Jeff Goldberg thinks it's "an odd phenomenon" that some Americans object when people make false claims about statements Mahmoud Ahmedenijad has made in the past. I don't think it's odd at all. You don't need to be an apologist for a very bad man to still think it's worth lowering the rhetorical temperature around Iran policy. The United States is facing some very serious questions about our approach to Iran, and so it's important that the issue be discussed in a calm and accurate manner.
« Gas Tourism | Main | Wow »
Odd
25 Jun 2008 09:49 am
Comments (53)
Yep, in some quarters "accurate" is a four-letter word, since accurate information tends to conflict with their propaganda. For that matter, "calm" is not what they want the American people to be either.
Deliberate distortion is the engine of American politics.
Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 2003. Chirac said he'd never support a war in Iraq. Jeffrey Goldberg is not a very special friend to Flossie the Goat. To borrow a phrase.
Goldberg is an arch-propagandist. On the order of Kristol or Rich Lowry. Nothing more.
The "odd phenomenon" is that Goldberg keeps referring to Yglesias without ever referring to Yglesias. Now he's using Kirchik to indirectly argue with Yglesias.
(The other occasion was when Goldberg first started blogging, and he namechecked every Atlantic blogger except Yglesias. Stuck out like a sore thumb.)
Lying is wrong. That seems to me the fundamental thing. Worrying about rhetorical temperatures seems a bit over-sophisticated.
Lying is wrong. That seems to me the fundamental thing. Worrying about rhetorical temperatures seems a bit over-sophisticated.
Lying is wrong. Supporting those who want to incinerate us all in the fire of Islamofascist rhetorical rage is wronger.
I like also how Goldberg links to a Kirchik post, which links to an earlier Goldberg post. And the right-wing circle jerk is complete!
I was unfamiliar with Jeff Goldberg before he got brought on board the Atlantic's blogging team. Never read any of his prior articles, books, what have you. So I was a complete blank slate with regards to him.
Didn't take me long to develop a distaste for him, though. And I'll note, I find something interesting or worthwhile about all the other people blogging here, even the ones I disagree with a lot (Ambinder) or don't regularly read (McArdle). I still find them interesting. They still seem to contribute something here.
But Goldberg seems to be as much a one-issue, one-note harpy as Jamie Kirchick.
We must not understand foreign leaders-- we need only demonize. It's the neoconservative approach to foreign policy. Identify and hate enemies.
Just ask Irving Kristol:
First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing.
Finally, for a great power, the “national interest” is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation.
Got that? (1) Hooray for jingoism, (2) world government is bad, (3) hate thy enemy, and (4) we can bomb the crap out of whoever the fuck we want regardless of whether or not there's any national interest at stake.
That's the sum total of neoconservative thought.
I should say, I don't know enough about Jeffrey Goldberg to know whether he identifies as a neoconservative. Kirchick does, obviously, but I don't know Goldberg's perspective.
The question is whether parsing Ahmadinejad's various statements one way or another is what needs to be done here-- the right-wing "he says he's our enemy, so we should shoot him" approach doesn't pass the seriousness test.
"but I don't know Goldberg's perspective."
He doesn't understand why people would object to liars. Sounds pretty damn neoconservative to me.
Yglesias misrepreesnt Goldberg's point here. That is easy enough to do in that Goldberg is pretty much ignoring the actual debate that he is commenting on.
Goldberg is not saying it is odd that people object to misrepresentations of Ahmadinejad's claims. He is saying that it is odd that people are willing to come up with rationalizations of Ahmadinejad's claims which Goldberg apparently considers to be clear. The fact that they are clear and contradict Goldberg's reading doesn't enter into it.
In a simiar vein to the way that Kirchick claims that another writer defends Ahmadinejad's comparison of Israel to a dirty microbe, and then if one links on the writer one finds no reference to that claim at all, Goldberg does not seem to take his opponents serious enough to actually read them before criticizing them. That is certainly worthy of being mocked, but it is not the point that Yglesias is making fun of above.
Goldberg gave his list of quotes from Ahmadinejad that he falsely believes establishes that Ahmadinejad has called for another genocide against the jewish people. In the item that Yglesias links to, rather than addressing the critics who point out that his list says nothing of the sort, Goldberg is simply taking for granted that his reading is right and claiming that it is odd that so many people who should see that he is right are actually finding ways to rationalize the quotes given.
