I was going to just ignore New Republic editor in chief Martin Peretz's efforts to bait me, but when Jonah Goldberg piled on it was just too much intellectual firepower to stay out of the fray. Now, seriously, what Brian Beutler said. And what Brian Ulrich said. Honestly, though, I'm done with this feud as there's really no point in arguing with someone who's proud of his role in bringing Charles Krauthammer into the national conversation.
« Penn Watch | Main | The Clinton Rose »
A Devastating Tag Team
24 May 2007 08:40 am
Comments (35)
"Honestly, though, I'm done with this feud as there's really no point in arguing with someone who's proud of his role in bringing Charles Krauthammer into the national conversation."
Dude. Embrace the feud.
When someone above you punches down, always punch back up. It's the golden rule.
If you get bored with it, or you're traveling when the latest shot happens, just take a few days off and then resume at your leisure.
I wonder what Matt's talking about. Maybe I should click on one of the links?
Nah!
too much intellectual firepower
All the firepower of my three-year old holding his first sparkler . . .
Debate by proxy is fun!
Wow, pollak punks you big time
What we can assume here is that Peretz doesn't have the capability of making his own arguments and has to outsource them to Pollack. Pollack's arguments have the air of worldliness but are actually weak when taken apart and looked at closely, as shown by a couple of the links you provided. While I understand your desire to rise above the stupidity that passes for debate at TNR I don't know that it reflects well on you to similarly outsource your arguments. Most of us realize why Peretz does as much. Everything he's written indicates he's incapable of actual, rational debate. You, not so much. And really, you can't play the "above all of this card" when you're already tangled up in the middle of it.
The Ulrich link was useful and insightful.
Yeah, no use bothering with Peretz and his ilk. They're fundamentally unserious, you know. I still wish I knew his schlong trick, though. All my life I've had to work for a living.
pollak punks you big time
Pollak, the guy who says that the Palestinian problems are attributable to "sectarian violence," as in Iraq and Lebanon? Yeah, those Sunni Palestinians are always fighting the Shiite Palestinians . . .
If one reads that Pollack guy it's clear that the guy who's been the most stupid per this particular item is definitely MY by a long shot. I think beating a retreat in this particular "who's the smartest" pissing match was a good idea.
I don't know all there is to know about punditry, but I think making ad hominem accusations of idiocy part of one's schtick is generally a very bad idea, since no one can write lots of completely idiocy free copy in the same way no programmer can write lots of non trivial programming without some bugs. You'll always be liable to a devestating riposte.
If a would be pundit really has a need, that he's be better off without, for some ad hominem nastiness and cannot get it out of his system by picking fights in bars, calling other people immoral and incompetent is always much better. Since in order to be immoral and incompetent one must DO stuff and chattering class people by definition lead deed free lives, you'll never get a riposte. Noam Chomsky's been doing this for years, it's his entire act.
On the other hand, chattering class members yelling ad hominem about such stuff, especially competence, someone who's never run anything bigger than his mouth, as the saying goes, yelling about competence is pretty ridiculous, which is why a taste for ad hominem is a thing better gotten rid of.
Just for the record, I'm Noah Smith.
If one reads that Pollack guy it's clear that the guy who's been the most stupid per this particular item is definitely MY by a long shot.
Yeah, until you read the Beutler post and realize that Pollak did a spectacular job of beating down a strawman.
"Yeah, until you read the Beutler post and realize that Pollak did a spectacular job of beating down a strawman."
Really? I think its very hard to buy beutlers interpretation that yglesias is only criticising american policy post election result. When yglesias talks about failed american attempts to produce 'quisling regimes' and how 'the implicit logic of the election scheme seemed to be an American belief that elections would bring a new quisling government' it seems clear he is criticising the american support for elections.
Even if you do buy the dubious interpretation beutler offers it still leaves yglesias with the task of explaining
a) how the american decision to not recognise nor provide funding for the hamas government can be held largely acountable for the current fighting. This is a power struggle. It seems strange to suggest that we couldve avoided conflict if only the size of the pie the two parties were squabling over were bigger.
b) what american policy shouldve been. Does yglesias really believe the US should be giving money to a government which maintains the goal of destroying an american ally?
I think it's pretty clear that anything that is approvingly linked by both Marty Peretz AND Jonah Goldberg is going to be monumentally stupid, disingenuous, and very likely racist. Pollak does not disappoint.
Re: "Even if you do buy the dubious interpretation beutler offers..."
Come on. This interpretation is obviously correct.
