Et tu, Howard Dean?
Ray McGovern, a career CIA analyst for 27 years and staunch critic of the Iraq war and Bush administration testified at Congressman Conyer’s hearings on the Downing Street Minutes on Thursday, June 16, 2005.
And Howard Dean has decided that portions of Mr McGovern’s testimony were “nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric”. I suppose he’d also see McGovern’s comments about the Israeli pressure on the US regarding a “nuclear” Iran in the same light.
Were they? You decide.
Here’s Dean’s WaPo quote:
One witness, former intelligence analyst Ray McGovern, told Conyers and other House Democrats that the war was part of an effort to allow the United States and Israel to “dominate that part of the world,” a statement Dean also condemned.
“As for any inferences that the United States went to war so Israel could ‘dominate’ the Middle East or that Israel was in any way behind the horrific September 11th attacks on America, let me say unequivocally that such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric,” Dean said.
“The inferences are destructive and counterproductive, and have taken away from the true purpose of the Judiciary Committee members’ meeting,” he said. “The entire Democratic Party remains committed to fighting against such bigotry.”
The topic of Israel is perhaps one of the most taboo in political circles today. Mr McGovern certainly did say that he believes the role of Israel in the Middle East and the fact that it is the US’s ally in the region were part of the rationale for the invasion of Iraq. He also spoke about Iraq’s oil. (I have yet to find a text of his comments, but you can view them online over at C-SPAN). For the record, McGovern did not raise anything about Israel having anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Those rumours were apparently spread through pamphlets of unknown origin, as Dean said.
So, is it “vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric” to say that Israel wants to dominate the Middle East? Is it then vile, anti-American rhetoric to say that the US wants to dominate the globe?
I don’t think so. And, I think Dean is way off the mark with this reaction.
There is no doubt that Israel’s position in the Middle East is of great concern to this administartion. VP Cheney, in his August 26, 2002 speech declared that:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors — confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth.
It was during the same speech that he made this assertion:
Cheney’s words truly boggle the mind, however, although he does not refer to Israel as wanting to “dominate” the Middle East, the implications of these rationales for attacking Iraq were abdundantly clear and, as we all know, they certainly haven’t proven to be anywhere near prophetic.
However, can it truly be said that McGovern’s words were “vile” and “anti-Semitic”? And, why is Howard Dean attacking this man – a former CIA analyst with experience under several administrations who knows much more about the political pressure behind fixing intelligence than Dean could ever hope to? Mr McGovern even said during his testimony that he would be thusly attacked. To what end? What good does it do the political left to protect Israel from all criticism by cloaking it as being “anti-Semitic”? What has happened to free speech? What has happened to free opinions? Why is anything said about Israel still so taboo?
I’ve seen it on the left-wing blogosphere and now here it is coming forth from Howard Dean. And, who’s benefiting? The right-wing. PNAC. The neocons. The Republicans. All who like to label the left as kooks anytime we choose to even mention the name of Israel.
Mr Dean may not like McGovern’s comments or agree with his theory, but to label them as he has does nothing to further the discussion about US foreign policy as it relates to Israel. The conspiracy of silence has got to stop.
This is not an anti-Dean rant. I have admiration for the man and his grassroots movement. I simply think he’s wrong with this reaction.
Here is the official Dean statement which, it appears, was taken wholely out of context in the quote you provide, Catnip:
“Washington, DC – Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, issued the following statement condemning the distribution of anti-Semitic literature at an overflow room of an event organized by staff of the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee:
“Yesterday members of the Judiciary Committee held an important hearing on the so-called Downing Street Memo and its implications. Unfortunately, some members of the audience took it upon themselves to distribute anti-Semitic literature at the Wasserman Conference room where an overflow crowd observed the proceedings on television. We disavow the anti-Semitic literature, and the Democratic National Committee stands in absolute disagreement with and condemns the allegations.”-from the DNC website. There have been some news stories about this statement.
posted by Howard Martin @ 6:49 AM
LINKS from the above, including to the news stories
This is the rest of Dean’s statement, posted on the DNC website:
emphasis mine
I got the impression that he was objecting to the literature that was being passed around out front.