This suggests he is either not to bright, or is too much of a demogogue on issues concerning Israel and Iran to be taken seriously. But it is not true that he has said that he doesn't understand why people care about the truth. He has exhibited through example a lack of concern with the truth, but he has not claimed such a thing.
Goldberg is probably more liberal than any of the hate filled posters on this thread. The man was avowed socialist.
It really makes me sick that people give infinitely more respect to a sworn enemy than fellow americans who they have political disagreements.
Goldberg is a major reason I am deeply sorry I renewed my Atlantic subscription 2 months ago. The only reason I did is since I like Jim Fallows so much (and also Matt) but the trash that The Atlantic tries to mainline with people like Goldberg (and they remember they had that human cesspool Mark Styen before him) is just too much to justify me renewing anytime in the future.
"Goldberg gave his list of quotes from Ahmadinejad that he falsely believes establishes that Ahmadinejad has called for another genocide against the jewish people."
Even given the your generous reading of Ahmadinejad's statements, you can't deny the call for the ethnic clensing of every jew in Israel.
August, 2007: "Our support (for the Palestinian people) is unconditional. As for the Israelis, let them go find somewhere else.
October 5, 2007: "Canada and Alaska have vast lands, why don't you relocate them over there and keep helping them over there with (aid of) 30 to 40 billion dollars per year for building a new existence over there?
Even given the your generous reading of Ahmadinejad's statements, you can't deny the call for the ethnic clensing of every jew in Israel.
Indeed. That calling for the ethnic cleansing of Arabs gets you a lifetime membership to AIPAC, as opposed to being threatened with nuclear obliteration, is not at all important here.
(And Wavy Davy Horowitz was once a Black Panther.)
Finally, for a great power, the “national interest” is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation.
And yet the word "imperialism" gives them hives and they start twisting their toes in the dirt like a schoolboy deciding which wowzer their teacher would accept as an excuse.
Psst did you all hear about Iran's plan to nuke New York City? Yup, apparently with a suitcase bomb. The Iranian president was threatening NY yesterday. Can't find the link right now, but i am sure you all believe me, because, seriously, asking me for more information is kind of suspicious. Are you some kind of anti-Semite or something?
Dave labels calls for relocation as evidence of a call for genocide. Dave apparently doesn't know that genocide doesn't mean "relocation".
Dave, ethnic cleansing and genocide are different things. What A-jad is describing is ethnic cleansing. Under international law, what Israel has been doing with the settlements has been anti-Palestinian ethnic cleansing, just as deporting Arabs during the creation of Israel was ethnic cleansing. Genocide is the deliberate murder of a people to eliminate them: the Holocaust, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.
"It really makes me sick that people give infinitely more respect to a sworn enemy than fellow americans who they have political disagreements.
Posted by Dave | June 25, 2008 10:55 AM"
You obviously lack reading comprehension skills. Also, a lot of us consider radical leftism to be anti-liberal (Castro isn't exactly my favorite person in the world). The fact that neocons went from one extreme to another doesn't impress anyone but themselves.
"Even given the your generous reading of Ahmadinejad's statements, you can't deny the call for the ethnic clensing of every jew in Israel.
August, 2007: "Our support (for the Palestinian people) is unconditional. As for the Israelis, let them go find somewhere else.
October 5, 2007: "Canada and Alaska have vast lands, why don't you relocate them over there and keep helping them over there with (aid of) 30 to 40 billion dollars per year for building a new existence over there?"
Honest question here - is it still "ethnic cleansing" if you pay the people to leave? I thought ethnic cleansing was more of an, "If you leave we allow you to live," proposition.
In Dave's defense, he didn't say or imply that the quotes he supplies advocate genocide, only ethnic cleansing.
However, Dave, I will deny that these necessarily are calls for ethnic cleansing.
The most generous reading of these quotes is, perhaps, that Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return, but Jews not forced to leave, and that if the Jews want a Jewish state they should build it somewhere else.
I recall George H.W. Bush, as candidate for president in 1988 (yes, not at all recent) said that Jordan would be a good place for a Palestinian state. Was that advocacy of ethnic cleansing? (I say no, but the comparison is apt under the above interpretation).
