Glenn asks: “Does the past record of journalists matter?”
The answer, of course, is no. Unless we are talking about private emails in which they correctly note the world would be a better place if Drudge lit himself on fire or that Sarah Palin is an idiot. Then it is a BIG FUCKING DEAL.
But when they openly lie and agitate for a war and turn out to be wrong about everything? That doesn’t matter. Especially if Joe Klein thinks they use pretty words.
redoubt
Mission statement–Afflict the afflicted, comfort the comfortable.
Punchy
TL;DR. Who the hell is Jeff Goldberg? And why do I care?
Emma
The nicest thing about this interwebs stuff is that I don’t have to rely on them anymore… Direct access to the McClatchy feed and BBC News, and the newspapers of every country in the world has made the likes of the Post and the NYT irrelevant for me.
eemom
You know what? Fuck Glenn. I read the damn article — in fact I’m still arguing about it on yesterday’s thread — and Fallows is absolutely right. How ’bout linking to him??
Glenn’s a propagandist asshole himself. His whole bullshit premise is based on 2 sentences taken out of context in a 6 page piece. Fucking sick of his shit.
fasteddie9318
But John, there’s no point in this particular article where Goldberg specifically calls for Obama to personally shove an AGM-129 missile up Ahmadinejad’s ass, so making any other assumption about his motives is pure anti-Semitic projection. If Goldberg’s past writings are difficult for you to put aside, just rap yourself on the head with a ball-peen hammer a few times until you forget that he’s a mendacious Likudnik piece of shit.
Svensker
@eemom:
What you said in the previous thread:
So what you’re arguing is:
a) You have read Greenwald before and you dislike what he writes and this current article is just typical Greenwald bullshilt.
b) You have never read Goldberg before, but anyone who says that Goldberg’s past history influences how they read his current article is full of bullshit.
It must make sense to someone.
j low
What Svensker said.
NonyNony
@eemom:
Fallows is not right because he got Greenwald’s argument backwards. Greenwald wasn’t arguing that Goldberg shouldn’t be trusted because what he wrote before was a pack of lies – Greenwald is arguing that what Goldberg wrote directly contradicts what Goldberg wrote in the run up to the Iraq war and Goldberg was right then and is wrong now.
Goldberg correctly said in the run-up to the Iraq war that the Israeli attack on Osirak did not stop Hussein from pursuing nukes – it accelerated his program. What stopped Hussein from pursuing nukes was the US invasion under Bush the Elder. Goldberg got this right in the run up to the Iraq war and is lying about it now. That’s Greenwald’s point – Goldberg is a lying propagandist whose willing to say things that he knows to be false because he’s publicly written about the same issues in the past and shown that he knew then what the actual truth was (when it was convenient for his case, that is).
Don’t let your blind hatred for Glenn Greenwald color your worldview so much – just because you hate someone that doesn’t mean they’re always wrong. That’s the worldview of a 10 year old. People you dislike can occasionally be right and people you like can be wrong. It happens.
eemom
@Svensker:
No, what I’m arguing is:
a) I never read Goldberg before yesterday, and I’m still willing to accept that he’s an asshole for cheerleading the Iraq war;
b) I’ve since read the whole article that everybody’s ranting about and I think it’s been ridiculously misrepresented, again for all the reasons Fallows points out;
c) 1. I have no strong opinion on Greenwald’s argument that everything a guy says in 2010 should be measured by what he said in 2002, though I think it’s a pretty stupid one;
2. I am reacting to what Greenwald says about what Goldberg argues NOW, which is what I was referring to by his taking 2 sentences out of context to launch his “propaganda” smear campaign;
3. Yes, this does reinforce my opinion that Greenwald is a lying, slimy little asshole.
Can you glean some sense from that?
Also, how many of you Glennbots have actually READ Goldberg’s fucking article?
eemom
Again: who here has READ the goddamn article? Svensker? Nony?
eemom
@NonyNony:
1. Take condescension.
2. Insert up rectum.
fasteddie9318
@eemom:
OK, removing the condescension:
Is this not a substantive criticism, or is it invalid just because Glenn Greenwald is the one making it?