The first part of this quote was in relation to McGovern’s testimony:
I don’t know anything about McGovern, but if there was literature going around that backed up his words with anti-semetic accusations and Dean thought the two were connected then I can understand why he would make a strong statement.
I am pro-palestine so I don’t necessarily agree with the democratic or republican party on this issue. But I don’t condone anti-semitism and though attacking Israel’s actions is not anti-sememtic, accusing Jews of controling the world or this country etc…. smacks of very typical anti-semetic rhetoric.
His wife, children and inlaws are Jewish. So he may be a bit more sensitive to the issue than some other people. And he is hardly a leftist and so not on the cutting edge of liberal thinking on I/P issues. But the good thing about him is his willingness to listen and learn from an argument offered constructively.
Anyone concerned about what he said should deffinately send him some constructive feedback.
Dean should have separated the two. The fact that he didn’t shows that he believes McGovern’s remarks were anti-Semitic as well.
McGovern didn’t say anything about Israel or Jews wanting to control the world or controlling the US. That’s a whole different level of speech. He simply said he thought Israel wanted to dominate the region. Is that anti-Semitic?
And, yes, I’m tough on people who are the public voices for their parties. They and/or their advisers ought to consider what they say more carefully.
Again, you miss the point. The point is to dismiss this man’s testimony to make sure that any substantive issues that get raised get addressed. I think this quote makes it pretty clear:
Ranting about how Israel and the USA are trying to dominate the Middle East isn’t going to get us anywhere. It may or may not be true (and I’m no fan of Israel, let me make that clear), but this is not the way to make substantive progress on the Iraq affair. If this man’s testimony hadn’t been countered immediately, you can bet that the Republicans would’ve used it to try and hang the “loony conspiracy theorist” label on the Democrats again.
I would agree if McGovern’s statements had, in fact, taken away from the main thrust of the hearings. You could say the same thing about Joe Wilson going on about the Niger/yellowcake issue ie. that it detracted from the overall message. McGovern’s contested statements were very brief and simply produced another justification that Bushco could have had for fixing the intel to fit the policy. It did not devolve into a long discussion.
If the right-wing wants to poke at McGovern’s statements, so be it. But, now that Dean has placed the focus on them, he’s the one disctracting from the message of the hearings and its focus on the DSM.
If he keeps talking about this, I’d agree with you. But I think it’s a good first strike against a witness who threatened to damage the credibility of the anti-war effort by associating it with the anti-Israel movement. And no, you can’t say the same thing about the Niger/yellowcake issue, as that’s pivotal to one of the arguments for war – to whit, that Saddam was attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. This is totally irrelevant conspiracy-mongering.
Is it “totally irrelevant conspiracy-mongering” or “anti-Semitic” to say that Israel wants to dominate the region? And, why is that “anti-Israel”? Again, I go back to the US comparison – is it anti-American to say that the US wants to dominate the globe? What’s the difference?
I don’t think Dean’s comments on this are going to really distract from anything, though. That assumption seems premature. It is not likely to become a media issue — how can it, when the media is ignoring the whole hearing in the first place?
It already is a media issue – an AP story highlighted on Drudge and printed in WaPo, among other media outlets.
Dean was saying not to go down that road. And it really is just a step from we are in Iraq for the sake of Israel, to “Israel is running our foreign policy in the ME.”
I was just listening to the vile Michael Savage rant on and on about the ADL a few days ago. Next thing you know some one is painting swastikas on Synagogues. And where does it get us?
I do not believe this war was fought for Israel. I think it was all about Oil. I also think the republican party would screw over Israel in a heartbeat if they had a huge oil supply.
