Howard Dean: McGovern's Comments 'vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric'

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:

Conyers’ event occurred in a small Capitol meeting room, and an overflow crowd watched witnesses on television in a conference room at DNC headquarters. According to Dean, some material distributed within the DNC conference room implied that Israel was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

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:

Should all his ambitions be realized, the implications would be enormous for the Middle East, for the United States, and for the peace of the world. The whole range of weapons of mass destruction then would rest in the hands of a dictator who has already shown his willingness to use such weapons, and has done so, both in his war with Iran and against his own people. Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten percent of the world’s oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world’s energy supplies, directly threaten America’s friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.

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:

As for the reaction of the Arab “street,” the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are “sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans.” Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991.

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.