As for the other points, the decision to withold funding made the Hamas government unsustainable. They were never given a chance to govern with the same resources that the previous government had. The best policy would have been to wait and see how they governed, and only withold funding if they proved to be incorrigible.
The logic is pretty hard to fault. If you're going to pressure them to have elections, in which there are two major parties that you already know about, each of which has a good chance of winning, you've got to be prepared to support the result.
Well, Jonah already thinks you're a Nazi (in the way that he thinks all liberals are Nazis, per his book).
I realize that's a non-sequitur, but still, it's good to know...
When yglesias talks about failed american attempts to produce 'quisling regimes' and how 'the implicit logic of the election scheme seemed to be an American belief that elections would bring a new quisling government' it seems clear he is criticising the american support for elections.
I note that your analysis is completely devoid of fat jokes, which surprises me.
I think MY is saying that the elections were a good thing, but any intelligent observer surely would have understood that a Hamas victory was the likely result. Yet the administration reacted to it as if it were some bizarre outcome warranting a radical shift in our Palestinian policies - with the implication being that if they didn't expect a Hamas victory, they must have expected some magical quisling victory or something, because what else could they have been thinking?
Does yglesias really believe the US should be giving money to a government which maintains the goal of destroying an american ally?
The point is that this is a question which should have been asked before supporting the election, not after. If you're unwilling to live with the party out of power taking the reins, then don't go pushing for an election that's likely to put them in power. In other words, if we can imagine the possibility of a free and fair election in Pakistan between the Musharraf government and an opposition party led by Osama bin Laden, presumably we'd prefer just to stick with the current regime. I'd question the sanity of any administration that would press for elections under those circumstances.
The american reaction post election doesnt indicate they were surprised by the result. They couldve hardly cut off funding before the election and said they were doing it because theyre expecting hamas to win.
Even if you believe a support for democratic insitutions dictates an unqualified support for whomever they churn up it still doesnt explain why the US's decision to cut funding for hamas can be held responsible for the current violence.
Eh, being on Marty's obsessive enemies list is like being on Nixon's -- a badge of honor. He's a vile, petty man, as well as a racist bully.
1) In my opinion, it's deeply DISHONEST for Mary Peretz, Noah Pollak and Jonah Goldberg to address this subject and NOT discuss whether Israeli bombing of apartment buildings -- with US-made F16 jets bought with the $3 Billion in foreign aid that the US gives Israel every year -- might have helped Hamas gain political support.
2) One of those bombings killed 9 children. The Israeli leadership then lied to us by claiming they thought the apartment building was empty and only held a "terrorist".
But that's an insult to our intelligence -- Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth.
3) Plus does anyone recall that elderly man in the wheelchair -- the spiritual leader of Hamas --calling for a ceasefire and being blown out of his wheelchair by a US-made missile fired from a US-made helicopter flown by an Israeli pilot?
Or those Palestinans being killed as the Israelis fired more US-made missiles into Gaza intersections in hope of hitting Hamas cars?
4)Members of the Israel Lobby might have trouble understanding this, but real Americans are getting fed up with this deceitful debate.
Prior to Sept 11, Bin Laden cited US sales of weapons and planes to Israel -- and Israel's use of those weapons --as one of the three major justifications for Islamic Jihad.
In a Nov 2001, Bin Laden reiterated his argument that US sales of weapons to Israel --and Israel's use of those weapons to kill Palestinian civilians --justified Sept 11.
I don't recall Marty Peretz informing his American readers of that fact in The New Republic.
5) Someone who was concerned about the US national interest -- as opposed to defending Israel -- might ask just why we are being dragged into this fight. We get NOTHING of any value from Israel --we don't even have a major military base there.
Even if you believe a support for democratic insitutions dictates an unqualified support for whomever they churn up it still doesnt explain why the US's decision to cut funding for hamas can be held responsible for the current violence.
No one said that. What happened was Hamas won an election we supposedly wanted and our response was to start shoveling guns at Dahlan in Gaza. Hamas won, they have no reason to be fighting with anyone.
Plus does anyone recall that elderly man in the wheelchair -- the spiritual leader of Hamas --calling for a ceasefire and being blown out of his wheelchair by a US-made missile fired from a US-made helicopter flown by an Israeli pilot?
Why do I feel like anyone known as the "spiritual leader of Hamas" is not someone I'd care to have dinner with?