Personally, I find Ahmadinejad despicable, but the rhetoric here is already way to hot and we need to resist adding fuel to the fire.
(And Wavy Davy Horowitz was once a Black Panther.)
Posted by pseudonymous in nc
I believe he only ranks as a Black Panther Auxiliary, and not as having been a real Black Panther, since David Horowitz' ego-driven need to be at the center of the revolutionary action sent him into the offices where later one of his female friends would be killed, supposedly due to her knowledge of corruption within the organization.
He still envisions himself at the ego-driven center of some revolution, except for the past few years it's all been about stopping teh moooozlims (formerly it was stopping the imminent Marxist takeover of the world) and the fact that he's built up his own cadre of admirers rather than joining in on someone else's.
Dave,
First I don't agree with Ahmadinejad on his view for the region. The fact that many people are misrepresenting what he said does not mean that what he said was a good thing. It just means it was not the bad thing that people are claiming that he said.
That said, both of your quotes from Ahmadinejad seem to concern the idea that there needs to be a jewish homeland somewhere, and his retort is consistently that that is fine as long as it is not on Palestinians (or perhaps muslim) territory. I suspect he would be quite happy with a Palestinian run country with a sizable jewish minority.
I personally would be happy with a democracy that did not favor any ethnic groups over any other. But I think for practical reasons the best short term bet is a predominantely Jewish democracy on the non-occupied territories, and a less fully democratic Palestinian state on the occupied territories.
But you are just doing what Yglesias was lampooning in his post, namely making an argument that it doesn't matter if what people claim Ahmadinejad said is true because he is a bad person. But it is still worth having an accurate take on what bad people are saying.
Ahmadinejad sees the Israeli state as a bad attempt by the West to take over territory in the middle east in the way that whites had South Africa. And he sees the jewish homeland explanation as a bad faith excuse for doing this. All of the quotes that people come up with to prove him genocidal actually fit with that take on the situation.
To the guillotine with Goldberg! I say off with his head!
Not standing up for Goldberg, but Ahmadinejad has made it clear elsewhere that he believes only non-Zionist Jews i.e. those whose ancestors were there before the Zionist movement kicked off in the late 19th C., should be allowed to remain in Palestine as part of a successor state to Israel.
Goldberg is one trick pony. Guys like him (Mammet for instance) as they age, the develop some bizare paranoia.
I couldn't care less about what he says or does.
Goldberg is one trick pony. Guys like him (Mammet for instance) as they age, the develop some bizare paranoia.
I couldn't care less about what he says or does.
Goldberg is a one trick pony. Guys like him (Mammet for instance) as they age, develop some bizare paranoia with shameless amount of self-entitlement.
I couldn't care less about what he writes or says, hence I cancelled my subscription to the Atlantic. Bad business move on the publisher's part to bring him here.
Goldberg is a one trick pony. Guys like him (Mammet for instance) as they age, develop some bizare paranoia with shameless amount of self-entitlement.
I cancelled my subscription to the Atlantic because I believe hiring Goldberg was a bad move. I know quite a few people who have done the same thing.
Bad business move by the Atlantic publishers.
Goldberg is a one trick pony. PERIOD.
Guys like him --Mammet for instance -- as they age, they develop some bizzare paranoia with shameless amount of self-entitlement.
I cancelled my subscription to the Atlantic because I believe Atlantic was going to a very wrong direction by hiring Jeffrey Goldberg.I know quite a few people who have done the same thing.
It is the buyers' market in the publishing world.
Goldberg is a one trick pony. Guys like him (Mammet for instance) as they age, develop some bizare paranoia with shameless amount of self-entitlement.
Me no likey Goldberg! Atlantic stoopid.
Remember that Goldberg was one of the lead guys pushing the false Al-Qaeda-Saddam connection before the war
Dan:
That's an odd statement. Why would you focus on protecting Saddam? Does it really matter if he wasn't "technically" involved with Al Qaeda or September 11th? Goldberg is a big important journalist after all, so, he must know something you don't.
Re Reality Man
"Under international law, what Israel has been doing with the settlements has been anti-Palestinian ethnic cleansing, just as deporting Arabs during the creation of Israel was ethnic cleansing."
