New MY Content

I'm up with Daniel Drezner in a new episode of BloggingHeads TV. We take on such crucial issues as is Payton Manning loathsome and why I'm sick of the 2008 primaries already. Also, more harping on this Iran business. Dan agrees that Iran is not going to launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike on Israel -- is he another cavalier liberal? Blinded by anti-semitism perhaps?

Speaking of which, I have a new column defending Wesley Clark against the Lobby That Shall Not Be Named and I'm going to be on Washington Post Radio at 12:10 today to talk Iran.

Comments

"and why I'm sick of the 2008 primaries already."

The more that good folks get sick of the '08 primaries, the more likely we're going to end up with HRC as our nominee.

Politics is almost always ugly, but pick a side.

Posted by Petey | January 23, 2007 10:38 AM

Politics is almost always ugly, but pick a side.

Um...can't it wait a few months?

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 23, 2007 10:40 AM

Speaking of which, I have a new column defend Wesley Clark against the Lobby That Shall Not Be Named

I bet that column is worse that The Protocols of Zion, demi-semite.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 23, 2007 10:57 AM

Petey, given the reputation you've acquired over the years, it's going to be funny to see you allied with the Kos-types that you hate in the anti-Hillary pro-Edwards camp for the next twelve months.

Posted by JP | January 23, 2007 11:00 AM

Matthew Y.

Thanks for the excellent Clark article. Already I feel my blood pressure easing. I would like to say how "courageous" you and Clark are, but you probably already know it's really a question of other people's cowardice.

The Clark episode should remind everyone of the danger such cowardice on the part of Democrats poses. I believe that most sincerely don't want to attack Iran. But by constantly stating the "threat" Iran poses they have already built the rhetorical straight jacket that will hinder them from preventing the attack even if they want to. The parameters of debate have been set, irrevocably, between mere bombing and using nuclear weapons.

Posted by brendan | January 23, 2007 11:05 AM

"Petey, given the reputation you've acquired over the years, it's going to be funny to see you allied with the Kos-types that you hate in the anti-Hillary pro-Edwards camp for the next twelve months."

I don't hate Markos. I see him as a half 'n' half mix of positive and negative in terms of advancing lefty goals. I hate Jerome.

But more broadly, an American political party has to be a big tent to be successful, and that means sharing the tent with lots of folks who you may not be in absolutely perfect alignment with. The game isn't about isolating Petey's supposed enemies. The game is about advancing the goals of the left, and Edwards is the no-brainer choice to win that game.

Posted by Petey | January 23, 2007 11:08 AM

Yes I understand that. But it will be funny. I didn't say you hated Kos.

Posted by JP | January 23, 2007 11:20 AM

The game isn't about isolating Petey's supposed enemies.

Don't you mean "not yet"?

[posted from within the Petey concentration camp]

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 23, 2007 11:52 AM

Actually, the Petey concentration camp looks a lot like Lubbock, TX.

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 23, 2007 11:53 AM

But, if we don't attack Iran, who will?

I don't think the Israelis have any other mercenaries available who are stupid enough to do their bidding.

Posted by Jim W | January 23, 2007 11:57 AM

It's spelled PE-yton

Posted by peyton | January 23, 2007 12:10 PM

I think it's admirable that Wes Clark was willing to discard his own political career for the sake of warning people about the impetus behind the Iran war drumbeat.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 23, 2007 12:15 PM

No its spelled Peyton, no hyphen.

Posted by beowulf | January 23, 2007 1:02 PM

I'm sure I'll be a minority of one in these comments, but I thought Clark's remark DID cross the line - as did your "This, of course, is true," Matthew. Clark didn't say that some Jewish organizations supported a war on Iran - if he had, that would have been stating the blindingly obvious. He instead offered two ideas that were far more nefarious: First, that Jewish organizations and moneyed interests were directing funds to office seekers who specifically supported such a war. I've seen no evidence whatever of that kind of targeted financial support. If you have, Matthew, please tell us about it. Second, and at least as problematic, he suggested that his concern about America's possible involvement in such a war was driven solely by this kind of Jewish funding - as if there were no other elements in the country supporting an attack on Iran. (Have you read National Review lately?) In other words, it's the Jews pushing the Bush administration around that causes him concern. Are you really that comfortable with this point of view?

