Goldberg Slam Dunks Cole
The cole-goldberg spat is highlighting a number of interesting features about america’s taboo against mentioning zionism. Cole slammed goldberg over his intellectual credentials, "I think it is time to be frank about some things. Jonah Goldberg knows absolutely nothing about Iraq. I wonder if he has even ever read a single book on Iraq, much less written one. He knows no Arabic. He has never lived in an Arab country. He can't read Iraqi newspapers or those of Iraq's neighbors. He knows nothing whatsoever about Shiite Islam, the branch of the religion to which a majority of Iraqis adheres. Why should we pretend that Jonah Goldberg's opinion on the significance and nature of the elections in Iraq last Sunday matters? It does not." (Juan Cole ‘Jonah Goldberg Embarrasses Himself Once Again’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 5th 2005).
He goes on, "Jonah Goldberg is a fearmonger, a warmonger, and a demagogue. And besides, he was just plain wrong about one of the more important foreign policy issues to face the United States in the past half-century. It is shameful that he dares show his face in public, much less continuing to pontificate about his profound knowledge of just what Iraq is like and what needs to be done about Iraq and the significance of events in Iraq." (Juan Cole ‘Jonah Goldberg Embarrasses Himself Once Again’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 5th 2005).
Cole returned to the issue a few days later, "Let us see what has been established. First, I alleged that Goldberg has never read a book about Iraq, about which he keeps fulminating. I expected him at least to lie in response, the way W. did when similarly challenged on his book-reading. I expected Goldberg to say, "That is not true! I have read Phebe Marr's book on modern Iraq from cover to cover and know all about the 1963 failed Baathist coup!" But Goldberg did not respond in this way. I conclude that I was correct, and he has never read a book on this subject. In the end, I am saying that Goldberg's punditry is empty. All he has to offer us is a party line and a strongly held opinion. Not all pundits are in this category. Goldberg is particularly unsubstantive." (Juan Cole ‘Goldberg v. Cole Redux’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 8th 2005).
Cole then raises the interesting point about why the (zionist owned) media pays the (zionist) goldberg vast amounts of money to pontificate on issues about which he has done such little background reading, "I am saying I do not understand why CNN or NPR would hire someone to talk about Iraq policy who has not read a book on the subject under discussion. Actually, of course, it would be desirable that he had read more than one book. Books are nice. They are rectangular and soft and have information in them. They can even be consumed on airplanes. Goldberg should try one." (Juan Cole ‘Goldberg v. Cole Redux’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 8th 2005).
Cole goes on, "But Goldberg is just a dime a dozen pundit. Cranky rich people hire sharp-tongued and relatively uninformed young people all the time and put them on the mass media to badmouth the poor, spread bigotry, exalt mindless militarism, promote anti-intellectualism, and ensure generally that rightwing views come to predominate even among people who are harmed by such policies. One of their jobs is to marginalize progressives by smearing them as unreliable." (Juan Cole ‘Goldberg v. Cole Redux’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 8th 2005).
He concludes, "The corporate media failed the United States in 2002-2003. The US government failed the American people in 2002-2003. That empty, and often empty-headed punditry, which Jon Stewart destroyed so skilfully, played a big role in dragooning the American people into a wasteful and destructive elective war that threatens to warp American society and very possibly to end the free Republic we have managed to maintain for over 200 years. Already severe challenges to our sacred Constitution have been launched by the Right. Goldberg is a big proponent of "profiling," which is to say, spying on people because of their ethnicity rather than because of anything they as individuals have done wrong. That is only the beginning, if such persons maintain their influence on public discourse." (Juan Cole ‘Goldberg v. Cole Redux’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 8th 2005).
Notice the way during their exchange that cole refuses to mention that goldberg is a zionist writing for the zionist owned media supporting a proxy zionist war against iraq. Cole probably believes he has won a decisive victory over this ignoramus but in reality goldberg has won hands down because cole has abided by the zionist taboo against talking about the role of zionism. As long as lefty progressive critics of the war against iraq continue to abide by this zionist taboo they are never going to expose and counter-act the primary cause of america’s problems – the zionist control of the american media, the zionist control over congress, and the zionist control over the presidency.
