Trending Topics:

Journalists Goldberg and Gordon once again try to ‘drag us into a war’

Middle East
on 25 Comments

Guess what the lead story is in the New York Times today? The top right column features a hatchet job on John Kerry. Titled, “Kerry Is Pushing for Agreement in Iran Nuclear Talks,” the article portrays Kerry as an overeager Don Quixote lulled into faith in Iran because his counterpart, Javad Zarif, went to the University of Denver and they walked along the Rhone in Geneva together. Some of reporter Michael Gordon’s character slurs:

Mr. Kerry’s relentless negotiating style and determination to engage with Mr. Zarif have become part of the debate…

To critics, Mr. Kerry’s eagerness is an open invitation for the Iranians to press for concessions as the talks enter the final stage.

Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former State Department expert on Iran, said that given Mr. Kerry’s “inordinate attention to this issue, there is an impression that he wants this agreement more so than the Iranians.”

And that is the top story in the paper of record — a biased analysis sailing under a false flag as a news article. Why am I not reading the following “analysis” in the Times instead?

John Kerry, who has been right about just about every major foreign policy issue in the U.S. since he came out against the war in Vietnam in the early 1970s, who speaks at least one foreign language and who has lived abroad, is surely the man with the right blend of experience and wisdom to negotiate a deal with Iran.

What is Michael Gordon’s standing to raise doubts about Kerry? His wing-woman Judy Miller lost her job at the Times, but Gordon held on to his, even after a notorious and costly error. From

[Gordon] is the co-author with Judith Miller of the front page NYT article planted by Dick Cheney’s minions, which claimed that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), relying on the idea that aluminum tubing being purchased by Iraq was to be used for purifying uranium…

That article, entitled “Threats and Responses: The Iraqis; U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest For A-Bomb Parts,” ran on page one of the NYT on Sunday, September 8, 2002. That same day, with the newsprint barely dry, Cheney popped up on Meet the Press citing the piece and claiming that Saddam Hussein was on his way to making nukes.

And Michael Gordon is not alone on the Fight Iran beat. Jeffrey Goldberg has a new piece out called “Danger Ahead for Obama on Iran” saying that Obama is pushing a bad deal.

This is a very dangerous moment for Obama and for the world. He has made many promises, and if he fails to keep them—if he inadvertently (or, God forbid, advertently) sets Iran on the path to the nuclear threshold, he will be forever remembered as the president who sparked a nuclear-arms race in the world’s most volatile region, and for breaking a decades-old promise to Israel that the United States would defend its existence and viability as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

The Israeli press is calling Goldberg a confidante of Obama’s, and hailing his vision.

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, a journalist considered to be close to President Barack Obama, admitted on Sunday that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has a “credible case” to make against an impending nuclear deal with Iran, an issue which Netanyahu will address in his speech before Congress on Tuesday.

And what is Jeffrey Goldberg’s standing? Here’s another man whose foreign policy record is one of nearly complete failure. He reported in the runup to the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein was going to get a nuclear weapon, writing:

there is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them soon, and a nuclear-armed Iraq would alter forever the balance of power in the Middle East.

These two prominent reporters did their part to push the last great war. They’re up to their old tricks.

Americans don’t want it. As Tikkun says in an ad in the New York Times today:

NO, Mr. Netanyahu! We Will NOT Let You Drag the U.S. Into a Proxy War for Israel Against Iran

James North
About James North

Other posts by .

Posted In:

25 Responses

  1. David Doppler
    David Doppler
    March 2, 2015, 4:21 pm

    Great context, James. How about some accountability for the Neocon punditry? Their impunity seems to know no bounds.

    • Krauss
      March 3, 2015, 12:59 am

      I didn’t even know about Gordon, thanks for reminding us James.

      Amazing how these neocons never get called out in the MSM. Goldberg is an Israeli agent masquerading as journalist, has been from the beginning.

    • steven l
      steven l
      March 3, 2015, 7:48 pm

      JG has been and still is a mouth piece for the left and far left. Is he going to see the light soon or later?
      The Iranians have convinced the 3 + 1 + 1 +1 that there are ONLY two possible deals with Iran: a bad one and a very bad one. In the bad one the West surrenders in 10 years and in the very bad one the West surrenders in < 10 years. And the Obama Adm claims that the only alternative is to go to war. So both sides agree that at the end it will be war.
      What does the world FAIL to understand?
      Iran will change only if FORCED to change. That is the ONLY way out.
      One has to wonder if China can force Iran to change. Very likely yes, in cooperation with the US.
      But of course so far, Obama has shown NO interest in putting pressure on Iran, to the contrary.
      The real question is why?
      Is it better to put intense pressure on Iran in order to avoid a war that no one can predict the UN-intended consequences? Of course.
      A economic blocus of Iran will definitely get the attention of Iran. Must be SHORT and INTENSE.
      Putin will not be able to protect the fanatical Iranian Shias.
      So why this US administration prefers to capitulate while fully aware that it will lead to war one way or the other when there is an OBVIOUS way out?

      • annie
        March 3, 2015, 8:39 pm

        So both sides agree that at the end it will be war.


        Iran will change only if FORCED to change.

        same with israel and yet we don’t force them to change. besides, why should iran change?

