dowd right when she says this about Romney’s neocon braintrust?

A moral, muscular foreign policy; a disdain for weakness and diplomacy; a duty to invade and bomb Israel’s neighbors; a divine right to pre-emption — it’s all ominously familiar.

You can draw a direct line from the hyperpower manifesto of the Project for the New American Century, which the neocons, abetted by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, used to prod an insecure and uninformed president into invading Iraq — a wildly misguided attempt to intimidate Arabs through the shock of overwhelming force. How’s that going for us?

My answers: the neocons did push the Iraq war out of concern for Israel’s security, they were an important factor in our going to war, and the neocons came out of the Jewish conservative community. Let me go over these points, last one first.

As Alan Dershowitz has said, “the recent neo-conservative movement in America has also been dominated by Jews.” To be clear: conservative Jews, like Irving Kristol who said in helping to found the neoconservatives in 1973, “Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States.” Norman Podhoretz said that Democratic doves were a “direct threat” to Israel’s security. So these neocon fathers led the movement out of a concern for purported Jewish interests. Jacob Heilbrunn in his book on neocons says the movement arose in part out of Jewish intellectuals’ resentment over their exclusion from places in the Establishment.

The next question is whether the neocons pushed the Iraq war out of concern for Israel, and here again the answer is clear, Yes. All their books on the subject, Frum, Feith, Perle, Berman, Kristol, Kaplan are inflected with the Israel issue, chiefly mentioning the fact that Saddam supported suicide bombers in Israel as a reason to take him out. Kenneth Pollack said we will be greeted with liberators and the Iraq war will thereby separate the Israel-Palestine issue from the American presence in mind of the Arab world. How are we doing with that one! Frum and Perle said, “Victory or Holocaust.” Perle, Wurmser and Feith before working for Bush had worked for Netanyahu on a related project, destroying the two state solution with the famous Clean Break paper. No doubt, these are guys who care about Israel. Joe Klein once accused these Jewish neocons of having “divided loyalties.”

The best line in Maureen Dowd’s piece is when she says that the Project for a New American Century’s manifestos prodded an uninformed Bush to invade Iraq. These manifestos must never be forgotten. They include statements like Israel’s fight is our fight. So we must do to Iraq after 9/11 what Israel did to the West Bank after the second intifadah. The thinking was echoed by Tom Friedman in his famous statement that it was necessary for the U.S. to go into the Arab world and smash something in order to convince them not to bomb themselves and blow up civilians. He was a big supporter of the Iraq war.

Did they have an effect on the war plans of Cheney and Bush? The million dollar question. I say yes. I ask readers to remember how scared we all were after 911. “If we are to think seriously about the world, and act effectively in it, some sort of simplified map of reality, some theory, concept, model paradigm is necessary. Without such intellectual construct, there is, as William James said, only a ‘bloomin’ buzzin’ confusion,’” Samuel Huntington writes in The Clash of Civilizations—which is itself such a paradigm. Huntington is right; policy requires theory; and the neocons had a very persuasive theory of Why they hate us: The Arabs had been left behind by history and were jealous of our freedom. We only had to replace their authoritarian governments with democracies to liberate that world; and the Arabs would love us. Bill Clinton said it best in his speech accepting the Democratic nomination in 92. Without vision, the people are lost. And sometimes they are lost with visions too.

Ken Pollack bought the vision, and Bernard Lewis brought it to Cheney. Tom Friedman:

It’s the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It’s the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. 

Goldberg’s claim that a bunch of powerful non-Jews in the White House started the war is inarguable. Of course Bush and Cheney started the war. No one has ever questioned that. But he is diminishing the power of mental laborers, the men and women, many of them Jewish, who did the hard labor of explaining the new world and pointing the finger at Iraq (which did not attack us; but had attacked Israel). I understand why he would seek to diminish the idea that the pen is mightier than the sword. Because he wielded one of those pens and does not want any serious accounting. So he throws mud, and muddies the waters.

93 Responses

  1. gazacalling
    September 18, 2012, 12:48 pm

    Powerful post, thanks. The Iraq War was a terrible, terrible thing on so many levels, and at the moment one candidate for President seems to have learned absolutely nothing from it. (Or maybe two: Obama’s term seemed pretty much like a 3rd Bush term to me in terms of foreign policy actions.)

    Typo in paragraph 2 you may want to correct: “…Dowd was right…”

  2. radii
    September 18, 2012, 12:51 pm

    “the gentiles didn’t start that war, but were manipulated into it by the likes of Wolfowitz and Feith”

    this is not settled history?

    As Alan Dershowitz has said, “the recent neo-conservative movement in America has also been dominated by Jews”

    Thank you, Alan, I was worried there for a second

  3. radii
    September 18, 2012, 12:55 pm

    ” I ask readers to remember how scared we all were after 911″

    Bibi Netanyahu wasn’t – he was live on US television as the WTC towers smoldered in heaps behind him on the monitors saying, almost gleefully, that the attacks were, “very good for israel”

    • Ellen
      September 18, 2012, 3:37 pm

      Bibi was on national TV speaking to Americans before Bush or even Cheney on that day. I remember it well and was wondering why? It was bizzare. He wasn’t even the Israeli PM then

    • wes
      September 18, 2012, 5:09 pm

      come come dear radii sh

      only the facts please on mondo w.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 18, 2012, 5:49 pm

        fact according to NYT

      • MRW
        September 18, 2012, 6:39 pm

        It was worse than that, wes. Barak was on BBC waiting in the Green Room while the towers fell to go on television in London to blame bin Laden. Watch it yourself here. A satellite feed gives you the GMT time.

        Later that night, Richard Perle and Ehud Barak had one entire hour to claim bin Laden did it, and no one challenged them.

  4. Kathleen
    September 18, 2012, 12:59 pm

    Great post. Wolfowitz was selling the idea of the invasion of Iraq with Cheney during the earliest Bush cabinet meetings in 2001. Wolfowitz, Cheney, Feith were on the front lines of pushing that horrific invasion.