Posted by Sheldon | January 23, 2007 1:47 PM

Once again, Matt, I'm looking forward to Dershowitz' review of your book in TNR.

Posted by otto | January 23, 2007 2:01 PM

Sheldon:

You say, "I've seen no evidence...".

Have you looked, Sheldon?

You do raise a very good point, though, and in good faith, I believe: is there any truth to Clark's assertion? More investigative journalism in the matter will reveal that either the country has a problem with its sovereignty or that the suspicions of people like me are mere prejudices.

That said, knowing something about AIPAC and WINEP will partly answer the question about money. AIPAC's influence for me was brought home for me (I repeat myself here) in April 2003, when 50 Senators attended a speech by Condoleezza Rice to the group. The speech was closed to the press because, according to the Washington Post, the organizers didn't want to stimulate any "anti-Semitic conspiracy theories."

Also, Hillary Clinton is the Senator from New York. Heaven knows New York's Jews wouldn't meddle in politics.

As for your point about the National Review: it has a doctrinaire neoconservative profile. For perspective on "conservatism" as a whole you can read The American Conservative, founded by paleoconservatives essentially purged by the neoconservatives from the National Review(I am on the left, by the way).

Posted by brendan | January 23, 2007 2:56 PM

Inept sarcasm in my last post: substitute "participate" for "meddle".

Posted by brendan | January 23, 2007 2:57 PM

Sheldon:

Also look up the "Herzliya conference" going on in Israel right now for the purpose of attacking Iran. Three U.S. presidential candidates -- McCain, Giuliani and Edwards -- are present.

The Israelis essentially have the power to summon the U.S. government at will.

Correct me if this is unfair, but right now you seem to be trying to forestall a popular political verdict against the Israel lobby (at least on this site and sites like it) by employing the pollyanna-ish mock indignation of defense attorneys. The Israel lobby is too powerful, whether it be AIPAC, WINEP, AEI, the Brookings Institution, or any of the contellation of rags that make up the chorus for war). Money is their their tool, not the overpowering persuasion of their arguments.

Posted by brendan | January 23, 2007 3:13 PM

Clark, although he is a Christian, comes from a family that has Jewish roots. He has spoken proudly and publically of this, especially when he brother converted to Judaism. I guess though that will only get him labelled a "self-hating Jew."

Posted by Reality Man | January 23, 2007 5:01 PM

The "Herzliya conference" appears to have FIVE likely US Presidential candidates on the list of speakers:

John Edwards
Newt Gingrich
Rudolph Giuliani
John McCain
Mitt Romney

http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?CategoryID=226&ArticleID=1599.

I suppose they are all there for the good of their (political) health.

Posted by ndm | January 23, 2007 5:59 PM

MY, we need not only a view on whether the US should attack Iran, but a policy on whether the US lets Israel attack Iran. The latter will have huge externalities for the US.

Posted by otto | January 23, 2007 7:09 PM

I offer a modest proposal in response to Matt's Wesley Clark column here:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-america-needs-new-york-u-to-become.html

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 23, 2007 7:58 PM

For brendan's benefit, and other readers, I thought I would reprint Jonathan Chait's comments on this issue; he has a similar take to mine:

I've admired Wes Clark for a long time. But his comments to Ariana Huffington about wealthy Jews pushing the country toward war with Iran strike me as nutty and disturbing. Either I seriously misjudged the man, or his comments were misquoted or taken wildly out of context.

Matthew Yglesias, however, thinks Clark's comments are perfectly spot-on. Indeed, he says they're not just correct but obviously so. As he writes, "Everything Clark said, in short, is true. What's more, everybody knows it's true."