Dean was saying not to go down that road. And it really is just a step from we are in Iraq for the sake of Israel, to “Israel is running our foreign policy in the ME.”
Who is the largest recipient of US foreign aid in the world? Israel. So, who is running the US’s foreign policy in the Middle East? It certainly isn’t any other countries in the area. And which country has had the most UN resolutions against it? Israel. You couldn’t even mention that in the run up to the war on Iraq without being called an anti-Semite because Israel was the US ally in the region.
This isn’t about the hate that Savage spews. This is about talking about the ramifications of the US policy towards Israel as a whole and I don’t think discussion of that is anywhere near being anti-Semitic. Israel certainly was affected by Hussein’s power. That’s why they took out his Osirik nuclear reactor. To say there was no consideration of Israel’s security in the decision making process leading up to the Iraq war is a non-starter. Was it the primary issue? Who knows? McGovern didn’t state it as such regardless and I still believe his history with the CIA allows him a unique perspective on the real agenda.
You STILL can’t “mention” any of what you write “without being called an anti-Semite.” I’ve been following U.S.-Israel relations closely all my life, and here’s what I’ve learned: “Don’t go down that road” is the best possible advice for any and every American politician. No American “statesman,” not Johnson, not Nixon, not Carter, not Clinton, has avoided getting burned for their dealings with Israel. And, for all their troubles, not one of them, have had ANY success in trying to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict. As I wrote below, Israel is the third rail of American foreign policy. We need to deal with the more pressing threats — the corporatist, Neocon world vision of Bushco — before we even begin to examine U.S./Israeli relations.
Egypt is second on the list–and not far behind. If our policy in the area defined in proportion to the foreign aid each country gets, then it’s about 3/5 Israeli and 2/5 Egyptian.
Did McGovern make it clear that he disavowed the anti-semitic literature?
McGovern’s been around the block long enough to know that Israel is the third rail of American foreign policy. Wise people of every political stripe shut their mouths after saying, “I support Israel’s right to a secure existence.” Period. End of statement. Thank you, no more questions.
I’m very disappointed in McGovern for dilluting the damning evidence of the Downing Street memoranda. Of course Israel figures in anything related to the Middle East. But it only gives the other side ammunition to try to bring Israel into this discussion.
Did McGovern make it clear that he disavowed the anti-semitic literature?
Reports of the anti-Semitic literature didn’t come out until after the meeting and I don’t recall anyone mentioning it during the hearings. It’s quite possible no one knew about it until later.
I’m very disappointed in McGovern for dilluting the damning evidence of the Downing Street memoranda.
Diluting? Did you listen to all of his testimony? He had so much more to say than what he threw in about Israel.
He gave the media the talking point they needed to ignore everything else he said. It was a tactical blunder that he should have been smart enough to avoid.
The biggest lesson we all need to learn from the Right is to stay on message, all the time.
Dean has never been particularly progressive on the issue of dealing with Israel (however, I do recall that whole “evenhanded” firestorm he managed to provoke in 2003). And you’re right — people sometimes forget that his wife and children are Jewish.
I too thought that Dean was referring primarily to the literature being passed out. It seems to me that he went a little overboard in his choice of words in dismissing McGovern’s Israel sidebar, but generally I would agree that McGovern’s comments were a distraction. (However, I don’t believe McGovern is a member of the Democratic party or was speaking in that capacity.)
That said, we really don’t know the role of Israel in the Iraq invasion, and I think that everyone would be better served if we just stuck to what was actually being revealed by the Downing Street Memo, which is disturbing enough.