    There were plenty of folks talking about the make up of that war crowd before the invasion. Jason Vest of the Nation (fall 2002 and a few others were writing about it. Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter was out on the front lines trying to stop them and inform the public as well as other former CIA middle east analyst. Plenty of talk at the protest, fringes etc. P

  5. Bill in Maryland
    September 18, 2012, 1:23 pm

    Thanks Phil -great post. It’s quite sick that we can openly discuss the influence of Cuban-American politics on US foreign policy vis-a-vis Cuba, but must keep the discussion of Jewish-American influence on US foreign policy in the closet, even after 9/11, even after the disastrous attack on Iraq, and even as the drums are beating for us to go to war with Iran.

  6. MHughes976
    September 18, 2012, 1:27 pm

    Dowd was evidently reacting to Wolfowitz’ snake imagery used against Obama’s alleged ‘slithering’. It doesn’t seem fair to say that W is allowed to say such things about his opponents but that to turn the same words back against W and his friends is not allowed because anti-Semites once used them.
    Dowd’s portrayal of the Republican leaders as naive or ‘jejune’ (?) about the world and as prey to manipulation by people behind the scenes does seem a bit odd to me. They are saying what they believe – no one has to manipulate them into accepting the ideology that is prevalent in the circles where they move.

    • Annie Robbins
      September 18, 2012, 1:46 pm

      MHughes, re slither, that was my reaction exactly. in fact i made the same point here yesterday

      link to mondoweiss.net

      so where was goldberg when wolfie applied the term? here’s dowd: “Paul Wolfowitz, an Iraq war architect, weighed in on Fox News, slimily asserting that President Obama should not be allowed to “slither through” without a clear position on Libya. “

      oh right, it’s an old anti semitic trope therefore it’s ok to apply the term to anyone else i suppose. maybe they should just publish a list of insults that are acceptable critiques except when applied to you know who because of ‘history’.

      • Abierno
        September 18, 2012, 2:48 pm

        Actually, the most repulsive use of the snake trope is by Stand With Us,
        which I believe to be an Israeli organization, in issue # 2 of Captain Israel, which is Capt Israel versus BDS. It goes far beyond the implications of “slither.” Has anyone seen issue #3, which Captain Israel versus the UN?

      • MHughes976
        September 18, 2012, 3:11 pm

        I somehow missed your remark about snakes, annie! I don’t see how anyone could carry on a controversial discussion without using any words, ideas or metaphors used previously by thoroughly evil people. The thoroughly evil people don’t get to own whole chunks of language so that everyone who uses them later is borrowing their evil thoughts.

      • tear-stained uzi
        September 18, 2012, 4:54 pm

        Funny how a Jew can use the snake metaphor for our black president and it’s no big deal. I guess “The Comb Slobberer” Wolfowitz knew he couldn’t get away with an ape reference.

      • MRW
        September 18, 2012, 7:09 pm

        Agreeing not to say, and heightening, these terms out of an arch sensitivity not to offend is the girder surrounding self-censorship. I don’t accept the restriction, and neither should anyone on this board.

        The first people to smash the ramparts always make a noise and a mess.

        Wolfowitz’s offenses go beyond words. He helped caused the death and wounding of over 60,000 American soldiers, the death of a million innocent citizens, and put into refugee status over 4,000,000 innocent people.

        Wolfowitz lied to the American people about the reason for the war (he said he chose WMD, in Vanity Fair). He deserves the opprobrium and disdain reserved for Robert McNamara, who lied on purpose to get us into the Vietnam War. But these two aren’t unique in our history. However, snake and slithery doesn’t begin to describe these cretins, and no amount of an appeal to some religious, ethnic, military, or political pass justifies what they did.

        The same goes for the neocons. They should have thought of the consequences of their actions before they began. They, and they alone, are responsible for what they did, their faulty thinking, and the consequence of exercising their inferior IQs. [And I hold the current Congress in the same contempt for failing to fix the economy, because they are so uneducated, ignorant, and incurious that they haven't bothered to figure out how it really works.]

      • Kathleen
        September 18, 2012, 5:13 pm

        Exactly…flipping the script.

        Wolfowitz was pushing the invasion of Iraq before 43’s administration. I believe what many have written that the plan to invade Iraq was in the works (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton) for years. They were clearly just looking for the way in. 9/11 provided that way in. They should all be put on trial at the Hague.

        Dowd just told the truth and now they are doing their best to flip the script away from the issue she is pointing at.

  7. seanmcbride
    September 18, 2012, 1:27 pm

    Israel, in collaboration with neoconservatives (many of them Jewish), in a variation of the Samson Option, may be *coercing* the United States and Europe into a war with Iran as we speak:

    “US And Britain Send Warships To The Persian Gulf To Prepare For An Israel Strike On Iran”

    link to businessinsider.com

    An armada of U.S. and British naval power is amassing in the Persian Gulf in the belief that Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s covert nuclear weapons program.

    Warships, aircraft carriers, minesweepers and submarines from 25 nations are converging on the strategically important Strait of Hormuz in an unprecedented show of force as Israel and Iran move towards the brink of war.

    Western leaders are convinced that Iran will retaliate to any attack by attempting to mine or blockade the shipping lane through which around 18 million barrels of oil passes every day; approximately 35 per cent of the world’s petroleum traded by sea.

    A blockade would have a catastrophic effect on the fragile economies of Britain, Europe, the United States and Japan, all of which rely heavily on oil and gas supplies from the Gulf.

    The entire West is now dancing to Israel’s crazy tune.

    Israel could easily trigger World War III (or World War IV, in neocon parlance.)

    • Krauss
      September 18, 2012, 2:45 pm

      Sean, you should be smarter than to fall for obvious psychological warfare intended for the Iranians.

      You’re a clearly knowledgeable man but sometimes you just shut your brain off in ways that can’t quite be explained. Like the time you started to spam about how intelligent and wonderful that settler guy was that Phil interviewed.

      Again: this exercise has been planned for a long time, and it has actually been postponed.

      Remember a few weeks ago when Obama cut down the amount of American soldiers participating in the exercise and the Israelis freaked out? That was this exercise.

      It’s pretty stunning how some people are so easy to fool.

      • seanmcbride
        September 18, 2012, 8:16 pm

        Krauss,

        You are getting a little sloppy here.

        You’re a clearly knowledgeable man but sometimes you just shut your brain off in ways that can’t quite be explained. Like the time you started to spam about how intelligent and wonderful that settler guy was that Phil interviewed.