Have you heard that the US imprisoned some old blind guy for the first World Trade Center bombing? Mean, mean US. Obviously there's no way an old man could be a threat to anyone.
editor in chief Martin Peretz's efforts to bait me
Marty Peretz is a master at that -- at baiting people -- publicly .
You might almost say Marty Peretz is a... Public Master Baiter.
Why do I feel like anyone known as the "spiritual leader of Hamas" is not someone I'd care to have dinner with?
Sure, but that doesn't justify a policy of assassinations, especially ones that inevitably take out large numbers of civilians.
1) One sign of intelligence shown by Noah Pollak (and Marty?) was posting the attack on Matthew over on Michael Totten's blog.
If you look at the comments yesterday, you see a rather hilarious Michael screaming at commenters with whom he disagrees -- banning one of them on what I consider a flimsy pretext and threatening to ban several others --including myself -- whom he suggests are "new Trolls". In my case, because I questioned whether his blog is meant to be a policy discussion or a propaganda broadcast. In the case of several others, because they raised similar concerns. Michael seems to like the phrase "Zero Tolerance" a lot -- which makes me wonder why he is opposed to "IslamoFascists".
See Comments at bottom of http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001445.html
2) Michael claims to be a "liberal". I posted my comment above over on his blog -- let's see just how "liberal" his views toward dissenters are.
Sure, but that doesn't justify a policy of assassinations, especially ones that inevitably take out large numbers of civilians.
I have no problem with assassinating terrorist leaders, even if they're in wheelchairs. I'd favor the killing of Osama bin Laden even if he was hooked up to his dialysis machine at the time. I'm just being honest about this.
Don,
MT may personally be more "liberal" than his blog would appear - but he's probably trapped into being a hawk by his financial supporters. I don't know, but I suspect the majority of his paying customers are the "Why don't the MSM talk about the good news in Iraq" types, and/or the rabid hawks who hang out there. Do you really think he'd cut those people off? Fat chance. Adn if he reverses his position on the war there goes his funding. Yet ironically people think that semi-pro bloggers are more independent than print journalists.
Re Steve's comment: "I have no problem with assassinating terrorist leaders, even if they're in wheelchairs. I'd favor the killing of Osama bin Laden even if he was hooked up to his dialysis machine at the time. I'm just being honest about this. "
-----------
Really. So what do you think about Dick Cheney?
Forget Cheney, how about every Israeli prime minister ever?
Vanya
You means MT actually takes money from someone? I'm shocked. I thought from the resolute chin in his blog page photo that he is just a man determined to find out the TRUTH.
You know, like writing about Gaza by going around inside Israel with the IDF and looking at Gaza via a powerful telephoto lens.
I may be wrong but his writing has a kinda ..uh.. Judith Miller quality to it. I read today's story about the dreaded Palestinian rockets and after 15 minutes --and 10 pages -- finally came to realize they're roughly like the Estes model rockets I played with as a child. Michael Totten's Gaza story has some unintentionally hilarious lines buried down within it.
Ever notice that SPINE is an anagram of another body part?
Is Pollack Jerry Bruckheimer's illegitimate child? Will Pollack's bitchen pilot with the libs takin' over all branches of the government (cut to classroom with "In God We Trust" banner over the chalk board and the God part crossed out), the national will goin' soft, and a motley but ragtag group of real deal Americans (funded by reclusive Texas billionaire Larry H Hagman [played by Larry Hagman]) led by Senator John McCain going after terrorists, drug lords, sexual predators, and chicas be produced by dream team Jerry Bruckheimer and Sensei Chuck Norris? Rogue State Rollback: starring Senator John McCain. With that guy who played Harlin Arliss on CHiPs as the brilliant Jew with the improbably hot girlfriends. Rapper Coolio as the black dude. Music by Mike Post with additional licks by ZZ Top. Coming this fall to TBS.
The old proverb is "whenever someone says it's not about the money, it's about the money". I note that Peretz says "it's not about the vanity".
Don Williams,
I don't claim to be a liberal. I haven't described myself that way for years.
I am a centrist and an independent. I vote for both parties.
Dissent on my blog is fine, which is obvious to anyone (except you) who reads my comments section. Your creepy Jewish conspiracy theories, not so much.
Some guy named Mathew Yglesias once wrote
"I happen to think the White House made the right call on the question of Palestinian elections"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/01/opinion/main1855020.shtml
Comments closed June 07, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
So if I'm following this all correctly, you're saying that Charles Lindbergh is responsible for the situation in Gaza?
Because if that's what you're saying, I think you've come unhinged.
Posted by Petey | May 24, 2007 8:53 AM