See other Neocon Nuttery Articles
Title: NRO’s (Jonah) Goldberg Chastizes MoveOn, Forgets His Own ‘Spineless’ Attack On Generals In 2004
Source:
Think Progress
URL Source: http://thinkprogress.org/
Published: Sep 23, 2007
Author: Atrios
Post Date: 2007-09-23 15:44:45 by Zipporah
Keywords: None
Views: 331
Comments: 10
NRO’s Goldberg Chastizes MoveOn, Forgets His Own ‘Spineless’ Attack On Generals In 2004 In a September 11 2007 editorial, the National Review Online also took “the Left” to task for questioning the “honesty and patriotism” of Petraeus. As editor-at-large, Goldberg presumably approved of, if not contributed to, the editorial’s position. But Goldberg hasn’t always been so critical of those who question the integrity of American generals. As Attaturk pointed out yesterday, in January 2004, Goldberg uncritically posted an e-mail from a then-active duty reader that savagely bashed generals as “a gigantic pain in the ass” who are “dishonest”: [General Wesley Clark] acts just like the vast majority of general officers that it has been my displeasure to deal with during my 16 years in the U.S. military. Generals are, for the most part, a gigantic pain in the ass and we usually accomplish our military objectives despite their chaos-inducing presence. There are a few good generals here and there but most of them are an embarrassment. […] - Generals are ambitious in the same way that wolverines are aggressive. It’s their defining trait. […] - Generals are dull. I don’t mean this in the cant-tell-a-good-joke kind of way. I mean the anti-intellectual, zero-curiousity, hasn’t-read-a-real-book-in-years kind of dull. […] - Generals are arrogant. Generals truly believe that they are completely right 100% of the time and woe to those underlings who demonstrate that this isn’t so. This trait is what makes generals so dangerous. They will ignore sound advice and do the stupidest things imaginable, all because “Well, I’m a general, dammit, I know what I’m doing and. . . ugh, what was the question again?” Generals can be damn near unreasonable when they get their minds made up and it’s almost impossible to get them to see an alternative way of doing things. […] - Generals are dishonest. This is a tricky charge to throw out, but it’s the sad truth. I’ve seen more out-and-out lies from general officers than any other people in the military. In a weird way, they are just like professional politicians in this regard. Apparently, it’s never appropriate to attack a general unless you’re Jonah Goldberg.
On Tuesday, National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg approvingly linked to a column by the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen, in which Cohen slammed Democratic presidential candidates for not criticizing http://MoveOn.org’s Gen. David Petraeus ad in the New York Times. Goldberg said Cohen had a “pretty good” take on the Democrats’ “spinelessness regarding Petraeus.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
#3. To: Zipporah (#0)
Goldberg would be writing wedding/obituary announcements today for an obscure small town newspaper were it not for his mother and Monica and Linda. His talent is limited but his connections are not. Sidebar: the photo shows Goldberg has having lost a good deal of his piggishly grotesque former physique - perhaps, an empathetic self-starvation regimen to show support for the Darfurians? hey, I'm serious the zios are always chest beating and hand wringing and shedding giant croc tears on teevee/public radio about Darfur which would be commendable but for the fact that most of the zios/neolibcons would be hard pressed to find Darfur on a world map.
..Makes one wonder why..they do nothing in a vacuum.. but dont ask them, if they told you, you will cry :P
I'm pretty sure of at least 3 reasons for the neoziolibcon faux concerns about Darfur: 1. to deflect the sheeple's attention from the ongoing and grievously giant level of human crises relating to Iraq, the Palestinians, Lebanon all of which have been the monstrous creations of DC/Tel Aviv. 2. to demonize Muslims - see what they're doing to African non-Muslims (and left unsaid but implied is that Muslims plan to do the same to you and me in the future unless we nuke 'em tomorrow) 3. to rally support from black voters/activists who have not been natural IsraelFirster supporters despite previous civil rights "common cause" efforts of the usual suspects
I think youre right.. what was always puzzling and still is was the Serbs and Croatian issue.. that the neocons sided with the muslims in that instance ..to what end?
Good question. That had me puzzled me too. Some of the reasons might have been: At the time the neolibs literally needed to get Lewinsky off the front pages at home and "foreign intervention" was what the doctor ordered to cure the WH ills - who cares what side BillyJeff took when preserving political power was at stake? As for the neocons, well in their case, they probably wanted to earn some good old fashioned war profiteering $ and who cares what group gets bombed as long as lotsa bombs are used up. Basically it was expedient for both groups but in different ways. And frankly, the number of Muslims they were "saving" from the big bad Serbs was not exactly at the level that would impede or interfere with Izzy's expansionist plans in the ME in the future.
There are no replies to Comment # 8. End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestApparently, it’s never appropriate to attack a general unless you’re Jonah Goldberg.
#4. To: scrapper2 (#3)
#5. To: Zipporah (#4)
..Makes one wonder why..they do nothing in a vacuum..
#7. To: scrapper2 (#5)
#8. To: Zipporah (#7)
I think youre right.. what was always puzzling and still is was the Serbs and Croatian issue.. that the neocons sided with the muslims in that instance ..to what end?
Replies to Comment # 8.