        You are referring to Marc Zell, who is much more than a “settler guy,” and my views on him were more nuanced than that. He is bright, well-educated and rational, and I think it is important to make efforts to try to budge neocons like Zell off their current positions and more towards our positions by appealing to their rationality and sense of realism. There has already been some movement in that direction among some former neocons (like Peter Beinart, Andrew Sullivan and even David Frum). *That* was my point, which you clearly didn’t get.

        Again: this exercise has been planned for a long time, and it has actually been postponed.

        Did you actually read the article carefully? It appeared in the Telegraph on September 15, just a few days ago. There are more than 2,000 comments on the article — none of the comments I scanned contradicted the facts as stated in the article. And it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the United States and Europe are gravely concerned that Netanyahu might try to launch a war against Iran in the coming weeks that would bring chaos to the region. Netanyahu, according to many of his own colleagues, appears to be increasingly off his rocker.

        It’s pretty stunning how some people are so easy to fool.

        Yes, it is. Often their problem is that they don’t take the trouble to read and think carefully before opinionating. They skim and shoot.

        By the way, that was an impressive analysis of Dick Cheney’s relations to the neocons you just posted — I agree entirely, and have thought this for a long time. He saw which way the wind was blowing.

    • MHughes976
      September 18, 2012, 3:20 pm

      The Business Insider/Sunday Telegraph article by Sean Rayment is quite disturbing, I agree, but Rayment does interpret the American and British motive as attempting to avert an Israel-Iran war and to make it difficult (I think that’s what he means) for Netanyahu to claim that forthcoming Iranian naval exercises show that Iran is now terribly dangerous – after all their navy is nothing much compared to ours, manouevring with such imperial magnificence on Iran’s doorstep.

    • lysias
      September 18, 2012, 3:59 pm

      Liberal Democrat Minister of State for the Armed Forces Nick Harvey just lost that job, allegedly because Clegg feared Harvey’s opposition to war with Iran might split the governing coalition in the UK: UK minister axed over opposition to possible strike on Iran.

      • seanmcbride
        September 19, 2012, 12:11 am

        lysias,

        I knew about the Harvey firing, which made me wonder if there might something to the Sean Rayment article. Lots of games being played here, with much uncertainty and anxiety on all sides. The US and Britain seem to be preparing for the possibility of a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran, which could set in motion a real nightmare.

  8. Rusty Pipes
    September 18, 2012, 1:42 pm

    Rely on Reserve Corporal Goldberg to be ready to serve, especially in fields where the pen is mightier than the sword (and especially where his prior service in fomenting support for the Iraq war might come under fire).

  9. yourstruly
    September 18, 2012, 1:43 pm

    “without vision the people are lost?”

    so the charlatons fill the void & inform the people what said vision is to be?

    and here we are, racing towards the abyss

    which raises the question what would a genuinely popular vision be?

    how would it be formulated, submitted to the public, brought to life?

    sustained

  10. atime forpeace
    September 18, 2012, 1:45 pm

    This is one of the best pieces i have read explaining the ziocons role in getting the u.s to send their sons and daughters to die in the desserts for israel.

    Phil, when will the neocons finally set their gaze upon you?

    what will it take? I think some more of this name the names type of writing will make you persona non grata among the tribe.

    • Annie Robbins
      September 18, 2012, 1:53 pm

      oh, they definitely know phil is there alrighty. they like to pretend he’s beneath them, he can’t be in their precious ‘real jew’ club..when really they are completely afraid of him. so they counter that by avoiding him (publicly) like the plague, any mention of him. but they definitely read him.

      reut did a big ‘in the tent’ thing. if you’re not in the tent tsk tsk. phil’s not in the tent, he’s here making history.

      • atime forpeace
        September 18, 2012, 2:37 pm

        Good one Annie, Phil writes mostly to us that have already been baptized, as long as he doesn’t make a big splash he gets to stay in his own pool.

        I am a big fan of Mondoweiss, i think he understands better than most that the real danger posed by the neocons in jewish life is that they have the potential to cause anti-semitsm, they are riding the tiger and can neither stay on once the tigers starts to spinning nor, jump of for fear of being eaten alive by the beast they sought to dominate.

        When you strike a nerve you will know it.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        September 19, 2012, 7:43 am

        “the real danger posed by the neocons in jewish life is that they have the potential to cause anti-semitsm” – atime forpeace
        —————————————————
        The real danger posed by Mondoweiss to the pro-Israel/Jewish lobby is:

        1. Phil makes anti-Zionism politically, morally and socially acceptable.
        2. That may result in making anti-Semitism socially acceptable – that’s something dreaded especially by the lobby. – But that may happen.
        The Israel lobby is working at it by equating the “Jewish state” with Judaism.

        ———————–
        Here is a little anecdote when I made this happen.

        Several years ago, there was a lecture by an American Jew on “The Internet and the Talmud” at the Jewish Museum in Frankfurt. There was an audience of some 70 people, mostly Jews. At the Q & A part I got up and attacked the speaker and Israel’s policy of settlements and her whole concept of ‘right of return’, calling it a “blood and earth ideology”.
        When I said this a man got up furiously and left the room. Then I pretty blond Jewish lady turned to me and lectured me on Israel and said my statements were “anti-Semitic.” I listened patiently and didn’t reply.

        When the thing was over most people gathered downstairs with wine and prezel. So did I. The guy who had left the room and a couple of Russian Jews came up to me and we argued for a while on Jewishness but quite amicably.

        A report in the paper on the event a couple of days later quoted the head of the Frankfurt Jewish community saying that “anti-Semitism has become again socially acceptable in Germany”. (The German term is “salonfähig” = appropriate to be discussed in a salon.)

      • Mooser
        September 18, 2012, 2:53 pm

        Annie, they know (may my tongue rot, and give me even worse halitosis) Phil isn’t bulletproof, and they’ll deal with him when the time comes. A black-jack trumps a blog, any day.
        Of course, he can always count on tribal loyalty for immunity.

        My, what a nasty feeling of self-disgust I experience when I think this way. Very unpleasant. I better go back to counting on tribal loyalty.

      • Citizen
        September 19, 2012, 11:45 am

        @ Mooser
        Can’t you count on tribal loyalty to the same extent that Phil can? Or don’t you have the socio-economic class credentials? If you do, why worry?

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2012, 12:34 pm

        “Can’t you count on tribal loyalty to the same extent that Phil can?