Well, I don't know it's true. Moreover, I find Yglesias's defense of the proposition that it's obviously true, and his further contention that criticism of Clark's comments amounts to Israel hawks stifling debate, to be wildly unconvincing.

One of the things Yglesias considers to be "obviously true" is that "many American Jewish organizations are pushing for war with Iran." His evidence for this is that the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, and other Jewish organizations are spreading alarm about the prospect of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Really, though, does being alarmed about Iran mean you favor war? I'm extremely alarmed at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, but I think an American military strike would create more problems than it would solve. Richard Just is also alarmed about a nuclear Iran but skeptical about a military strike. So it's wrong to assume that expressing alarm about Iran getting the bomb is ipso facto a case for war.

But even if Yglesias were right about that--if it were true that being alarmed about a nuclear Iran can only be cover for a secret pro-war agenda--the rest of his argument doesn't follow. The disturbing thing about Clark's comments is his observation that rich Jews are pushing for war. It's his belief that we will go to war because they desire it. Here is how Huffington described her conversation with Clark:

When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

Again, the context here may be muddled, but it seems that Clark is saying he's sure the United States is going to bomb Iran because rich Jews are pushing for it. I don't think it's anti-Semitic to say that the pro-Israel lobby has considerable influence in American politics, and could flex its muscle on issues like foreign aid to Israel, just as the pharmaceutical lobby can heavily influence health care legislation or the gun lobby can squelch gun control. But to suggest that a tiny clique of Jewish financiers can by themselves force the American government to go to war goes well beyond any hard-headed analysis of Jewish political power. It assumes that small numbers of wealthy Jews essentially control the government.

We could argue about whether Clark's analysis is anti-Semitic; I think it is. But I don't see how you can say it's obviously true.

--Jonathan Chait

Posted by Sheldon | January 23, 2007 10:37 PM

I think it explains exactly why your Democratic presidential wannabe's are outflanking Bush to the right on Iran.

If you have an alternate explanation why a second mideast war is good politics for the democratic primaries right now, I'd be happy to entertain it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 23, 2007 10:50 PM

One piece of data to add to the mix: When Walt and Mearsheimer published their original piece, there was quite alot of commentary which took this line (I think David Bernstein of Volokh did, but others too): the Israel lobby didn't push US to war with Iraq, because they wanted the US to focus on Iran instead.

Posted by otto | January 23, 2007 10:56 PM

BTW, I don't see why successful lobbying for an attack on Iran would mean the "jews control the government" any more than successful lobbying for high medical costs would mean that "big pharma controls the government". The same principle and logic applies in both cases. In fact, in terms of harm done, the pharma control of policy probably has more serious negative externalities which are more readily observable by US citizens.

Posted by otto | January 23, 2007 11:08 PM

For brendan's benefit, and other readers, I thought I would reprint Jonathan Chait's comments on this issue; he has a similar take to mine:

Wow. Jon Chait disagrees with Matt (and Wes Clark) about the extent to which Iran policy is shaped by the Israel lobby. Helluva rebuttal.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 23, 2007 11:59 PM

But to suggest that a tiny clique of Jewish financiers can by themselves force the American government to go to war goes well beyond any hard-headed analysis of Jewish political power. It assumes that small numbers of wealthy Jews essentially control the government.

He's willing to admit that "pharmaceutical lobby can heavily influence health care legislation." Would he really object if I said "pharmaceutical CEOs heavily influence health care legislation"? Or would he argue that you can grant the first without granting a fair bit of credibility to the second?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 24, 2007 12:47 AM

Gap sweater?

Posted by yoyo | January 24, 2007 2:36 AM

Sheldon:

Pretty lame to crib from someone else. Especially when what you paste in is so indecorously long.

I don't think your intentions are bad, but I don't quite think you understand what TNR is. It's not some disinterested policy shop when it comes to the Mideast. It reflects a right/center Israeli mindset and pursues those same objectives, including an attack on Iran. It is, effectively, and Israeli publication on the matter.

Posted by brendan | January 24, 2007 12:45 PM