Makewi
Which journalist lost their job or suffered at all due to their horrible comments on journolist?
Omnes Omnibus
@eemom:
Sounds uncomfortable. I would prefer not.
fasteddie9318
@Makewi:
Is this non sequitur day? OK, then, which quarterback should the Steelers start the season with?
John Cole
@Makewi: Weigel.
Omnes Omnibus
@fasteddie9318: I am thinking of buying a new bicycle. Non sequiturs are fun
eemom
hmm. I notice there haven’t been a lot of assurances that people actually read the fucking article they’re parroting Glenn about. Funny that.
Talking out your asshole is so much easier than taking the time to learn something.
Turbulence
I read the article.
And I notice that you and the other pro-Goldberg folks haven’t really addressed any of the issues I’ve raised in the other thread, even when I phrase them as direct questions that can be answered with a yes/no.
eemom
@Turbulence:
I responded to you on the other thread, Turbie. And I did address your points. Politely, I might add.
John Cole
@eemom: I read the damned article. Twice. And I read Steve Clemon’s excellent analysis of it. And all of Glenn’s criticisms.
And I think Glenn is right, and the entire tone of Goldberg’s article, complete with Hitchens on video plotting the overthrow of Iran, was to get the United States to act. It was naked propaganda.
And what has me most upset is it will probably work. Again.
Turbulence
@eemom:
Really? Because it sure seems like you never answered the following questions, which is why I asked you a second time for a quick answer:
maus
@eemom:
Complaining about Greenwald selectively quoting to skew context while you’ve been doing nothing but skim his and Goldberg’s articles?
Really?
Your entire opinion of him is based on metacriticism from blog comments.
Makewi
@John Cole:
Yeah, OK.
Omnes Omnibus
@eemom: I have read the article and have not read Greenwald yet. One of the problems that I have is that I filter everything Goldberg is saying through what I know about his past. It gives me a jaundiced point of view. In a different context, if Pete Peterson were to pen an Op-Ed indicating that Social Security is just fine for now but only needs a few tweaks, wouldn’t you have some doubts and read the piece looking for the catch. I think that is what people have done, myself included, when reading the Goldberg piece.
eemom
@Turbulence:
yes, I did answer that. Go look.
@maus:
And you know that I “skimmed” something rather than read it, how exactly?
I hope your livelihood doesn’t depend on reading minds, because you kind of suck at it.
DonkeyKong
Did anyone here get a pony from the managing editor of the Atlantic, yeah didn’t think so.
j low
@ John
Dave Weigel?
eemom
@John Cole:
.
well then, I guess I’ve overestimated your capacity for fair-mindedness and reading comprehension, John. That honestly disappoints me.
Whatever anyone may think about Goldberg’s ulterior motive — which, again, is nothing more than a stupid mind-guessing-game — that is absolutely NOT a fair characterization of that article.
And I agree with celticdragonchick that pinning that whole argument on the Hitchens video is intellectual dishonesty in its vilest form.
ETA: Also, and I really hate to say this: if you think “it will work” with the Obama administration, you’re an idiot.
Dan
Greenwald’s point might be valid criticism if Goldberg was now arguing that an israeli/american attack would end the risk of an eventual iranian nuclear attack. I don’t think anyone makes that point in the article, even the people quoted. They are talking about delaying/discouraging. That’s part of what’s so depressing – the idea of taking such a risk just to buy a few more nuclear-free years, when who knows how Iran will respond.
Also if Greenwald really thinks Iran has no interest in developing a nuclear weapon, he should say so. I think even most people who oppose some kind of attack against Iran (including me) are pretty convinced they are after nukes.
My take on Greenwald is that he is very bright and thoughtful, but somehow manages to be so snide and strident (and resorts to so much name calling and hyperbole) that he is difficult to read or take too seriously.
eemom
@Omnes Omnibus:
That is the first honest response I’ve gotten on this thread. Thank you.
