RAPID FIRE - Silver Bullets

So I have read various articles in prominent newspaper and postings throughout the Internet on Right Wing blogs about what some who claim to be part of the Jewish community have said in making the choice of criticizing the General for his use of the term "New York Money People" (none of these same people have much to say about the reported item in the Israelite Press about the push to involve the US in an attack against Iran-- which I guess would be a distraction from the more important task at hand of attacking the General) but most importantly, I have also read the many responses to this criticism by those who also appear to have a rightful claim in representing portions of the Jewish Community inasmuch.
It seems that a larger number did not find Wes Clark’s comments so troubling except for the part about the US possibly attacking Iran:

..... Personally, I think Israelis and American Jews have become pathologically hypersensitive to even the truest and mildest criticism. And, immediately turn it into anti-jewishism. Why is that? The answer is clear - because it avoids dealing with the issue and it also puts the critique in a difficult position of having to defend himself and try to explain why criticism of Israeli actions don`t get a pass from criticism. Thanks.

Sharon

I am Jewish. I don`t think for a minute that Wes Clark is antisemetic. I do think there are groups like AIPAC and AEI who want to push their point of view any way they can. Clearly these are organizations with wealthy benefactors. They are also interdenominational. When I read the report on HP, it just didn`t sound right to me. After the problem George Clooney had there with something being posted represented as by him and he says it wasn`t, I take everything I read there with a grain of salt. I am not impressed with what I`ve been reading here and other places on the internet attempting to paint a picture of Wes Clark that isn`t who he is.
ljm

For the past 6 years, Democrats have been told that if we criticize the policies of Bush`s administration, we are anti-American. Democrats have shouted loud and clear that we can love our country while hating our government`s policies. Why doesn`t the same rule apply to Israel? Just askin`.
Madeline Meyers

It is so common for people to blame the messenger when they don`t like the message. Wes Clark is congenitally required to tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. His comment derived from the Israeili press itself, not from any biases of his own. Wes Clark is a thinker, assimilates facts, and lays out a strategy to deal with the problems posed by the facts. His only bias is always to see the big picture. Clark has written and spoken before about the folly of the PNAC agenda to take on Iran, Syria, and the rest. He was "steamed" that Israel, for reasons of her own, had jumped on that bandwagon with regard to Iran. And there are definitely people in America who toe Isreal`s line, right or wrong. To Clark, attacking Iran is a more colossal blunder than the Iraq war was, and that`s something.
Stan Davis

I'm sorry you took offense, but, and I will ask this question yet again...since when is it anti-semetic to disagree with, or dislike, a policy position put forth by Israel or an Israeli politician? He disagreed with the idea that Israel, the country - not Judiasm, the religion - would try to pressure the Bush administration into bombing Iran on Israel`s behalf. I`m not too crazy about the idea either. Israel is certainly right to be enraged by the Iranian president`s statement it should be wiped off the planet - but it is not right to pressure the US into bombing Iran for them. If they want Iran bombed they are more than capable of doing it themselves, as they demonstrated in the Six Days War. And the Mossad is certainly capable of resloveing other individual issues. In short - not everything, or every comment, that is anti an Israeli position is anti-semetic. And how arrogant of you to assume the only people in New York with money are part of the Jewish Community.
DeadMessengers

Thank you Sharon for your words of support for the Wes Clark. I will let you speak for me because if I had to, I`d lose my temper. You hit it right on the head. But let`s not waste anymore time on Rosner`s crap and let`s get back to helping Mr. Clark elected President.
David Hernandez

To be honest, I am not quiet sure if there is a "politically correct" way to express disapproval of our Middle East foreign policy. AIPAC may not be the largest lobby in the US, but its influence is undeniable. (I have the same complaint about other lobbies, too). What`s wrong with open and honest debate?
Debbie

