Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 19, 2011
Pincus Asking The Right Question

At the age of 78  old time Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus is in a position where he can write without fear of career consequences.

This is a good use of such liberty:

As the country reviews its spending on defense and foreign assistance, it is time to examine the funding the United States provides to Israel.

Let me put it another way: Nine days ago, the Israeli cabinet reacted to months of demonstrations against the high cost of living there and agreed to raise taxes on corporations and people with high incomes ($130,000 a year). It also approved cutting more than $850 million, or about 5 percent, from its roughly $16 billion defense budget in each of the next two years.

If Israel can reduce its defense spending because of its domestic economic problems, shouldn’t the United States — which must cut military costs because of its major budget deficit — consider reducing its aid to Israel?

Any other Washington insider asking this question (and indirectly, as Pincus does, answering it with yes) would get destroyed by The Lobby. The only thing they can do to Pincus is to call him a self-hating Jew.

They will start doing so tomorrow, if not today.

Comments

perhaps he will be added to their list.

Posted by: annie | Oct 19 2011 9:43 utc | 1

Why wouldn’t they just go after the Washington Post itself, since it allowed this story to be published in the first place?

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 19 2011 12:26 utc | 2

@Marocco Bama – Because the WaPo, especially its opinion page, is very much a Likud operation.

Posted by: b | Oct 19 2011 12:37 utc | 3

b, if that’s the case, then why would they allow Pinkus’s article to make it to print? They could have quashed it? Perhaps it’s a trial balloon, or some form of a Litmus Test to gauge reaction to their efforts to create the perspective amongst U.S. Citizens that Israel is beyond reproach and the U.S. relationship with it must be protected at all costs.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 19 2011 12:54 utc | 4

From what I’m reading at Mondoweiss and Pat Lang’s comment section, Pincus is tied in to the intel community and that it’s they who are behind this. Maybe they feel AIPAC’s influence is **really** getting too much. (What took them so long is another question)
It certainly does move the discussion, since the US now has a Presidential candidate (Ron Paul) openly advocating ending all foreign aid, including that to Israel, and he said so openly at the debate yesterday. He is polling much better than he was in the ’08 election cycle. (Full Disclosure: I am and have been for years a Ron Paul “groupie”)

Posted by: Lysander | Oct 19 2011 13:27 utc | 5

Ron Paul is pro-Israel and anti-abortion. i.e. a misogynistic crank; and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Social_Security
I know there are plenty of dreadful politicians in America but if Wiki’s representation of his policies is accurate then Ron Paul will never be a good one.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 19 2011 14:36 utc | 6

@2 — The NYTimes and WaPo tend to place articles like this in the back inside pages of a section. I looked for a mention of which page this was published on, but couldn’t find it. I’d assume A-17 or further back, but I could be wrong. Also, it appeared on a Saturday, possibly to lessen its impact.
During the run up to the Iraq invasion, the WaPo’s actual reporters would have articles in the same issue which directly refuted the “evidence” being touted in the WaPo’s editorial pages. It’s a company paper for a company town. It kowtows to power, sometimes, some administrations, more enthusiastically than others, but always to those in pwower.

Posted by: jawbone | Oct 19 2011 15:29 utc | 7

Ron Paul is not pro-Israel. Not A Zionist in any way. His slant is pro-US and paleo-conservative.
a snippet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co0NX_5Ihjc
Against abortion. for sure. So what? He is in Europe considered a Hero as he opposed the Iraq war, and continues to oppose US intervention in parts abroad.
One ex:
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. The Iraqi people would no doubt be better off without him and his despotic rule. But the call in some quarters for the United States to intervene to change Iraq’s government is a voice that offers little in the way of a real solution to our problems in the Middle East – many of which were caused by our interventionism in the first place. Secretary of State Colin Powell underscored recently this lack of planning on Iraq, saying, “I never saw a plan that was going to take [Saddam] out. It was just some ideas coming from various quarters about, ‘let’s go bomb.'” by R Paul on Lew Rockwell.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul7.html

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 19 2011 17:32 utc | 8

Hoarsewhisperer,
When it comes to government’s role in society, war and the economy are about the only two issues that matter to me. So it really doesn’t bother me all that much that Ron Paul opposes abortion and doesn’t believe in providing equal rights to women. But since he makes it quite clear that he’s antiwar, it’s hard for me to believe that he is pro-Israel.
The main source of disagreement I have with Ron Paul is his belief that government shouldn’t be used to help those who can’t help themselves — whether it’s due to poverty, illness or injury. I’m all for government-sponsored welfare, but I believe that too much of it has been going to the top, especially the corporate top, which is a telltale sign that our country is slipping into a full-blown plutocracy. And since plutocracy is killing our middle class and undermining our civil liberties, this to me should be one of the core grievances held by the Occupy-Wall-Street crowd.