John Cole
@eemom: A.) The entire piece was designed to convince Americans that Iran has to be bombed, and that Israel is probably going to do it anyway, so we might as well help. You don’t have to divine Goldberg’s motives, because the point of the piece is crystal clear. The title of the damned article was The Point of No Return, and in the prelude describes “how, if things remain on the current course, an Israeli air strike will unfold.” I’m not guessing as to the god damned point of the piece. It’s right there in print.
B.) I never pinned the “whole argument on the Hitchens video.” You’re just making shit up.
C.) I have no idea if it will work with Obama, and I would hope it would not. But Goldberg and the Likudniks don’t care if it happens now. They’re just laying the groundwork, much like they did with Iraq for two decades in between the first and second gulf wars.
Dan
Also, goldberg’s clarification of the article on his blog:
“I did not mean to suggest in the Iran article that Saddam’s desire for nuclear weapons was stopped by the Osirak attack. I meant to suggest only that the Osirak attack was more effective than the Israelis thought it would be, because Saddam never achieved his ambition of nuclearization. Of course, the Osirak attack wasn’t the only reason Saddam never reached the goal of gaining a nuclear capability (the 1991 Gulf War, and subsequent U.N. sanctions, had a lot to do with this as well, of course) ”
Finally, there’s a certain irony regarding this whole discussion of Osirak because as we now know, saddam was never able to build a nuclear weapon, and the israeli attack on the facility did not spread into a wider conflict (other than a few scuds sent israel’s way during the first gulf war). I’m curious what Greenwald thinks of the osirak incident 30 years on.
Omnes Omnibus
@eemom: You are welcome, but I have to say that I still think he is pushing for a climate in which an attack on Iran is seen, first, as a sensible option, then as the sensible option.
celticdragonchick
@eemom:
It seems that you and I missed out on getting our Sooper Seekrit Squirrel Decoder Rings where we can decipher a cleverly encrypted seeming attempt at nuanced, pro vs con piece of reporting. All the Kool Kidz here got one, but we got left out.
I want my Decoder Ring so I can play 11th dimensional chess decoding like Cole and DougJ and Glenzilla.
I think the thing that makes me laugh the most is how Goldberg can say repeatedly that he thinks there are no good choices to be had and that anything we do or fail to do will likely end badly…but the Kool Kidz point and say:
Uh huh.
celticdragonchick
@Turbulence:
I haven’t seen any pro Goldberg people here or in the other threads. That right there raises suspicion that you are dishonestly interpreting comments.
The problem I have had here is simply that Cole, DougJ and Glenzilla are trying to fit the article into some sort of grand meta-narrative with things he wrote 8 years ago with scant evidence for doing so. It seems instead that things he says now somehow mean the exact opposite, if you just know where to look…! You and the rest try to paint Goldberg as playing some sort of obscure passive aggressive game to psyche us out into supporting a war that isn’t even on the horizen for 95% of the population and in a publication that has little influence in the White House. I am fairly sure that Israel has more direct means available to influence the White House.
He has stated his opinions regarding any possible war, and he doesn’t seem to think that any action we take or fail to take will end well. He himself points out that Iranian nukes cannot be the sort of existential threat that the Holocause was. Nothing like undercutting your clever propaganda, eh? Oh, I get it! Undercutting your propaganda is actually a double plus clever way to reinforce your insidious message!
What the hell where we saying…?
If I had to take Occam’s Razor to this, I can be fairly confident which way it would cut.
eemom
@John Cole:
A. You and DougJ both placed unwarranted emphasis on the video, basically because that’s the best you can do for your “propaganda” theory.
B.
1. To assume you know what the piece “was designed to do,” is a goddamn guessing game no matter how you slice it.
2. The title “Point of No Return” absolutely does NOT support that guess. It’s nothing more than a stupid cliche that could just easily have been the title of an article by someone desperate to AVOID bombing Iran.