To speak out against an action by Israel, a nation, doesn`t equate to speaking out against the Jewish faith or Hebrew people. To support or establish a point or an opinion by suggesting that it is in the Israeli press does not equate to anything--it points to media in Israel as a source that confirms Wes Clark`s opinion. To state that the Jewish community is divided is simply true. Then the "money" quote (pun intended) jumps off the HuffPost page & the racism gaffe is in play. Obviously, it is necessary to define "New York money people" as Jewish. Then, to get further interpretive, it is required that the office seekers getting the pressure (not money?) are being asked to do . . . what? So . . . Wes Clark asserts that Bush may take military action against Iraq. Asked where that opinion came from he cites the Israeli press, a divided Jewish community & pressure from people in New York who have money. Wow. Equals racism. In whose universe?
whl

Are there wealthy people in NY who donate to politicians in support of particular positions with regard to Israel? Are there any wealthy and influential people in New York who would like to see us bomb Iran? Is war and carnage such a prized phenomenon that we aren`t willing to take a more measured approach? I doubt that a war against Iran will make the lives of Israelis any better, but will most certainly make all of the Middle East more dangerous. Too many politicians of both parties try to sound "muscular" and "strong" by advocating war. Given the sad state of affairs in Iraq, have we not learned anything? That`s the source of the General`s upset. I`ve heard him on many occasions express support for Israel. He just doesn`t believe bombing Iran is an effective way to support Israel. Iran`s president has little power and a big mouth. He is unpopular in his own country and likely to be replaced. Exchanging threats with him is counterproductive.
CarolG

There isn`t a single thing Clark says in that quote that I disagree with, and I`ll tell you why: It IS outrageous, asinine, cowardly, and foolish to drop bombs on a country you will not speak to. When has this ever been acceptable? Yet we still have those in Israel that would certainly follow this path, and would like us to assist....and we still have those in Israel and in the US using their money to influence office holders and office seekers to carry out this foolishness. So what, exactly, is racist about exposing this before the unimaginable happens?
Seth

have taken a beating on the liberal blogs for my support of Israel and so too has Wes Clark. Now it`s come full circle and the author excepts Ariana`s sensationalist but innacurate assertions of Wes`s "steamin". Wes believes in negotiating with Iran and so too does Olhmert`s government. Wes is upset that PNAC is contributing heavily to McCain at the same time McCain calls for the disasterous "surge" in Iraq and he is just as right on that as when he defends Israel against the looney left.
Haypops

All of those comments and many more were in response to one single RW blog entry. So one would need to multiply the view held that Clark's comments were not anti-semitic by a factor of at least 8 to 1, to understand how real folks are reacting to this attack on Clark's words, as opposed to counting the repeat referrals made by the media while not getting to see the feedback comments. In addition, the author of that blog entry happens to claim parternship to the guy who wrote about the same Clark quote in his L.A. Times column.

In reference to this L.A. Times "journalist", please note the following: Zev Chafets is the author of "A Match Made in Heaven: American Jews, Christian Zionists and One Man's Exploration of the Weird and Wonderful Judeo-Evangelical Alliance," and is definitely a neocon who (after googling a bit) is rabidly anti-muslim. He has promoted such ideas as:

"Here, for instance is what columnist Zev Chafets had recommended the previous day in the New York Daily News: "The US must invade these countries [Iran, Iraq, Syria], dismantle their unlatched governments, disperse their armies and seize their arsenals. Think of it as the German model. If there isn't time, if one or more of the Axis regimes seems capable of attacking with nukes or germs before US forces get there, these regimes and their infrastructure, arsenals and leadership will have to be dismantled by whatever means necessary: the Japanese model." Or here's Lance Morrow in Time: "Let America explore the rich reciprocal possibilities of the fatwa."'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,558194,00.html

What I have done is to document just how the corporate media has made a bad habit of taking 2nd hand information (from Clark to Huffington to the reading public) as undeniable fact which is always accompanied by "their" opinions on the matter, which "they" quickly label "The CW" (conventional wisdom). You'd think that some would ask Wes Clark for a clarification or something (only one Jewish organization has at last count), and then print it (only one Jewish Newspaper has); but most won't; in particular those who are part of the Neo-Con movement who believe that invading Iran is a "Must". In fact, most will simply continue to pass around what it is that they want to pass around, and nothing needs to get in "the way" of their interpretation aka agenda. I have observed closely, and this is the way "it" has been "done" for quite some time!