        Absolutely not. I’d like to say I wouldn’t even if I could, but realistically I’ll never know. Can’t live two parallel lives, you know, just one. But absolutely not. And having seen what they’re capable of, I really don’t want to risk finding out.

        “Or don’t you have the socio-economic class credentials?”

        “For God’s sake. Bloom, look at me! (snap) I’m so poor I’m wearing a cardboard belt!! ” No Citizen, I most certainly don’t, not even close.

        Gotta go have my teeth (well, my tooth, anyway) beaten up, I’ll be back when the artacaine wears off the and the oxycodone kicks in. So if I slur my typing, you’ll understand.

      • Philip Weiss
        September 19, 2012, 1:18 pm

        I dont know Mooser. Dont you figure I’d hide you when the million pound sh-t hammer comes down? And well then you’d be in the Underground Tribal Railroad, like it or not?

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2012, 3:28 pm

        “Dont you figure I’d hide you when the million pound sh-t hammer comes down?”

        No, absolutely not. You’d snitch me out to ISTAR in a second. And probably not even know you did it.
        As long as you hold the idea that Zionism can be affected in any other way than by being conquered, and sown with salt, you are dangerous, and will end up running interference for them, or worse. And as long as you consider Zionism, and everything associated with it, as anything less than a mortal enemy which intends to take your life, there’s no way I’ll trust you.
        And you will always be vulnerable (like my lawn, come to think of it) to moles.

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2012, 3:43 pm

        I have concluded Zionism means that Jews cannot, and should not, trust each other any more, even in the casual social and cultural ways which used to be so automatic.

      • Rusty Pipes
        September 20, 2012, 1:52 pm

        As for tribal loyalty, as soon as some zealots removed one letter from your name, Mooser, you’d be a marked man (rather than an ungulate). I do hope you continue to hang around here. I’m looking forward to hearing more about how you envision reclaiming Judaism for the diaspora.

      • Kathleen
        September 18, 2012, 5:18 pm

        He joined the human rights tent and expanded it. And guess what Goldberg, Feith, Cheney and Wolfowitz are clearly not in the human rights tent.

      • flyod
        September 18, 2012, 6:20 pm

        well phil doesn’t rank a playing card yet but he makes the 7,000+ s–t list;
        link to masada2000.org

        keep up the good work

      • Annie Robbins
        September 19, 2012, 12:32 am

        he makes the 7,000+ s–t list

        it’s alphabetical floyd. wadja expect.

      • Kathleen
        September 19, 2012, 10:07 am

        went to their website years ago,,,full of hate

    • Philip Munger
      September 19, 2012, 3:37 am

      I disagree.

      I’ve been watching Mr. Weiss’ odyssey since 2005. He has shown marked courage, and has written about threats, his responses, actions against him, and what he learned from those events in his growth as a journalist, writer and commentator. Nobody has been able to take him down, even if he has been taken down a notch for his honesty when he has had to endure scenarios in which Zionists could do that to him.

      This is an excellent article on the pushback against the accusations being flung at Dowd. And the comments to it add to its importance.

      I’m glad to see tie-ins between Securing the Realm, PNAC and the Iraq invasion. And the well chosen comments made over the years by mostly Jewish neocons who reinforce what it was that Dowd wrote this past weekend.

      Others have done this.

      I tied together Securing the Realm, PNAC Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans and other elements that brought us into Iraq at Israel’s behest in a speech and in articles almost nine years ago. There was and is pushback, but I’m still here.

      So will be Phil. And the rest of the brave crew here.

      Tomorrow, next week, next month and next year.

      And, watching Mondoweiss evolve since its inception, I can say next year with more influence than ever.

      • Kathleen
        September 19, 2012, 9:54 am

        Many individuals tied Securing the Realm, PNAC, Office of Special Plans invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, etc together over a decade ago. The Nations Jason Vest, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, Colonel Ann Wright, former CIA analyst Kathleen and Bill Christison, former IAEA weapons inspector Scott Ritter, Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski, IAEA’s El Baradei, Justin Raimando etc etc. These individuals led the way. Many of us followed their leads and their fact based stances.

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2012, 12:41 pm

        “So will be Phil. And the rest of the brave crew here.”

        As for me, Sir Mooser, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking, and I intend to run bravely away. They’d knock me on the head and throw me to the side of the road without a second thought.

        Not my job to help the Ziopnists out, or run interference for them, or give anybody even the faintest hope that Zionism will respond to anything but the most stringent and extreme measures.

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2012, 4:28 pm

        Yup, just call me Cato the Iller. From now on it’s strictly Zionism dalenda est, baby!

  11. Krauss
    September 18, 2012, 1:47 pm

    On Goldberg:

    Goldberg’s claim that a bunch of powerful non-Jews in the White House started the war is inarguable. Of course Bush and Cheney started the war. No one has ever questioned that. But he is diminishing the power of mental laborers, the men and women, many of them Jewish, who did the hard labor of explaining the new world and pointing the finger at Iraq (which did not attack us; but had attacked Israel). I understand why he would seek to diminish the idea that the pen is mightier than the sword. Because he wielded one of those pens and does not want any serious accounting. So he throws mud, and muddies the waters.

    I see Goldberg’s role, more and more, as a man who is primarily concerned with policing journalists in the media. That’s essentially his role.

    The only thing he ever writes about is Israel/Jews. That’s basically the thrust of his life. And he does it from a soft Likudnik perspective. He doens’t take those positions, but he opposes everyone who refuses to.

    It’s a smart technique. You never get caught with statements, but you act against anyone who distances themselves from the neocons or points the obvious things out.

    Also, Heilebrunn:

    Jacob Heilbrunn in his book on neocons says the movement arose in part out of Jewish intellectuals’ resentment over their exclusion from places in the Establishment.

    I don’t quite buy it. It’s a desperate attempt to explain aggression by means of victimization.
    It’s the same ‘ol “the WASPs made us do it”.

    It’s the escape hatchet of a coward to go that route. No, the neocons and those who abetted them did it on their own. Take ownership of it.

    Neocons and Cheney/Rumsfeld:

    Did they have an effect on the war plans of Cheney and Bush? The million dollar question. I say yes.

    I say yes too.

    The key fact here is that Cheney opposed going all the way to Iraq in the 1990 Kuwait war, while the neocons (Wolfowitz, Perle, and the rest) pushed for it even back then.

