Two days ago the NY Times ran a piece on Jason Chaffetz and Anthony Weiner, Republican and Democratic congressmen respectively who have formed an alliance across the aisle over issues like wasteful federal aid to mohair collectors. The Times also cited the congressmen’s joint-bylined attack (in the WSJ) on the US Institute for Peace. Times reader John Mullen sent this letter to the editor. He told us we should feel free to run it. I wish I was this pithy. (And reflect as you read this, how many of the mainstream media’s readers are just as smart as the writers–or for that matter, the blogosphere readers; the internet has democratized journalism.)–Weiss
To the Editor:
Jennifer Steinhauer’s reporting (“For a Bond Formed Over Mohair …”; Feb.22, 18) on the alliance between conservative Jason Chaffetz of Utah and liberal Anthony Weiner of New York leaves a gap the size of the West Bank. She writes of a friendship formed by a love of budget cutting and a disapproval of mohair subsidies. How natural therefore that Chaffetz and Weiner would go after the United States Institute of Peace, USIP. Something’s missing here.
Chaffetz ran interference for Israel’s commando attack in international waters upon the Mavi Marmara killing nine peace activists. He has accepted free trips to Israel, funded by AIPAC. Weiner joined Chaffetz’s defense of the flotilla attack, defended Israel’s use of cluster bombs in Lebanon, and stated that the NY Times has an anti-Israel bias.
Israel’s antipathy toward USIP stems at least from the 2006 Iraq Study Group, sponsored by USIP, and its claim, echoed later by General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen, that “The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict…”. A 2010 a report on Iran’s nuclear program co-sponsored by USIP warned against bombing Iran, “Either a small-scale or large-scale air attack no doubt would unite Iranians even more fervently against the United States, and cement Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons.” These facts should stand alongside mohair as a basis for Chaffetz and Weiner’s move against USIP.
John Mullen
Gloucester, MA