Watch and listen but also respond is my warning as we near Election 2008. It will happen again and again, because it is "their" formula, and thus far, it has worked.

IN reference to this opinion.....
here’s a letter from one member of the Congregation Temple B’nai Jehudah!

Why do journalistic standards so often seem to end where your op/ed pages begin? Will you reprint just any lie or misinformation, no matter how libelous, without lifting a finger to determine the facts first?

Particularly appalling is the entry in Sunday's "Blog Bits" which repeated neo-con Stephen Bainbridge's spurious charge that General Wes Clark referred to the Jews as "New York money people." It should have been a simple matter for you to go to the original sources (the Huffington Post and UPI) and discover that General Clark had very specifically differentiated between the Jewish community and wealthy, right-wing, and predominantly Christian lobby which he believes is being manipulated by Bebe Netanyahu to pressure the White House into launching a pre-emptive strike against Iran.

It is Bainbridge's prejudices that equate New York money to Judaism. You in turn have perpetuated the stereotype, and in doing so, falsely linked it to a man whose own father is Jewish, and who has consistently been a great friend to both Israel and the American Jewish community. You owe Wes Clark a retraction, and all the rest of us an apology.

Jai Johnson-Pickett
Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (retired)
Member, Congregation Temple B'nai Jehudah

Also this:
Jewschool, 1/8/07

The blog world is all a tizzy over recent remarks made by former Presidential candidate/decorated NATO General Wesley Clark regarding the Jewish Right’s obsession with bombing Iran. "The Jewish community is divided," said Clark, "but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers." US News & World Report’s Michael Barone claims that Clark’s statement is "a sign that pro-Israel sentiment is not as strong in Democratic politics as it used to be." Funny, I see it as a sign that being pro-Israel doesn’t necessarily mean supporting a neoconservative agenda. But hey, what do I know? I’m just a self-hating Jew.

AND THIS....

Jews vs. Israelis vs. Wesley Clark vs. Some More Jews
David Weigel | January 5, 2007, 7:28am

Stephen Bainbridge has looked into Gen. Wesley Clark's soul and found - what else? - a bottomless pit of anti-semitism.
If we are to believe Arianna Huffington, ex-General and possible 2008 Democratic presidential primary candidate Wes Clark worries that the Bush administration will bomb Iran and blames pressure from "New York money people" on "office seekers." Specifically, or so it would seem, "Jewish" money people.

Wow! That's not actually what he said.

When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

It's now anti-semitic to suggest that American Jews have some influence on Israeli politics. So you know.

ms in la on January 10, 2007 - 3:15am. writes on CCN what seems like pertinent information:

Conrad Black --- Chief Executive Officer of Hollinger International which in turn owns Telegraph Group Limited. (and lifelong Bilderberger!) The Telegraph Group owns the Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Telegraph, the Weekly Telegraph, the Spectator magazine as well as other, lesser media interests, including the Saturday Telegraph, all of which named newspapers have a national circulation. Altogether, the Telegraph Group distributes about 7 million papers a week. Hollinger has dozens of papers in the US. The Chicago Sun Times and the Telegraph newspapers are its main assets. It also owns the Jerusalem Post, the Jerusalem Report, Shaar Lamatchil (Israel), This Week in Israel, the Student Post (Israel).

In an article that Black wrote in the Spectator he said;
"Although the pretense that critics of Israel are anti-Semites is a transparent fraud, it has proved an enormously successful blackmailing tool..."