    Cheney is a political survivor. In this sense I don’t view him as a weak-willed guy who was influenced by the ideas of a bunch of Jewish neocons.

    He was clearly a realist up until the 1990s. But he was never stupid. He understood that the Elder Bush was the last WASP as we know it to be in office. Everyone else was going to be under the thumb of the neocons since they have the donors, the conservative media etc. He knew of the National Review purges under way back then. Everyone critical of Israel was being purged in droves.

    What went on in the media was going to come into politics too.

    So by the 1990s, he understood that there was no other way than to align himself with these people. It was a smart career move from an eternal political survivor, but also a cynical move.

    Cheney’s been made out to be this masterful figure, but if you actually look at his history, he’s been a WASPish Rockefeller Republican throughout most of his career and taken relatively safe paths.

    He understood the takeover was complete by the end of the cold war and that the Republican party had undergone a complete transformation. Pat “Israel’s Amen Corner” Buchanan wasn’t going to be given a convention slot, ever, again.

    In this sense I don’t view Rumsfeld or Cheney as naive people being filled with kooky ideas beneficial to Israel. I view them as hardnosed political operatives who adjust to the new rules.

    They know the old WASP establishment had at that point been cleaned and the new elite had firmly purged the last remnants. Of course, the candidates would still be WASPs, but it would be right kind of WASPs. People like Romney.
    People who bend to their rules.

    So Cheney bent, and he signed the PNAC letter in 1997 and tied his political fortunes to a group he viewed as now in firm control of the party, and he was right.

    Once again, it comes down to the fact that Jews are, simply, very good at sticking together, organizing and the ethnic loyalty crosses parties. See the recent Goldberg/Max Fisher(of the Atlantatic) alliance with the neocons at the Weekly Standard, Commentary etc.

    You don’t have that kind of tribal loyalty between WASPs between the parties.
    Or, for that matter, even between hispanics or Asians I would argue.

    This is a taboo topic, which Goldberg is trying to police, but it’s a key fact if you want to understand what happened and why it happened.

    (P.S. I’ll admit that there is a part of me which is slightly uncomfortable with the last few sentences, it’s pure emotion and no fact, but it’s there nonetheless. Still, I think you can’t quite get away from understanding the neocons without the Jewish perspective and you can’t understand their success without the understanding of how Jewish networking at the top works. It’s easy to slip into a more, shall we say, suggestive thinking from there. And that keeps me slightly uncomfortable, but it’s no use trying to ignore the 800 pound gorilla here).

    • Krauss
      September 18, 2012, 2:38 pm

      A small addendum on Goldberg.

      He used to be an Israeli prison guard, watching over, correcting and scaring Palestinian prisoners in a closed-off system where nobody could be allowed to venture outside.

      Now, he watches over, corrects and scares American journalists in a closed-off system where nobody is allowed to venture outside and think for themselves.

      If you think about it, his self-chosen job hasn’t changed much.
      He enjoys policing and picking on people. That’s what he does best. He isn’t a very brave man. He’s an enforcer of a system against the rebels.
      Whoever and wherever those rebels can be found.

      He hates dissent.

    • ColinWright
      September 18, 2012, 3:15 pm

      I think Krauss’ analysis is convincing, but he misses one element which it is only fair to point out.

      If Cheney et al were so willing to accede to the neo-con paradigm, that’s largely because they found it congenial. The Neo-cons never would have gotten anywhere if the Cheneys had actually found their ideas objectionable. Indeed, I would say that part of the appeal of the neo-cons is that they offered a new, fresh rationalization for pursuing ends that were if not identical to the old ones, at least similar. The neo-cons may have been the gifted composers — but the Cheneys were their appreciative audience.

      And without someone to listen, the neo-cons could have said anything they liked. It wouldn’t have mattered.

      • Krauss
        September 18, 2012, 10:56 pm

        Colin wrote:

        If Cheney et al were so willing to accede to the neo-con paradigm, that’s largely because they found it congenial. The Neo-cons never would have gotten anywhere if the Cheneys had actually found their ideas objectionable.

        Sorry, I don’t buy it.
        Phil’s theme is that these people were influencing the ideas of the WASPs like Cheney and yours is basically that the WASPs were not as much influenced as they were receptive from the start to a certain set of ideas and the neocons just happened to fit that mold.

        Both are wrong.

        A lot of Rockefeller Republicans got purged not because of their social stances but because of their stances on foreign policy. Cheney and Rumsfeld saw this from the inside.

        The neocons were not a loose group of gadflies as you imply. They had a strategy to completely take over the Republican party.

        Colin if you seriously believe they work like a bunch of idealistic Athenian intellectuals then you’re really not up to date on how they operate.

        Neocons work by using smear campaigns, mostly the anti-Semitism charge. If they can avoid it, they will. Often they will diversifiy by arguing someone is a bigot of another kind(homophobe for instance) or just plain reactionary. (Of course, Commentary has published plenty of homophobic material throughout it’s existance, but that is a minor detail not to be worried about).

        The way it works is that these people make Stalinist purges. They don’t do persuasion. They make sure that people get the message: align with us or be destroyed. They didn’t make much noise during the cold war and the paleocons/Rockefeller Republicans have in interviews stated that both groups got on really well during this era.

        What happened right after the 90s, when the elder Bush was president, was a realization within AIPAC, and the lobby, that you can’t have a significant section of politicans and media people who are critical of Israel.

        The purge of the Rockefeller Republicans/paleocons during the 90s was abetted by liberal media secondary fire. It’s the same phenomenom you saw now with Maureen Dowd. This is how the lobby operates.

        If you delude yourself with thinking that Cheney didn’t see this all happening in slowmotion from within, and that he understood that if he didn’t change, his career in politics would be over, then my words are wasted on you.

        Neocons/the lobby don’t believe in democracy or open debate. That’s the whole point. They use smear campaigns and coordinated efforts to purge opponents, not debate them.

        And they are doing well because they are tightly integrated with the lobby. WASPs, and everyone else, tend to be much more atomized, which is why it works.
        (Added to the fact that much of the GOP donor base are right-wing neocons and that they also help people like Kristol essentially amass to himself and to people like him the major GOP media outlets).