The evenhanded firestorm was when he suggested that one should look at the Palestinian side of the issue too, right? I think that’s the most progressive approach to Israel – sure, they seized their land by force and, unless you accept some rather troubling positions, have no right to it. But in practical terms, erasing the country would be a greater crime than letting it be. This means that the only way to address the situation is to take an evenhanded approach to the grievances of both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
What I was specifically afraid of (which you’ve helped me pin down) was the Bush administration using this whackjob’s rantings to distract attention from and discredit the memos. I could very well see Rove attempting to conflate them (and the Democratic party’s stance, even though this guy probably isn’t a Democrat) with these rantings, and this is an excellent pre-emptive strike against that.
Now Ray McGovern is a “whackjob”?
No, he’s not a whackjob; but people should have been sticking to the memo and its significance (as John Bonifaz did), not trying to paint some big picture and take it farther than it can go.
I think this issue is a tempest in a teapot. Both McGovern’s comments and Dean’s response to them. There seems to be a tendency to still fear Karl Rove out of all proportion, which I don’t get. It’s clear to me that the Bush regime is slowly crumbling and the only thing that will make it seem legitimate a year from now (sadly) is another terror attack.
In the end, Bush will spend out his days on a golf course somewhere. Just like any other failed CEO. You know this to be true. Although, if the trend of prosecuting and convicting corrupt CEOs continues (Enron, Tyco, etc), the culture may change enough so that even the CEO of America can get sent up the river.
ME TOO! Some group passed around anti-Semitic literature and Dean condemned that…. not McGovern.
I agree that being silent on this issue is not going to help anyone. To call someone or their actions “anti-Semetic” should be reserved for when it is undoubtably the case.
I found this article about JINSA interesting:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&c=1&s=vest
that was passed out at HQ?
It’s my impression that Dean was talking about the literature. And, I hope that he’s addressed the problem of why someone could walk in there and pass it out. Clearly someone was not minding the room properly.
At this point I think we have an honest difference of opinion on what Dean was talking about. Before connecting the two, I think we need to damn sure though.
Does anyone have any proof that Ray McGovern even knew the literature was being passed out, or that he has any direct association with it?
His comments about O I L were in response to a question – by I believe Nadler at the end of the forum. They weren’t central to his testimony, nor did he make them until asked about foreign policy.
Linking the two without solid evidence only fuels the wing nuts.
Exactly.
At this point I think we have an honest difference of opinion on what Dean was talking about. Before connecting the two, I think we need to damn sure though.
Dean connected the two in his commnets.
I truly know what you mean. I absolutely agree with you . I think that once McGovern made words in the open he felt he needed to have done that. I do understand what he was getting at tho. It is our policy with Ariel Sherron [sp] that make it dubious to say the least. I think this man knows more than he can say about much. But to have Dean come out right with those statements he made was wrong as well. I really think things are heating up to no end for a lot of us. That includes me as well. I had to apologize today for making such statements like McGovern did and I truly am sorry for what I said. I can just see what he is getting at while others may not be so inclined.
The arena of politics is getting heavy for many nowadays.. I remember now why I did not get involved to this degree earlier.
So yes I agree…thanks for your diary.
for both the Democrats and the Republicans alike. Dean’s comments are about what I would expect of a moderate Democrat (which is what he is). Criticisms of US policy towards Israel almost inevitably induce some sort of knee-jerk accusation of antisemitism. That’s rather unfortunate as US lenience towards the Israeli government’s genocidal actions toward the Palestinians along with our government’s continued lenience toward the huge stockpile of WMDs possessed by the Israeli government have certainly made us plenty of enemies in the Arab world. I’m aware that there is some considerable overlap between Israel’s ideal plans for the Middle East and that of the neocons who pretty much run our government in the US. That in itself isn’t proof of US-Israel attempts at attaining world domination, but does make one wonder. Perhaps more pertinent is the occasional bits that I read every now and again that some of the “intelligence” used to justify the invasion of Iraq may have had bogus info fed to us from Israel. That’s an issue that would be worth investigation. The current political climate here won’t allow that, of course. So it goes.
Those right/left lables are a bit tired. It’s as if people need them to decide who is worthy of their support.