--------

Although I can’t post everything that everyone has said, you get the drift. The opinions of the Right Wing Bloggers and their attentive Corporate Media accomplices are just that, their opinions (although they would want us to believe that their opinions equate facts), and therefore are no more valid than those who think otherwise.

As for me, I’ll be concentrating on the message about Iran and possible plans on a strike against them which President Bush made abundantly clear is in our future sooner than later. I will not be concentrating on how some folks have chosen to "interpret" what Wes Clark meant by "Money people". First, I don’t know if it is true that Jewish folks have all of the money in New York. Personally, I didn’t think so. But then I guess my opinion doesn't count as much as those who are paid to think in terms that would distract from real issues.

Maybe those who are so bent out of shape with what the General may have said are some of the very ones perpetuating the stereotype they are so indignantly offended by?

Those wanting to use Clark's statement to confirm the conspiracy theories linking Israel directly to the U.S. Iraq invasion should answer how one quote from Wes Clark confirms this, as OIL is a commodity that last I checked had much less to do with Israel than with controlling the Oil markets for those countries who need it.

What stands out is that it appears that Wes Clark was indeed correct in describing the Jewish community as being "divided" in his so called "controversial" quote.

I can only state that having a lot of money is never interpreted as being a bad thing in the Black community as far as I can recall.....even when I discuss Oprah at my beauty parlor! So Hey!

Added to note, that those of us who know better in reference to Wes Clark should definitely answer the accusations as we find them via writing letters contesting the corporate media’s take on what the General said. This is an “interpretation” of Wes Clark’s words that should not go unquestioned.

EDITED to add:
The below letter from the ADL (Anti Defamation League) accepting Wes Clark's explanation printed here
Here's the letter:

ADL accepts Clark explaination

The Anti-Defamation League accepted Wesley Clark’s explanation of a remark in which he blamed belligerence against Iran on “New York money people.”
Clark, a former NATO commander and a likely Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, was quoted on the Huffington Post political blog as saying that his greatest worry is that the Bush administration will attack Iran.

Attending swearing-in parties for the new Congress, Clark told Arianna Huffington, “The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.”

The Republican Jewish Coalition tagged the statement as anti-Semitic and demanded an apology; the ADL sought an explanation.

Clark wrote that he backed dialogue with Iran while not removing a military option.

“My position on Iran should not be misinterpreted, defined out of context or used to create conspiracy theories about one group’s influence on U.S. foreign policy. There is no place in these critical policy debates for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that blame the Jewish community for the war in Iraq and for action against Iran.”

Abraham Foxman, ADL’s national director, told JTA he was satisfied that Clark “understood ... how his words could be misconstrued.”
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=6382

**UPDATE--01/24/06**
Attack the messenger and forget about the message. The Right Wing have been hard at work...and none of what they have passed around to each other will I print here.

NY "money people" = fundraisers Submitted by LJM on January 24, 2007 - 2:05am. http://www.observer.com/20070129/20070129_Jason_Horowitz_politics_newsstory1.asp according to this article and nobody is getting upset about the use of the term. I guess it only upsets people when used in the same paragraph as the word Iran. Speaking of Iran, the biggest fundraiser for Kerry and the DSCC in NY is affiliated with the IAPAC..that's Iranian American PAC.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jan/23/hillary_wins_top_donor
----------------
Submitted by Judy from NJ on January 23, 2007 - 6:57pm.