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 3, 2015, 9:14 pm

        Annie- If Iran was involved in the murders of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 94, then it should certainly change. And not foreign policy, but internal policy, there are many areas in which Iran should change.

      • traintosiberia
        March 4, 2015, 11:03 pm

        Question should be what will force saner ( honest and just) line of thinking of these scribes? Does it has to be the threat of application of the law against incitement? Does it has to be the memory of Nuremberg?

  2. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    Maximus Decimus Meridius
    March 2, 2015, 4:37 pm

    Isn’t Goldberg the ‘journalist’ who once volunteered as a guard in a notorious Israeli prison?

    Would The Atlantic employ someone who volunteered as a guard at Evin prison?

    • traintosiberia
      March 4, 2015, 11:11 pm

      Atlantic magazine has some excellent authors and reporters . But if it really wanted to balance the presence of person like JG it should ask the IS or AlQuida to loan one . Balancing of the neocon can be attained solely by allowing the fanatics to pen equally dumb dangerous views.

  3. a blah chick
    a blah chick
    March 2, 2015, 4:54 pm

    I think Goldberg should be airdropped into Afghanistan where we can watch him take on real Islamic warriors with his mad Krav Maga skills.

    • Kay24
      March 2, 2015, 9:52 pm

      I agree. All those who support Netanyahu and keep pushing for his damn wars, should be sent to the front lines. Then we can see if they sincerely want war, or want our young kids to spill their blood and lose their limbs, for their grand plans for the US.

  4. pabelmont
    March 2, 2015, 5:35 pm

    So NYT continues to run highly questionable opinion (or advocacy) as news. Ho hum. It is funny, though, how the American pundit-system works, where it doesn’t matter how many times you’ve been wrong if you are “on the team”: NYT has its team picked somehow to promote far-right Zionist policy; did they promote the Iraq war based on absolutely fraudulently wrong assertions of fact? Well, never mind. After all, this is serious. (Going to war for no reason is not serious?)

  5. John O
    John O
    March 2, 2015, 5:47 pm

    “As Tikkun says in an ad in the New York Times today: NO, Mr. Netanyahu! We Will NOT Let You Drag the U.S. Into a Proxy War for Israel Against Iran”

    Weird – you can trust a newspaper ad more than you can trust that paper’s journalists.

    • pabelmont
      March 2, 2015, 8:18 pm

      It depends. Yes, as to this “ad” and this story, not so much some other whacko “ads”. But the interplay between pro and con might get some people thinking.

  6. Walker
    March 2, 2015, 6:20 pm

    Thank you for noting Michael Gordon’s article The Times appears to wheel him out only to communicate dangerous misinformation. The Times did not enable comments for this article.

  7. Les
    March 2, 2015, 7:30 pm

    Goldberg is a far more effective Israeli agent now than when Corporal Goldberg served as a campguard over Palestinian prisoners for the IDF. Does anyone in our media seriously believe that Goldberg ever stopped being an Israeli agent?

  8. Kay24
    March 2, 2015, 8:48 pm

    They are like programed robots. They obediently do what their zionists masters bid them to, in this case that master is BB. It must be some mental illness, this addiction for bombing Islamic nations, and killing Arabs/Muslims. Do Goldberg and Gordon even care about America, the possibility that once again, our kids would be sent to the front lines, risk their lives, be killed by the thousands, injured, and that it would financially cripple this country? Anyone siding with Netanyahu, in my opinion, is a traitor to this country, by siding with a war monger, who has not offered an alternative solution. It is war, war, war, and bloody war, that is all they want.
    Does Goldberg and Gordon ever question Netanyahu’s credibility, after all he was wrong about Iraq too.

    I love this headline:

    To Netanyahu, Peace Is an Existential Threat

  9. Qualtrough
    March 3, 2015, 1:12 am

    I am pretty sure that if I goaded or persuaded someone to kill someone else I would be facing some pretty serious charges. How is it then that people like Goldberg and Kristol can continually advocate for military operations and assassination programs that kills hundreds and thousands of innocent people and not only face no punishment, but keep their jobs as well?

    There is a precedent for charging someone who incites others to kill in the way these journalists do:

  10. Rodneywatts
    March 3, 2015, 3:26 am


    Agree with your sentiments, and your link to Huffington is well worth the read. Trita Parsi has hit the nail right on its head.

  11. March 3, 2015, 8:51 am

    The same predictable Jews, Goldberg, Gorden and Brooks too and others are supporting their pal Bibi against Obama. At the last minute their irrational pro-Israel rant has broken through. Makes me puke! These guys are all Israel-firsters as Roseberg aptly defined. They cannot be trusted in any comment they make about foreign policy. That is a serious problem we have in the US media. Because of their loyalties they have a conflict of interest and they are simply not objective.

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      March 3, 2015, 1:06 pm

      I think it’s time to ask what motivates these dual citizen or even singular citizen Jewish Zionists. Is it a form of supremacism, masquerading as Jewish nationalism? Or do they really believe that they are still the biggest victims?

  12. RockyMissouri
    March 3, 2015, 10:11 am

    Remember, his mom was Linda Tripp’s special adviser regarding Monica Lewinsky …… A manipulative monster, IMO.

Leave a Reply