During the exchange cole pointed out that goldberg refused to fight for his country, "As for why my sorry a** isn't in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give - I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my a** is, er, sorry, are a few - ever seem to suffice." (Jonah Goldberg "On and On http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_01_30_corner-archive.asp#055419 February 5th 2005). Cole denounces goldberg for being a warmonger who refuses to fight in the war, "Goldberg helped send nearly 1500 brave Americans to their deaths and helped maim over 10,000, not to mention all the innocent Iraqi civilians he helped get killed. He helped dragoon 140,000 US troops in Iraq. And he does not have the courage of his convictions. His excuse is that he couldn't afford to take the pay cut! What is Goldberg going to say to the tens of thousands of reservists he helped send to Iraq, who are losing their mortgages and small businesses and have been kidnapped for 18 months at a time (not what they thought they were signing up for) by Rumsfeld? "Well guys, thanks for carrying out the policy I wanted to see, and for putting your own little girls into penury. I'd have loved to help out, but my little girl is more important than yours and besides, I like a good meal and I hear you only get MREs." (Juan Cole ‘Jonah Goldberg Embarrasses Himself Once Again’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 5th 2005). Cole returned to the issue, "Although I do not believe that everyone who advocates a war must go and fight it, I do believe that young men who advocate a war must go and fight it. Goldberg was in his early 30s in 2002, and the army would have taken him. An older colleague who was at Harvard in 1941 told me about how the freshman class rushed to enlist. That was the characteristic of the Greatest Generation - they put their money where their mouths were. Goldberg's response was insulting to all the soldiers fighting in Iraq who have suffered economically and who are remote from their families. I don't think there is anything at all unpatriotic about a young man opposing a war and declining to enlist. But a young man (and this applies to W. and Cheney too) who mouths off strongly about the desirability of a war is a coward and a hypocrite if he does not go to fight it. (Juan Cole ‘Goldberg v. Cole Redux’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 8th 2005).
Predictably justin raimondo’s blog carries a humiliating attack on this issue, ‘Jonah Goldberg: Hypocrite, Chickenhawk’ http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=0
Come on, let’s be honest about this. Goldberg has succeeded in persuading non-zionist americans to lay down their lives to protect the zionist state in palestine. Why on Earth would he want to go and do the job himself when he can get mugs to do it for him? Doubtlessly, if the zionist state came under attack he’d be the first to enlist.
Busharon is Zionist Propaganda.
There are so-called progressives/lefties/greenies/liberals/tribalists/peaceniks who denounce bush and sharon by referring to them as busharon. This neologism implies that the seemingly homely george bush is just like the evil ariel sharon, whose life has progressed from being a terrorist, mass murderer, war criminal until he’s now a state terrorist. Busharon suggests that sharon and bush promote the same policies. It does not, however, say much about the relationship between them. It doesn’t indicate whether bush is the master and sharon the slave or vice versa. If anything, the word’s failure to suggest the nature of the relationship implies there is no master-slave relationship at all – just two, like minded, individuals working together to implement mutually beneficial policies. As far as zionists of the progressive/leftie/greeny/liberal/tribalist/peacenik ilk are concerned the word is a useful propaganda devise since it enables them to parade their political credentials i.e. suggesting george bush is as much of a terrorist as ariel sharon, without having to discuss the critical issue of who is the puppet and who is the puppeteer. This is an issue they must avoid at all costs since it raises fundamental questions about america’s foreign policies and the survival of their racially pure homeland which some people inconveniently still refer to as palestine.
So, if you want to spot the zionists spouting progressive ideas about america and the palestinians but who, in reality, are just helping to prop up the zionist state, then watch out for their use of the word, busharon. It’s time for anti-zionists to start challenging those who use the word to explain what they mean. Do they mean, like the zionist lover noam chomsky, that bush is the puppeteer whilst sharon is the puppet? Do they mean, like the zionist lover uri avnery, that the relationship is a symbiosis, "Some people say, only half in jest, that the USA is an Israeli colony. And indeed, in many respects it looks like that. President Bush dances to Ariel Sharon's tune. Both Houses of Congress are totally subservient to the Israeli right-wing - much more so than the Knesset. It has been said that if the pro-Israeli lobby were to sponsor a resolution on Capitol Hill calling for the abolition of the Ten Commandments, both Houses of Congress would adopt it overwhelmingly. Every year Congress confirms the payment of a massive tribute to Israel. But others assert the reverse: that Israel is an American colony. And indeed, that is also true in many respects. It is unthinkable for the Israeli government to refuse a clear-cut request by the President of the United States. America forbids Israel to sell an expensive intelligence-gathering plane to China? Israel cancels the sale. America forbids a large-scale military action, as happened last week in Gaza? No action. America wants the Israeli economy to be managed according to American precepts? No problem: an American (circumcised, to be sure) has just been appointed as Governor of the Central Bank of Israel. As a matter of fact, both versions are right: The USA is an Israeli colony and Israel is an American colony. The relationship between the two countries is a symbiosis, a term defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "an association of two organisms living attached to each other or one within the other" (from the Greek words for "living" and "together".) (Uri Avnery ‘King George’ http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery01242005.html January 24, 2005). Or do they mean, like ralph nader, that sharon is the puppeteer whilst bush and congress are the puppets.
The likud party dominates the zionist state just as much as it does the american state. Indeed, the democratic party resembles one branch of the likud party whilst the republican party resembles another branch. The zionist lobby in america boasts of its huge influence over american politicians but there is no american lobby in the zionist state trying to implement american policies. Avnery asserts that "in many respects" Israel is an American colony. Firstly, "It is unthinkable for the Israeli government to refuse a clear-cut request by the President of the United States."
This is a zionist deception. Let’s look at what sharon has done to bush.
* In may 2001, dick cheney told sharon to stop using american jets to attack civilians. Sharon ignored the order, "Israel should stop using american built jets in attacks on palestinian areas, us vice-president dick cheney said yesterday. F-16s were used by the israelis last week for the first time since 1967 in response to a suicide bomb." The use of jets in such operations has now become so commonplace they do not merit any public discussion let alone public protest.