Current Events
From The American Prospect:

Retired General Wesley Clark is, like me, concerned that the Bush administration is going to launch a war with Iran. Arianna Huffington spoke to him in early January and asked why he was so worried the administration was headed in this direction. According to Huffington's January 4 recounting of Clark's thoughts, he said this: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

This, of course, is true. I'm Jewish and I don't think the United States should bomb Iran, but Thursday night I was talking to a Jewish friend and she does think the United States should bomb Iran. The Jewish community, in short, is divided on the issue. It's also true that most major American Jewish organizations cater to the views of extremely wealthy major donors whose political views are well to the right of the bulk of American Jews, one of the most liberal ethnic groups in the country. Furthermore, it's true that major Jewish organizations are trying to push the country into war. And, last, it's true that if you read the Israeli press you'll see that right-wing Israeli politicians are anticipating a military confrontation with Iran. (For example, here's an article about the timing of the selection of a new top dog in the Israeli Defense Forces; Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted as saying that the new leader "will have to straighten the army out, rebuild Israel's deterrence and prepare the defenses against threats, first and foremost, against Iran.")

Everything Clark said, in short, is true. What's more, everybody knows it's true. The worst that can truthfully be said about Clark is that he expressed himself in a slightly odd way. This, it seems clear, he did because it's a sensitive issue and he worried that if he spoke plainly he'd be accused of trafficking in anti-Semitism. So he spoke unclearly and, for his trouble, got … accused of trafficking in anti-Semitism....

Read the rest.

And I guess that Gov. Bill Richardson can throw his "Sombrero", and that language is just fine!

and I'm still waiting to hear the "outrage" from the righ wingers. --crickets, chirp, chirp--
Oh wait, its the NEW YORK Post printing that! Geeze, so it must be ok! WHAT-e-VER!

**UPDATE--01/25/06**
Reason/Hit & Run 1/24/07
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118265.html

The Passion of the Clark
David Weigel | January 24, 2007, 8:21am

The most important issue in America at this hour is obviously whether the New Republic's Jonathan Chait is right or wrong about Wesley Clark. A couple weeks ago, pundits piled on Clark for suggesting that "New York money people" were distorting the debate over whether to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. I suggested that this was factual, and not anti-semitic. In rather more (and better) words, Matthew Yglesias suggested the same thing. Chait responds by calling Clark's words anti-semitic.
Quote:

To suggest that a tiny clique of Jewish financiers can by themselves force the American government to go to war goes well beyond any hard-headed analysis of Jewish political power. It assumes that small numbers of wealthy Jews essentially control the government.

This isn't what Clark was saying. "Rich Jews control the government" is an untrue assertion that Clark didn't make. "Rich and connected allies of Israel have a lot of influence in our politics, to the extent that candidates don't want to piss them off even when they're agitating for a scary Iran policy" is more like what Clark meant. Look, here's the context:
Quote:

Clark was really angry about what he'd read in this column by UPI Editor at Large Arnaud de Borchgrave. In the piece... de Borchgrave details Bibi Netanyahu leading the charge to lobby the Bush administration to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and paints U.S. air strikes against Iran in 2007/08 as all-but-a-done deal.

The crucial part of that column, italics mine:

Quote:

Netanyahu then said Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international, public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel."

There are signs this is already happening in Washington. Before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld troika decided the ousting of Saddam Hussein had to become an integral part of the "war on terror." Eventually 60 percent of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11, even though there was no link between the two. Today, the Bush-Cheney team faces the same spin scenario: how to weave the global war on terror and the Shiite powers that be in Iran.

So de Borchgrave reports that pressure by powerful allies of Israel is increasing the likelihood of a strike on Iran. (There's even better stuff in the column, including the Blofeld-esque comments of Oded Tira: "We need to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure. Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party (must) publicly support immediate action by Bush again Iran." However, Tira is a Tel Aviv money person, not a New York money person, so this is irrelevant.) Instead of debating this, pundits debate whether you can refer to wealthy political donors* who 1) support/agree with Netanyahu and 2) want to strike Iranian nuclear facilities as "New York money people." There's a sort of forest-trees thing going on here, isn't there?

*It's worth noting that of the top 10 zip codes for political giving, six are in New York. Just don't say they have money!

**UPDATE 2/20/07**
Also watch this YouTube Video from David Alterman in response to those who would smear Wes Clark in order to squelch his quest to stop War in Iran.