But of course, the removal of Jews from Iraq and other Muslim states in the period just after the 1948 Arab/Israeli war does not constitute ethnic cleansing to the Mr. Reality Mans of the world. By the way, Mr. Reality Man has informed us that he is partly Indian. Does he consider the removal of Hindus from what became Pakistan and Muslims from what became India to be ethnic cleansing?
As I have previously stated, if Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing, given then there are more then 1 million Arabs in Israel, they are piss poor at it.
Emailed to Goldberg:
I think it is impossible to separate this phenomenon from its larger context of unnecessary American interventionism, the propaganda that has been used to bolster it, and legitimate concern over a recurrence of it all in relation to Iran. Saddam was called the greatest threat to Jews in the Middle East before the invasion. Neocons like Bolton and Kristol and Podhoretz called for invasion and regime change. Now A-jad is the Hitler de jour. Neocons like Bolton and Kristol and Podhoretz are calling for massive bombing campaigns.
Is it at all surprising that there has been a reflexive urge to investigate words and power we are told A-jad is responsible for? I can tell you it's not surprising at all to me to have found that yes, some claims about his words and his power turned out to be wanting.
It isn't strange at all to me why people want to be absolutely clear about claims regarding Ahmadinejad. I find it incredibly strange that after the American people have been dragged through a voluntary invasion of Iraq justified in no small part by exaggerated claims of what Saddam wanted and was capable of, and while we stand at the brink of another voluntary attack on a sovereign nation that poses little threat to our country and are facing pressure from Hawks domestic and international to risk another war, that some people have no problem misrepresenting the words and power of Ahmadinejad (intentionally or not) as if this was all happening in a vacuum and the drums of war were not being pounded.
He is a disgusting, no doubt somewhat crazy, anti-semitic asshole of the worst kind. But Hitler he's not. Nazi Germany Iran isn't.
Instead of wondering why people want to see reporting on Ahmadinejad become more accurate and more honest, I wonder why in this context of so many are content to let the propaganda go unquestioned.
Fighting all the Hitlers - Glenn Greenwald
Hitlers, Hitlers and more Hitlers - Greenwald
Israel Prodding US to Attack Iran - CBS News
Mr Goldberg is a Neo-con. He was one of the cheerleaders of the Iraq invasion. He views everything from the prism of what's in the interest of Israel. The US should be pursuing it's own interests not Neo-con's or Israel. After all, it's the american blood that's spilled.
I hope Mr Goldberg comes back to his senses and stop pushing for another military adventure.
"But of course, the removal of Jews from Iraq and other Muslim states in the period just after the 1948 Arab/Israeli war does not constitute ethnic cleansing to the Mr. Reality Mans of the world. By the way, Mr. Reality Man has informed us that he is partly Indian. Does he consider the removal of Hindus from what became Pakistan and Muslims from what became India to be ethnic cleansing?"
Actually, I have repeatedly explained to you that I do consider the deportation of Jews from Arab areas in 1948 to be ethnic cleansing, which I am against. You just are addicted to lying. And yes, I do consider population transfers, as seen in South Asia, to be ethnic cleansing. Just because my ethnicity has engaged in it in the past doesn't mean I have to support those particular cases of ethnic cleansing or any ethnic cleansing. All ethnic cleansing is bad, no matter who does it. Unlike you, I don't base my morals on whatever my ethnicity does is right and whatever Muslims do is wrong. Some of us are capable of being self-critical.
Re Reality Man
Mr. Reality Man still hasn't explained why there are more then 1 million Arabs in Israel if the Israelis are such competent ethnic cleansers.
"Mr. Reality Man still hasn't explained why there are more then 1 million Arabs in Israel if the Israelis are such competent ethnic cleansers.
Posted by SLC | June 25, 2008 3:50 PM"
When did I say Israelis were competent ethnic cleansers? Rhetorical dodging isn't effective when you're so obvious about it.
"Mr. Reality Man still hasn't explained why there are more then 1 million Arabs in Israel if the Israelis are such competent ethnic cleansers.
Posted by SLC | June 25, 2008 3:50 PM"
Also, even genocide doesn't get rid of every member of an ethnic group in a country. The near-total disappearance of the ethnic Vietnamese minority from Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge is an example of a rather rare occurrence. The majority of Tutsis were murdered in Rwanda during the genocide, yet Tutsis now run Rwanda and won the civil war. You are presenting a false dichotomy in bad faith.