        This isn’t a ‘war of ideas’. It’s about Stalinist purges.
        Get with the program or see your career destroyed and your persona smeared as an anti-Semite/bigot/you name it.

        This is how it works.

      • ColinWright
        September 19, 2012, 5:15 am

        Krauss says: “…This isn’t a ‘war of ideas’. It’s about Stalinist purges.
        Get with the program or see your career destroyed and your persona smeared as an anti-Semite/bigot/you name it…

        Well, happily I’m already retired so there’s no career to destroy — and as to anti-semitic smears/accusations of bigotry/you name it I seem to have retained sean, so no problem there either.

        However, and seriously, you describe the ‘neo-cons’ as a coordinated group rather than a descriptive label for a collection of individuals who happen to be like-minded.

        Do you have any evidence to support this view of them?

    • Scott
      September 18, 2012, 4:17 pm

      Krauss, the last sentences were well put and true, if not easy to footnote. Jews are less diverse than WASPs, who came from different regions and have mostly long since abandoned any tight sense of cohesive identity. Asians and Hispanics are groups only in the US context. Of course one can point to external reasons for Jewish cohesiveness, as well as internal ones. I think it very unlikely that a truthful discourse on this subject would spiral into into anti-Semitism in America, but what do I know. To make that so–to both have that discourse and keep it within its proper boundaries –is the great challenge to people who care about this counrty.

    • dbroncos
      September 19, 2012, 6:45 am

      Krauss,

      I like your analysis of how and why Cheney and Rumsfeld were sold on the war. More plausable than the idea that they were naive doops of a neocon sales campaign

      • Citizen
        September 20, 2012, 6:59 am

        @dbroncos
        Ditto here.

  12. Mndwss
    September 18, 2012, 2:28 pm

    One of the things that irritate me the most about the war mongers/military that destroyed Iraq is that now they often say: Iraq was a blunder.

    a blunder…

    (Viet-Nam was a blunder?, And Lybia?, and now the ongoing Syrian blunder….?)

    Israel should be called THE blunder!

    link to en.wiktionary.org

    “Noun

    blunder (plural blunders)
    A clumsy or embarrassing mistake.
    [edit]
    Synonyms
    (error): blooper, boo-boo, error, faux pas, fluff, flub, fumble, gaffe, goof, lapse, mistake, slip, stumble, thinko”

    Iraq was a blunder?

    It was a war crime.

    Not a blooper or a boo-boo or an error++++

    Arrghh…

  13. Mooser
    September 18, 2012, 2:42 pm

    Of course, we could kick this entire anti-Semitism argument right in the nuts. All we have to do is start a Non-Zionist Jewish denomination in America. A denomination which would declare the Zionism (and all it’s ramifications, like making Israel the subject of US protection) completely beyond the pale, in fact an enemy of the Jewish people, and shun any Jew, or anyone, for that matter, or any institution, including relatives, who subscribes to it. Of course, the whole enemies-of-America gets in there too, there will be calls for the arrest or expulsion of Zionists in high position from the pulpit of this new denomination at least once a month.
    It’ll really help degrade all the anti-Semitism accusations. The most scathing denunciations and expose’s could come right from the non-Zionist Jewish denomination’s own publications.
    And there’s nothing the Zionists could do, constrained as they are from hurting us by tribal loyalty.

    • RoHa
      September 18, 2012, 10:38 pm

      Up to you to start it.

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2012, 4:32 pm

        “Up to you to start it.”

        Nah, I’ve been defrocked. And it was my favorite, too, a svelte black number which was hemmed over the knees, but just under the cellulite-line.

      • piotr
        September 19, 2012, 10:40 pm

        Sounds like Satmars.

    • Citizen
      September 20, 2012, 7:02 am

      @ Mooser
      Didn’t Benjamin Freedman already try that? Read his 1961 speech.

  14. ColinWright
    September 18, 2012, 2:49 pm

    “It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. “

    I think it did work then, and I think it works now. I’d guess Dowd’s been straightened out. Got her mind right.

  15. American
    September 18, 2012, 3:01 pm

    “Goldberg’s claim that a bunch of powerful non-Jews in the White House started the war is inarguable. Of course Bush and Cheney started the war. No one has ever questioned that. ”

    Here’s how it actually works.
    The US has Neo chickenhawks that get off on US force, it’s their personal viagra substitute, any country will actually do as a target for their shock and awe masturbation sessions.
    The Zio Court Jews inhabiting the same halls of power whisper in their ears from many Zio think tanks and lead the Neo’s to champion attacking the countries that Zios think will benefit Israel.

    • Citizen
      September 20, 2012, 7:04 am

      @ American
      Yep. Gotta watch them or they will take you for a deer with their myopic eyes and shoot you by mistake.

  16. Mooser
    September 18, 2012, 3:03 pm

    We could give away free Totes in the Temple lobby!

  17. MRW
    September 18, 2012, 4:14 pm

    Bravo!

  18. Jerry Slater
    September 18, 2012, 4:56 pm

    Damned fine analysis, Phil.

  19. maz
    September 18, 2012, 5:11 pm

    Goldberg made up some tall tales about Iraq too didn’t he? When will the majority of Americans stop giving credibility to these unregistered agents of Israel?

    link to haaretz.com

    White man’s burden
    The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it’s possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical

    • Citizen
      September 20, 2012, 7:06 am

      @ maz
      Is that John Bolton’s major malfunction too, or does it have something to do with his mustache?

  20. MRW
    September 18, 2012, 5:15 pm

    What follows your Ari Shavit quote above from White man’s burden, first published in Haaretz on April 3, 2003:

    It’s the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It’s the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite.

    Is this:

    Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

    The subhead of the article identifies the 25.

    The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.

    What could be clearer? And it includes John Bolton, another of Romney’s current advisors.

    White man’s burden
    link to haaretz.com

    • Krauss
      September 18, 2012, 11:01 pm

      Friedman’s explanation is still faulty. It still assumes as if it was just a good salesjob. That’s not how it went down. To get to their position of influence, the neocons had to completely and systematically destroy any opposition, take over the conservative media outlets and get their donors to be dominant within GOP circles.

      By using Friedman’s explanation, you’d be forgiven to thinking this entire thing was a fluke. And it was never a fluke, of course. That’s why the neocons remain in tight control of the party. If Kristol doesn’t like a candidate he will send the media outlets on them(like he did on Gingrich).

