I had not intended to touch this story when I saw it being pushed by the polemical magazine The Weekly Standard — why devote attention to an American political squabble, even if it had an “Iran” label, when there were matters concerning Iran that have far more significance than the point-scoring and agendas in Washington? Unfortunately, one cannot let barking dogs lie.
On Friday Eli Lake of The Washington Timesparaded an alleged exposé, “Iran advocacy group said to skirt lobby rules”, of the status and activities of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). The article is lengthy, offering the appearance of background and context to frame its accusing “questions about whether the organization is using that influence to lobby for policies favorable to Iran in violation of federal law” and its warning to “prominent Washington figures” that they “could come to regret their ties to the group”.
Neither length nor the article’s placement in the news rather than opinion-editorial section should disguise, however, its intent. This is not journalism but a political attack. Read the rest of this entry »
In a dramatic non-move that will disappoint devoted readers of Conservapedia and the Weekly Standard, the still-not-Muslim President did not kneel down before the very-Muslim King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. He did say, however, that he was “struck by [Abdullah's] wisdom and his graciousness.” Obama, whose middle name is still Hussein, added, “Obviously the United States and Saudi Arabia have a long history of friendship. We have a strategic relationship.”
Adolf Hitler, claim your partial exoneration. Josef Goebbels, hold fast to your propaganda. Hermann Goering, give back the cyanide. Y’all may have killed millions, started one of the two bloodiest conflicts of all time, and generally been nasty, but Congressman Pete Hoekstra has given you partial absolution.
(To dispel any thoughts of unimportant looniess, Hoekstra was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War, which he vigorously supported as a fight against non-Nazi terrorists. He is still the ranking Republican on the committee.)
The fact that the remarkable [General David] Petraeus is (among others) overseeing things is a source of comfort and confidence.
Silver Medal
Military sychophant of the year David Brooks writes in The New York Times after his Pentagon-guided tour of Afghanistan:
The Afghans are warm and welcoming. They detest the insurgents and root for American success….We’re already well through the screwing-up phase of our operation….The people who work here make an overwhelming case that Afghanistan can become a functional, terror-fighting society and that it is worth sending our sons and daughters into danger to achieve this.
I asked the boss for a reaction to the Afghan speech. He said he would have framed a few things differently, but his basic response was: “All hail Obama!”
Mr Goldfarb’s boss is failed New York Times columnist Mr William Kristol.
Two days after the withdrawal of the nomination of Charles Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council, primarily because of his views on the Middle East and specifically the Israel-Palestine situation, the unspeakable is being spoken:
For many people, this story will never be known. They will not have heard of the American diplomat, Charles Freeman, or the National Intelligence Council, which he was nominated to lead. The withdrawal of that nomination yesterday will not make CNN Headline News or the front pages of US newspapers.
Make no mistake, however. As a story of how US foreign policy is limited and re-structured — courtesy of Congress, a network of private groups, and American political culture — it offers an essential lesson. “Israel” continues to set limits on the “acceptable” in US foreign policy. Read the rest of this entry »
Update (16 Feb. — 7:45 p.m. GMT): Yesterday we predicted a deluge of comment, after Senator Feinstein’s revelation of US airbases inside Pakistan, on the lines of “None of these realities [of missile strikes] harm the US. Only appearances do.”
Here you go. Thomas Ricks of The Washington Post is fussing, quoting military blogs: “Unfortunately for the US personnel at the Pakistani base, they have now been identified as targets for the militants. US access to Pakistan also became vastly more fragile today. Moreover, the elected government has been weakened, possibly fatally.” Read the rest of this entry »
I had not intended to touch this story when I saw it being pushed by the polemical magazine The Weekly Standard — why devote attention to an American political squabble, even if it had an “Iran” label, when there were matters concerning Iran that have far more significance than the point-scoring and agendas in Washington? Unfortunately, one cannot let barking dogs lie.
Honourable Mention
Two days after the withdrawal of the nomination of Charles Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council, primarily because of his views on the Middle East and specifically the Israel-Palestine situation, the unspeakable is being spoken:
For many people, this story will never be known. They will not have heard of the American diplomat, Charles Freeman, or the National Intelligence Council, which he was nominated to lead. 
Update (16 Feb. — 7:45 p.m. GMT): Yesterday we predicted a deluge of comment, after Senator Feinstein’s revelation of US airbases inside Pakistan, on the lines of “None of these realities [of missile strikes] harm the US. Only appearances do.”
Entries (RSS)