I like how SLC really thought he had somebody there with the "Ha! Indians did it too!" line. Just goes to show you how he thinks. "If it's my tribe doing it, then it's okay." Pathetic.
There's a name for Ahmedinejad's abstruse, esoteric language: Farsi.
This is stupid and apropos of nothing.
More relevant -- why does Yglesias have a problem with Goldberg. Could it be b/c Goldberg actually knows what he's talking about, given he goes out and actually "reports" on matters while Matt spews out gibberish beyond gibberish concerning things about which he knows next to nothing?
"Not standing up for Goldberg, but Ahmadinejad has made it clear elsewhere that he believes only non-Zionist Jews i.e. those whose ancestors were there before the Zionist movement kicked off in the late 19th C., should be allowed to remain in Palestine as part of a successor state to Israel."
This is a reasonable concept, if probably not practical to implement. Clearly he believes everybody who came in later are part of the "European colonialist project" that was Zionism and basically that is more or less correct.
Again, however, it is not practical to implement the exclusion of seven million Israelis from a one-state solution. Of course, quite a few of those Jews would leave if a single Palestinian state was implemented.
More likely, the rest will have to be killed just to implement a one-state solution in the first place. Unfortunate, but that's Nature's way of eliminating the stupid.
"More relevant -- why does Yglesias have a problem with Goldberg. Could it be b/c Goldberg actually knows what he's talking about, given he goes out and actually "reports" on matters while Matt spews out gibberish beyond gibberish concerning things about which he knows next to nothing?
Posted by a | June 25, 2008 5:16 PM"
Goldberg makes shit up about bin Laden being connected to Saddam Hussein while sitting in on Kurds torturing Arab prisoners while not saying anything. He's an ideologue who filters out anything that does not suit his purposes. Today MY linked to a friend of his who does a lot of reporting from Iraq, so it's not like he's anti-reporter. A lot of people have problems with Goldberg because he's both a fool and a tool and is unaware he is either.
Re Reality Man
Let's see, there are, as I previously stated, in excess of 1 million Arabs in Israel. There are in excess of 1 million Arabs in the Gaza Strip and in excess of 2 million Arabs in the West Bank. Thus, there are in excess of 4 million Arabs in what was once Palestine. Thus, not only are the Israelis incompetent ethnic cleansers but they are the most incompetent ethnic cleansers in the history of the world. The Arabs were much better at it as the 1/2 million Jews who used to live in Iraq are now down to a few thousand.
And the largest refugee group for years, according to any respected almanac, has been Palestinians. What exactly is your point? If a psycho sniper misses every target out of incompetence, that doesn't excuse the fact that he is trying to kill innocent people. There is also a difference between the ethnic cleansing which has taken place in the Palestinian Territories - exporting Jewish Israelis to settle on stolen land - which is similar to Mao's policies in Tibet and the ethnic cleansing of kicking people out of their homes and making them move. The former seeks to make your group the majority via force on another group's land to rob them of their rights to their nation's geographic area. The latter seeks to simply take that land. Israel proper was founded via the second type and the Occupation was been based on the first type.
"The Arabs were much better at it as the 1/2 million Jews who used to live in Iraq are now down to a few thousand.
Posted by SLC | June 26, 2008 9:06 AM"
What's your point exactly? To prove that Arabs are worse or something? Nobody is interested in getting into your tribal "your ethnic cleansing is worse than my ethnic cleansing" squabbles, so you're just masturbating.
Re Reality Man
Just as a matter of record, according to a study by the Kennedy School of Government, not known as a puppet of the international Zionist conspiracy, 77% of the Arab citizens of Israel don't think the place is so bad, at least in comparison with its Arab neighbors. This is in no way a complement to the State of Israel, its a sad commentary on the state of affairs in the Arab world.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12938.htm
I still don't get your point. Are these questions really relevant to this discussion? Why would I care about your public masturbation?
Comments closed July 09, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
In my experience, there's a pretty longstanding tradition in American politics in which, particularly with regard to foreign policy (including history), any insistence upon accuracy or empirical reality when such insistence conflicts with a claim about the awfulness of some foe means you're objectively pro foe.
Posted by El Cid | June 25, 2008 9:57 AM