      He, and his neocons friends and donors, are the kingmakers.
      And it’s not done by trying to ‘win friends and influence people’.
      It’s done by destroying all opponents, purge their ranks and take over the elite institutions.

      Friedman probably knows this, but it’s understandable that he chooses the more innocent version.

  21. MRW
    September 18, 2012, 5:21 pm

    General Clark identifies the neocons behind the Iraq War, and the countries we are destabilizing now, in this 2007 FORA.tv clip (for those newcomers who haven’t seen the reference to it in previous posts).
    Wes Clark – America’s Foreign Policy “Coup”

  22. ToivoS
    September 18, 2012, 5:21 pm

    This either/or debate on who caused the war in Iraq is just so much smoke and mirrors.

    It had many causes. What needs to be listed is what were necessary even if not sufficient. The lobby is number 1 on that list. I have oil as number 5.

    • Donald
      September 19, 2012, 12:03 am

      “This either/or debate on who caused the war in Iraq is just so much smoke and mirrors.

      It had many causes. What needs to be listed is what were necessary even if not sufficient. The lobby is number 1 on that list. I have oil as number 5.”

      I don’t know the exact numbering, but you might be right. And I completely agree with the rest.

      But I’m curious. What are numbers 2, 3, and 4? (And 6, etc.., if there are more.) Assuming you meant it literally.

      • ToivoS
        September 19, 2012, 3:19 am

        2. General post 911 hysteria and desire for revenge
        3. The ever present M.I.C. always seeking another war.
        4. Cheney and Rumsfeld and a clueless president
        5. Oil is always a factor in ME politics but in this case it might not have been a necessary condition.

      • ColinWright
        September 19, 2012, 5:34 am

        TiovoS says “2. General post 911 hysteria and desire for revenge”

        In regard to that factor, I think that somewhat counter-intuitively, the apparent ease of our success in Afghanistan may have made Iraq that much more necessary.

        Not because Iraq then became more attractive — more because we still hadn’t gotten the fight we were looking for. As you may recall, the actual overthrow of the Taliban was almost disconcertingly easy. For us, there was almost no actual fighting. Basically, our ground forces functioned as forward observers with ‘the Northern Alliance,’ directing our airstrikes — and the Taliban promptly broke up.

        …so we still hadn’t got what we were looking for. Hence Iraq.

        …and while most of us have lost our appetite by now, I think there remains this desire to tangibly fight someone and win — and this plays into what enthusiasm there is for Iran.

        ‘Pearl Harbor’ happened, and we wanted World War Two. We never got it — although we kept trying to convince ourselves it would happen. Hence ‘the Clash of Civilizations’ and all this nonsense about a Islamic boogeyman — a ‘global caliphate’ for Chris’ sake. We needed a great enemy. A few hundred extremists with a few thousand backers just weren’t going to cut it.

        I remember how insistent people were that Osama bin Laden had to be just the tip of the iceberg — that this couldn’t just be a Muslim Branch Davidian that had gotten lucky. There just had to be more. We needed an Empire of Japan…and we’ve spent ten years thrashing around because it was never there.

      • ToivoS
        September 19, 2012, 4:24 pm

        Colin, interesting point. I agree. Afghanistan did not quench our thirst for revenge. I happen to be an antiwar activist going back 40 years but I supported the invasion of Afghanistan for the very reason that the need for revenge inside the US was so strong that that war could not be stopped.

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2012, 4:37 pm

        Don’t forget the wonderful success of “Desert Storm”. And OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom, I believe) was just supposed to finish the job.
        “Six weeks, or six months, possibly, but certainly not six years”

  23. Les
    September 18, 2012, 7:01 pm

    The fear of being labeled an anti-Semite works. This explains why on the 30th anniversary of the massacres at Sabra and Chatila, no one dared bring that up with Netanyahu on his many interviews in the US media.

    • RoHa
      September 18, 2012, 11:17 pm

      And yet it seems that the vast majority of us are anti-Semites. We might as well just admit it and get on with saying what we have to say.

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2012, 4:41 pm

        “And yet it seems that the vast majority of us are anti-Semites.”

        Probably really just a few, and some of those may just have sorry word choices.
        The real question is, can anti-zion…oh sorry, forgot where I was, must be the pills.
        Besides, it was the Zionists who said the anti-Semites would be their best friends, not the anti-Zionists.

  24. StanleyHeller
    September 18, 2012, 7:21 pm

    Before you ever write the words Jeffrey Godberg please append the pre-fix “unrepentent ex-Israeli prison guard”. He guarded Palestinians at Ketziot prison, a place that even he admits had conditions that violated international law. He hasn’t shown an ounce of regret and, of course, has done nothing to make up for it. On the contrary. His role there puts all of his remarks in context.
    link to stanthestruggle.wordpress.com

    • Mooser
      September 19, 2012, 4:48 pm

      You don’t think we should make every effort to show Goldberg that if he changes his views, or appears to, every Israel-critical and even anti-Zionist hand will be extended to him? After all, (I’m not gonna look up the exact quote, it’s in another post by Phil on Goldberg et al) I doi believe Phil describes him as “my friend” and a “bright something or other on foreign policy writing”. Can anti-Zionism or rather the Israel-critical, oh the hell with it, ‘we’ afford to piss him off when he’s just short of undergoing the big conversion?
      I mean, he did such a great job for Zionism, imagine what he could do for, well, who the hell ever we are?

      • Philip Weiss
        September 19, 2012, 9:33 pm

        find that quote; i can use it when i send Goldberg a mash note and need to prove my bona fides

  25. dbroncos
    September 18, 2012, 8:05 pm

    Thanks for revisiting this topic, Phil. Still so many questions about why and how “the decider” decided to invade Iraq.

    Phil writes:

    “The Arabs had been left behind by history and were jealous of our freedom. We only had to replace their authoritarian governments with democracies to liberate that world; and the Arabs would love us. ”

    They didn’t sell the war on the basis of liberating Arabs. They told us that the crazy monster Saddam would soon be able to make LA disappear in a mushroom cloud and that time was running out. Liberating Iraqis was pitched as merely a fringe benefit to stopping Saddam’s WMD program. It wasn’t until after the invasion and the discovery that there were no WMD that the “mass destruction” angle became not so important. What was important was that Iraq had been liberated!