** In september 2001 sharon called bush a neville chamberlain. "American relations with Israel plunged to their lowest point in a decade yesterday when the White House denounced as "unacceptable" statements by the Israeli prime minister comparing the US coalition-building in the Arab world to British appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s. The Bush administration was reported to be furious with Mr Sharon's actions, and the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told journalists that the president felt personally affronted by the comparison to Neville Chamberlain and the discredited policies of appeasement in the run up to the second world war. In a blunt response, Mr Fleischer (a great admirer of ariel sharon) said: "The president believes that these remarks are unacceptable. Israel could have no better or stronger friend that the United States and no better friend that President Bush."" Sharon refused to apologize for his insult to the so-called president of the united states. It shows what little power bush has over sharon that he didn’t dare to try and extract a public apology from him.
*** As regards the so-called agreement between sharon and bush in april 2004, patrick j. buchanan pointed out, "According to the New York Times, Sharon threatened not to come to Washington unless Bush, in advance and in writing, agreed to capitulate. "In a moment of diplomatic brinkmanship," writes James Bennet, Sharon threatened to cancel his trip if Bush refused to give him "the guarantees he wanted in exchange for his plan to withdraw settlers from the Gaza Strip." Sharon's ultimatum: In return for giving up Gaza, Bush must give him title to more desirable Palestinian lands on the West Bank. What did Bush give up? None of the Palestinians driven out of their homes by the Irgun massacre at Deir Yassin and during the 1948 war will ever be allowed to return. Palestinian rights in that 78 percent of Palestine that is already Israel, and in the sectors of the remaining 22 percent Sharon plans to annex, are forfeit forever. Second, major Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank, planted by Sharon in violation of international law, which every U.S. president has called "obstacles to peace," are now deeded to Israel. Like Lord Balfour, Bush is surrendering title to Arab lands he does not own and surrendering Palestinian rights that are not his to give up. As for the Sharon Wall that snakes in and out of the West Bank, incorporating Palestinian fields, olive groves, homes and villages, Bush no longer insists it be confined to Israeli territory." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Bush Outsources Mideast Policy’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2350 c.May 2004).
Secondly, avnery states, "America forbids a large-scale military action, as happened last week in Gaza? No action." This is another zionist deception.
* In october 2001, sharon defied bush by launching an invasion of what, nominally, were supposed to be palestinian controlled areas. According to julian borger, "The Bush administration has known for months that its control over the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, is tenuous at best. Yesterday's raid on Beit Rima was a neon-bright indicator of Mr Sharon's complete disregard for Mr Bush's opinions. The usual tools of US diplomacy in the region now look flimsy. The secretary of state, Colin Powell, has been planning for several weeks to make a landmark policy speech laying out a clear blueprint for Israeli-Palestinian cohabitation, including the creation of a viable Palestinian state, with a share of Jerusalem as its capital. "That can be one of the threats held over Sharon's head," said Judith Kipper of the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. "But in the end it is just a speech. It is just words, and it is not going to have much effect on Sharon.""
** On thursday april 4th 2002, bush demanded that sharon withdraw his troops from palestinian controlled areas, "President bush last night demanded that israel withdraw its invading troops from palestinian territories." Sharon showed no interest in responding. The following sunday, bush repeated his demand. This time sharon didn’t just ignore the president of the united states. As leader of god’s chosen people, sharon went out of his way to humiliate the president of the united states by going on a tour of his front line troops occupying palestinian areas in order to reassure them he wouldn’t be withdrawing the zionist army. The following tuesday, bush made a third demand, with a little expression of anger, for the withdrawal of the zionist army. This time sharon took the media along with him to make sure the whole world could see him defying the president of the united states by telling his troops there would be no early withdrawal. On april 15th it was reported that sharon had stated he would not end the occupation "until he was ready".
In effect, ariel sharon is the real president of the united states and thus president of the world. Uri avnery is getting more and more confused in his old age. It was only a couple of years ago that he was arguing, "In Europe, Jews already feel the pressure. But in the United States, they still feel supremely self-confident. In Europe, Jews have learned over the centuries that it is not wise to be too conspicuous and to display their wealth and influence. But in America, the very opposite is happening: the Jewish establishment is practically straining to prove that it controls the country. Every few years, the Jewish lobby "eliminates" an American politician who does not support the Israeli government unconditionally. This is not done secretly, behind the scenes, but as a public "execution". Just now this was done to the black Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, a young, active, intelligent and very sympathetic woman. She has dared to criticize the Sharon government, support Palestinians and (worst of all) Israeli and Jewish peace groups. The Jewish establishment found a counter-candidate, a practically unknown black woman, injected huge sums into the campaign and defeated Cynthia. All this happened in the open, with fanfares, to make a public example - so that every Senator and Congressperson would know that criticizing Sharon is tantamount to political suicide." (Uri Avnery ‘Manufacturing Anti-Semites’ October 2, 2002).
For an elaboration of the master-slave relationship between sharon and bush please see
‘Bush is Sharon’s Muppet’
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCtfirm/10tf26/10tf26g.html