3. The statement, “if things remain on the current course an Israeli air strike will unfold” is a perfectly fair assessment of what the Israelis — the ISRAELIS, NOT THE US — are likely to do “if things remain on the current course.” Shit, even you Israel-haters say that.
4. “that Israel is probably going to do it anyway, so we might as well help” — now that is where you are off on a bias-driven leap of faith across a vast yawning chasm of zero substance.
That is bullshit. That is not what the man says, and it is not what his words imply.
He talks about the ways the various scenarios might play out if Israel attacks — again, that is what ANY rational person discussing this issue would do — and what’s been done right here on this blog.
Show me what he says that supports “we might as well help.” SHOW me.
You know what I think the bottom line is, with you, Greenwald and all the others? That by discussing this issue at all — just by opening his mouth and uttering the word “Iran” — Goldberg, given what you believe to be his biases, MUST intend to further a pro-war agenda.
This is ALL about who he is and what he’s said in the past, and nothing to do with what he wrote after the word “Iran.”
eemom
@celticdragonchick:
thank God you’re here. I can’t stand it anymore.
eemom
@Omnes Omnibus:
but you admit you think that because of Goldberg 2002, right? That that colors what you read in the article?
If not, I invite you also to find me some actual text of the article that supports that thesis.
And I thank you again for engaging in reasonable discussion about something you actually READ.
DougJ
@eemom:
He’s certainly an asshole (I doubt he’d deny it) but how is he a propagandist? I just don’t see that at all.
DougJ
@Omnes Omnibus:
That’s not quite a perfect analogy. It’s more like if Pete Peterson wrote a piece saying that Republicans are going to gut Social Security anyway and Democrats will be blamed when they do and then claimed to be “paralyzingly unsure” (or whatever Goldberg said) about whether or not Democrats should just go ahead and gut Social Security. Then did a deathbed interview with Tim Russert about how we should gut Social Security. Then wrote several blog posts accusing everyone who doesn’t want to gut Social Security of being an anti-Semite.
Dan
Seems strange that last time Goldberg got in trouble for allegedly making up evidence that iraq was cooperating with al qaeda and now he’s getting in trouble for what exactly? accurately quoting israeli officials? would you prefer he lied? would you prefer a story where the israelis say no we aren’t taking out the iranian nukes and wink and he reports the statement but not the winks?
It does seem kind of like he can’t win here no matter what he does. If you want to say you just don’t trust the guy because of the iraq stories, fine, I think that’s a decently fair position for someone to take. What I think is wrong is trying to read more into the current story then is there.
DougJ
@Dan:
FWIW, the Atlantic shouldn’t be publishing articles of his about the Middle East at all. That’s really the point.
John Cole
@eemom: Ok. I just want to make sure I have the eemom rules for critical analysis down. When you read a piece in the news, you are:
1.) Not allowed to pay attention to the title.
2.) Not allowed to pay attention to the content, in which multiple times it states that Israel could pull this off, but would like it if the US helped them or did it alone.
3.) Not allowed to pay attention to the author’s past, including his track record regarding pro-Israel agitprop, his service in Israel’s military, and his contemporary writings and blogposts.
Now that I know the rules, I guess you are right! That wasn’t an alarmist anti-Iran war screed!
Surly Duff
One of the main issues of the article, in my mind, is that there is no opposing viewpoint presented regarding Iran’s nuclear programs, only those convinced that it is being used to attain weaponry. Goldberg provides Netanyahu’s position – “framed the Iranian program as a threat not only to Israel but to all of Western civilization”;
an ambassador of the United Arab Emirates – “There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran,” ;
more Israeli officials – If the Israelis reach the firm conclusion that Obama will not, under any circumstances, launch a strike on Iran, then the countdown will begin for a unilateral Israeli attack ;
Rahm Emmanuel – “The expression ‘All options are on the table’ means that all options are on the table,” Emanuel told me before the meeting, in a tone meant to suggest both resolve and irritation at those who believe the president lacks such resolve. ;
The point is that the entire premise of the article is what will be done about the growing threat Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity, and will the United States be involved in military action? But there is never any question about the actual capacity or timeframe of Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and never discussion the negotiations and involvement of the IAEA. It does not appear that he ever asked the question or reviewed any sources to ask, what if Iran is not even pursuing the weapons? Never once addressed Israel’s refusal to join the nonproliferation treaty.