  26. thetumta
    September 18, 2012, 9:48 pm

    Do we obliterate 5 million Israelis and their supporters, their 5 Dolphins first as not to lose the East Coast or is it to be 90 million Persians and the spare change Palestinians to boot. Choose wisely as you must know who NetanKoKo is? What’s his name? No Mulligans available this time around.
    Hej! Tumta

  27. thetumta
    September 18, 2012, 10:05 pm

    Maybe she’s a Anti Philo-Semite? Maybe after 200 years of the most effective propaganda in Western history, Americans don’t realize they are pretty much Philo-Semites, sort of like Heroin addicts. Interesting, at least we won’t have to stomach any more German mythology after 90 million Persians are gone. Can’t wait to hear the Jewish propaganda on this one. Perhaps they just left. Went to Miami.
    Hej! Tumta
    P.S. It looks like we’re just 6000 days too late.

  28. traintosiberia
    September 19, 2012, 8:55 am

    THis is from Ynet-
    “But we mustn’t forget that at the beginning of his term Obama declared that in terms of numbers the US was “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,” and, speaking to the Turkish parliament, Obama conveyed his “deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world – including in my own country.” The American president bowed before Saudi King Abdullah and spoke of the monarch’s wisdom and generosity. He also visited Egypt, where he praised the “holy Koran,” which “tells us, ‘Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.
    In light of these statements, it is easy to understand why Obama chose to condemn the “disaster” of expanding a balcony in Gilo and the authorization of additional construction in Ramat Shlomo, just as it easy to explain his considerable efforts to force Israel to cede all its territorial assets – including those in the heart of its capital. These declarations can also explain his decision to “shred” George W. Bush’s promise to Ariel Sharon regarding the settlement blocs.

    In general, Obama is becoming more Palestinian than the Palestinians by demanding that Israel halt all construction beyond the Green Line as a precondition for renewing peace talks” link to ynetnews.com.

    Thi is the Op-Ed from a leading newspaper.When it comes to Israel/Neoocns ,first thing that goes under the bus [not Jewish peopel as Mitt claimed earlier ] is the socratic dialogue and the things that emerge from under the sewer is this kind of sophistry.

  29. Kathleen
    September 19, 2012, 9:47 am

    And the neocons include Cheney, Feith, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Senor, Rice, Rumsfeld nothing anti semitic about any of Dowds statements. Absolutely ridiculous. Just more efforts to distract from her solid and factual points.

  30. Klaus Bloemker
    September 19, 2012, 10:30 am

    The picture of Maureen Dowd with the mustache should have been remodeled a bit so that the part(ing) of her hair is on the right hand side (as was Hitler’s).

    Maureen is a socially very acceptable person. Those who call her an anti-Semite turn anti-Semitism into something socially acceptable.

  31. pabelmont
    September 19, 2012, 1:04 pm

    Spell check, etc.: Dowd and NYT use the term “secunded” which should be spelt “seconded”. Have either of them heard of spell check? Phil omits an early link to Dowd’s article and has a failed attempt at a link to MJR. “Oy, shmoy.”

    Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

    Congrats to NYT/Dowd (spelling apart) for saying a simple truth. Let’s hope the anti-anti-semites are smitten (with the edge of a sword, so to speak).

    • Philip Weiss
      September 19, 2012, 1:17 pm

      that’s funny pab. will fix. secondedis seconded, i agree.

    • Woody Tanaka
      September 19, 2012, 1:38 pm

      Spell check, etc.: Dowd and NYT use the term “secunded” which should be spelt “seconded”. Have either of them heard of spell check?

      “Secunded” is correct. It means to have lent an employee from organization to another. (The usage here is inexact, but the word choice was proper.)

  32. Maidhc
    September 20, 2012, 8:46 am

    In an attempt to unmuddy the waters on the seventh anniversary of the invasion, I compiled 20 questions entitled “Who’s to blame for the Iraq war?”

    link to foreignpolicyjournal.com

    For some inexplicable reason, I omitted Jeffrey Goldberg from the list of warmongers.

    • seanmcbride
      September 20, 2012, 10:20 am

      Future historians may well blame neoconservatives (most of whom are Jewish Likud Zionists and all of whom are pro-Israel militants) for the decline and fall of the American empire. Most Americans still haven’t clocked the full extent of the damage that Israel-obsessed neoconservatives have inflicted on the United States during the last decade.

      Israel — and Zionism (messianic Jewish ethno-religious nationalism) — seem to be taking the United States down with them. An Iran War would be the final nail in the coffin.

      • seanmcbride
        September 20, 2012, 12:29 pm

        Maidhc,

        You are one of the best researchers on Mideast politics on the net — you know how to connect the dots. You should start thinking about how to organize your extensive and detailed research within a formal Semantic Web framework.

  33. HemiFaulk
    September 21, 2012, 10:00 am

    Excellent work, I read this piece and thought I might add to the discussion at Huffpo and my comments were Rejected, article “Ahmadinejad In New York”: see comments below because you won’t see them at Huffpo.

    This article is a prime example of Astroturfing, also check T Friedman writing on Memri on 9-18 NYTimes. The info is fed to the author to support a position and in some instances all you got to do is sign your name and get paid. Memri has purposely incorrectly translated children as saying kill Jews when in fact the kids were saying we will get shot by the Jews. Big difference, and maybe that was just an inadvertent error in translation that only happened one time.

    Mahmoud being sued is as plausible as someone suing the Israeli Oligarchs for Palestinian deaths or bulldozing their homes, ethnic cleansing… The Iranian leader’s importance in world affairs has been greatly exaggerated, and the threat of WMDs sounds all too familiar at this juncture.

    The recent smear job of branding Maureen Dowd an anti-Semite? A travesty of justice, it really is, check out some of the articles in her defense, though they are few today, they are being written now. I would hope she can get something out quickly and launch a counter attack on this Goldberg who I understand is covering his ass so a real journalist won’t uncover how instrumental he was in pushing the latest War in Iraq. Thats the real story that needs to be detailed, not alleged anti-Semitism.

    For the record I fully support the Israeli people and the State of Israel, but not the present militant regime that rules there. What has been done to Dowd is what got under my skin, thats not reporting, its slander, and its not even a halfway decent excuse for journalism: “writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.”
    Are those days over?

Leave a Reply