I am fairly liberal and I think Dean is the best thing to happen to politics in a long long time.
As far as I/P issues, yeah Israel is a sacred cow, but rumors about how Israel faked evidence are not going to get us anywhere. First get the evidence then talk about it.
And yes, claiming that this war was manipulated by Israel is just a small step from anti-semetism because it is reminiscent of “Jews control the banks” and “Jews control the media”…. now Israel controls american foreign policy?
Jus the opinion of someone who is not even sure Israel should exist.
I somehow doubt that Israel controls US foreign policy. That’s a claim I’ll leave for the black helicopter crowd. I would consider that ridiculous as much as I would claims that the “Jews control banks, newspapers, etc.”
That said, I do think a reasonable claim can be made that US and Israel objectives in the Middle East have much in common, and that I wouldn’t be all that surprised if both the US and Israel were manipulating intelligence in order to attain those objectives. That’s not even remotely antisemitic, and I refuse to let anyone pigeonhole such concerns as antisemitic.
As far as Dean, I generally think he’s exactly what the doctor ordered (so to speak) for the Democrats. I just don’t view him as all that liberal given his track record as governor – and he’s definitely no lefty. He does, however, have a backbone and a knack for fundraising, and that’s plenty good enough at this juncture.
I should preface this by stating that 1) I am Jewish and 2)whatever problems I have with the government of Israel, and I have plenty, I believe that Israel the country has a right to exist. If you don’t agree with that premise, you probably shouldn’t bother reading this.
I’ve noticed a number of people lately commenting on the supposed complicity of Israel with the Bush administration on the fomenting and prosecution of the war in Iraq. I’m skeptical of this for two reasons, both of which were very much in my mind in the couple of months just before we invaded, and which stand out in my mind today.
One, starting this war was not in Israel’s best interests, nor is any additional instability in the Middle East. Most Jewish people I know, who are far more pro-Israel than I am, were extremely worried about the possibility of Israel getting caught in the crossfire, both politically and physically, were strongly opposed to the invasion, and remain opposed to the war.
Two, I think the Israeli government, being much closer to the reality of the situation, and a whole lot smarter than Bushco, could see what a disaster-in-the-making this invasion was.
For any of you who might be interested in some fascinating insights into some of what makes Israel behave the way it does, I recommend “The Avengers”, by Ric Cohen; it’s also a helluva read.
If the Israelis in power on the right agreed with even half of the US neocon spin in the run-up to the war, I’m sure they would have thought that this war would be in Israel’s best interests, or at least their best interests. Or, maybe they thought that America would take all the heat for this, or that instability in the Arab world wouldn’t end up being a bad thing… I don’t know–of course I am in no place to know what they actually were thinking. If I did want to know, then I guess I’d start by looking at what the pro-Israel, pro-war groups in the US were saying at the time. FWIW, I don’t think the Bush administration has been acting in America’s best interests either, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they think they have been.
to describe the enthusiasm there was in Israel for the Iraq War. “Double” or “triple” the support would be a better way of putting it. And I’m not talking about just Likudniks. I read the Israeli press every day, including left-of-center Haaretz, and I honestly can’t remember a single Israeli voice that was opposed to the invasion.
Remember that in the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein launched Scuds at major Israeli population centers. Obviously they were pleased that the U.S. was about to remove this threat from their neighborhood.
Still, the idea that the U.S. invaded Iraq only or mostly “for” Israel is nonsense. The fact that the war was seen as positive for Israel certainly gave the Neocons a big boost, but even the Neocons — especially the Neocons, with their close ties to Israel — knew that Israel, with the fifth most powerful military in the world, could take care of Iraq on their own.
Do you think Israel could have handled such a war on its own? I’m just asking. I know they have a stockpile of nuclear weapons, but it seems if they had attacked Iraq, they might have set off a huge firestorm in the Middle East since they are surrounded by Arab/Muslim countries with so many extremists.