All Greenwald and others are trying to show is that this was the same approach taken by Goldberg in the run up to Iraq war. Take the position that an armed Iran/Iraq exists, and then what the world and U.S. will do to stop it.
DougJ
@Surly Duff:
This.
I feel dumb that I’ve been screaming about this article all week and you’ve nailed it much better than I ever did and all in a single comment.
eemom
@John Cole:
before I permanently exit this cesspool, I’ll make one more feeble attempt at communication: I didn’t say you’re not “allowed to pay attention” to any of that stuff.
I think it’s silly to infer so much from a title, especially when that title is nothing more than a tired old cliche.
I’ve said over and over again that I’m not addressing what Goldberg did or said in the past, or its relevance here — I’m just addressing what he said in the article.
OTOH I think it is fair to say that almost ALL of the reaction you and DougJ, et al have to the article is based on Goldberg’s past rather than what the article itself actually says — but so far only OO has been honest enough to admit that. And I guess DougJ sort of admits it in the later thread where he says he doesn’t need to read what the guy says because he already knows EVERYTHING ABOUT the guy — an attitide I find incredible.
As for: “multiple times it states that Israel could pull this off, but would like it if the US helped them or did it alone.”
Of course Israel would like it if the U.S. helped, but that’s not the issue. The issue is whether Goldberg is URGING that the U.S. help them, and I just do not get that FROM THIS ARTICLE.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@eemom:
@4
Then why not do GG one better, from your perspective, and make a rational case against what he actually said instead of blowing an unsupported summary cuntfart out of your hag mouth?
Here’s an example of your existing technique. Do you simply believe me when all I say is:
“You know what? Fuck Fallows. I read the damn article—in fact I’m still arguing about it on yesterday’s thread—and Glenn is absolutely right. How ‘bout linking to him??”
See how that’s unpersuasive to a rational person?
eemom
@Surly Duff:
As far as Goldberg not engaging in the debate over whether Iran is in fact working on nukes or not, yes, that IS a valid point, as I said to whatzisname on the old thread.
But that point is NOT the one these people here have been hammering on, or Greenwald either.
eemom
@Uncle Clarence Thomas:
get lost, Uncle.
celticdragonchick
@Uncle Clarence Thomas:
It is telling that some men cannot make a cogent argument against a woman and must rely on vile, misogynist imagery based on sexual humiliation and degradation.
Bravo, sir. Your bravely anonymous use of agumentum ad hominum is a shining example of profiles in courage. Te saluto!
maus
@celticdragonchick:
Inappropriate yes, but insults aren’t ad hominems. If he said her opinion meant less because she was a hag (rather than simply spewing forth insults) than it would be.
Catsy
@John Cole:
This.
Great bouncing cherry-flavored gummi christs. I swear that I would put trolls like eemom on my pie filter if it wouldn’t make it hard to tell why everyone else is pissed off in every other thread. Their style is possibly one of the single most annoying kinds of borderline trolling: pedantic about making everyone else prove their point wrong, hair-trigger attacks at the slightest provocation, and utterly oblivious to any kind of context or nuance that invalidates whatever irrelevant detail they’re nitpicking in order to derail the thread.
Eemom: after watching this thread, I can’t imagine why anyone might think you’re off the rails. That Goldberg is a dishonest pro-Israel propagandist who wants war with Iran is obvious only to anyone who’s paid attention to everything he’s said, done and advocated for most of the last decade. For someone who just spend the last thread torching everyone around them for their tribalism, you sure seem to be willfully ignorant of Goldberg’s.