TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
24.06.2008
Joe Klein Enters the Fever Swamp

Reading that Joe Klein blog entry about the Iraq surge Jason linked to earlier, I came upon this curious paragraph towards the end:

The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives--people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary--plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel. And then there is the question--made manifest by the no-bid contracts offered U.S. oil companies by the Iraqis--of two oil executives, Bush and Cheney, securing a new source of business for their Texas buddies.

"Raised the question of divided loyalties?" Why doesn't Klein just come out and answer the "question," instead of cowardly using a vague, past tense construction, and say that a cabal of Jews agitated a War for Israel? His suggestion that they advocated "using U.S. lives and money to make the world safe for Israel" is the exact same sort of thing Pat Buchanan said about the First Gulf War (remarks that led his former mentor William F. Buckley Jr. to label him an anti-Semite). 

More questions for Joe Klein. If the Jews with dual loyalties really ran our foreign policy, wouldn't they have pressed first for war with Iran, which presents a far graver threat to Israel than Saddam ever did? And how come so many non-Jews like Don Rumsfeld, former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey, the Kurds, just to name a few, all "plumped for war?"

--James Kirchick

Posted: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 4:19 PM with 5 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

rozenson said:

Prominent Jewish neoconservatives rallied for war, sure. But the Israeli defense establishment did not. They had always been more worried about Iran. And BECAUSE Israel does not control American policy, but rather Israel must deal with America's own foreign policy, Israel publicly backed the Iraq war for fear of getting the "France treatment." For Klein to argue that Iraq was an exercise in Israeli/Jewish manipulation is wrong and dangerous. I'm shocked he'd even try sounding like Pat Buchanan.

I'm surprised I'm sounding like Jamie Kirchick, come to think of it.

June 24, 2008 5:59 PM

tec619 said:

Right you are rozenson. The Israelis have their heads on.  You won't agree entirely with my position, because I suscribe to an cabal charge, (even "The Economist," "Financial Times" and Michael Kinsley remarked on the matter) but here goes. . .

When the NYT polled Jewish New Yorkers in the run-up to Oedipal/Gulf War 2, a large majority opposed the invasion of Iraq. I found that result curious. Were they inveterate Democrats or self-haters? No, they probably figured the sponsor of Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran(oh, I better not forgot our close ally home of 17 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, and Hamas financier, Saudi Arabia) was more of a threat to Israel than Iraq. (I wonder what the Israelis would do if they discovered irrefutable evidence that the Saudis fiianaced a devasting terrorist attack against it. Somehow, I don't think bombing. . .Burkina Faso,would be its response.)

But no, the Jewish neocon cowards who gained military expertise through. . .not serving in the U.S. or Israeli military, were obssessed with invading Iraq and harbored fevered delusions that the invasion would help Israel.  (Didn't Chalabi promise Wolfie he'd build an oil pipeline from Kirkuk to Israel? Though any jackass could see that the pipeline would have to cross Syrian and Jordanian territory. Guess two more invasions would solve that problem. ) Well, five years later, the 'brilliant" plan is a (predictably) spectacular fiasco. No wonder Israel wasn't receptive to the unsolicited plans of the neocons.  (Gen. Odom: ". . .the neocons, who think they know what’s good for Israel more than Israel knows." )

Unfortunately, we are stuck with Wolfowitz, Peretz, Feith, Perle, Pipes and the rest of those Chicken Little assholes. (Total military service? Zero. Awareness of the religious and ethnic divisions of Iraq? Zero. Yet war-mongering poltroons Wolfowitz and Feith are allowed to supervise military planning and the likes of Max Boot, Fred and Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, ersatz General M. Peretz, Pipes, Randy Scheunemann beat the drums for war.

June 24, 2008 6:55 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

This may surprise you but on this point, I agree with you. Needy Joe is a real jerk and I can't stand him, or his position on Iraq or Iran, but this "divided loyalty" stuff is code, and as you say, a particularly bigoted code.

This Lyin Joe Klein guy has always been sort of a creep. Sic'em kirchick...you have my blessing...

June 24, 2008 6:57 PM

tedmcd said:

I was just about to write an email to a friend about David Brooks' anti-Semitism radar being oversensitive, then Klein goes off and gives Brooks more evidence.  Damn I hate it when that happens!

June 25, 2008 12:23 PM

Mere Rhetoric said:

Obama shill Mel Levine has never been shy about throwing around his AIPAC credentials. That's a good strategy given how his pro-Obama arguments are mindbogglingly stupid, but it does beg a question: given how the Obama campaign is on...

October 18, 2008 5:55 PM