Posted by: Cynthia | Oct 19 2011 17:45 utc | 9

Pincus’s column was indeed on an inside page of the first section (although that’s always where his column appears these days.)
But, on the front page of the same issue yesterday of the Washington Post, there was a lead article detailing how Iran’s nuclear program has suffered so many setbacks that it is no immediate threat. Iran’s nuclear program suffering new setbacks, diplomats and experts say.
I suspect both pieces were inspired by a U.S. intel/military community that wants to discourage an Israeli attack on Iran, which a lot of people on the Internet are claiming is imminent.

Posted by: lysias | Oct 19 2011 20:13 utc | 10

@10, how is that possible if the Editorial Section is a Likud Operation?

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 19 2011 21:34 utc | 11

Anyone that bases their opinions on Wikipedia should leave politics to the adults and go back to their Wolverine comics.

Posted by: Waxahatchie Slim | Oct 19 2011 21:34 utc | 12

@11, Pincus’s column and news articles like that front-page piece about Iran’s nuclear program do not fall under the supervision of Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt.

Posted by: lysias | Oct 19 2011 23:28 utc | 13

This fellow believes Paul should be he Zionist choice for U.S. President. He has a point. Ron Paul has stated in no uncertain terms that he would have no issue with Israel Nuking Iran.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/articles/article.aspx/7552#.Tp9dU3IXJ2I

It is true that Israel is a small state in a highly dangerous neighborhood, but it is an economically and technologically vibrant country – even more so recently, as the shackles of socialism have been somewhat loosened. Cutting the apron strings to the US would, I think, make Israel become more maturely self-confident, because it would be more self-reliant…..

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-14/ron-paul-the-most-pro-israel-candidate/

If Israel believes that Iran might one day become a nuclear power and that such a development would be against her interests, Ron Paul would not stop Israel from doing whatever she deemed necessary to defend herself. Israeli assassination squads are already operating within Iran, and several Iranian nuclear scientists found themselves torn apart by mysterious explosions over the past few years. Ron Paul did not interfere. In fact, he would not even prohibit Israel from initiating a devastating nuclear attack on Iran.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 19 2011 23:39 utc | 14

@13, does that mean that Hiatt is the Likud Gatekeeper, and anything under his purview is kept Israel-Friendly, whereas, anything that is not under his purview has more of a chance if it is even in the slightest bit negative towards Israel? Also, of note is the fact that Buffet owns 25%, or more, of the Washington Post, and has for quite some time.
I will admit, I don’t read the rag, and I’m not about to start…..for reasons such as this. Hell, I don’t read any major news publication, and haven’t for quite some time. I will not fill my head with propaganda. I’d rather review and discuss it indirectly at places like MOA…..it’s easier to scrub the shit off that way.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 19 2011 23:50 utc | 15

There seems to be a belief among some critics of Ron Paul that the US is somehow a moderating force on Israel’s behavior. This is unadulterated nonsense. The US is and always has been Israel’s greatest enabler. The fact of the matter is, without massive infusions of weapons and cash, without diplomatic cover at the UNSC at every turn, without US diplomacy pressuring every country in the world to be nice to Israel, without the constant US hostility to Iran and Syria, Israel would be up the creek.
Don’t believe me? Imagine a President Paul during the Lebanon war of 2006. His policy would be strict neutrality. Israel could do whatever it wanted. But without US money and weapons and diplomatic cover, that isn’t that much. Without rapid resupply of ordinance, Israel begins to run out of bombs 2-3 weeks into the war. If Russia or China move to sanction Israel at the UNSC, Paul would likely instruct the US ambassador to abstain.
Israel would nuke Iran???? Without a guarantee that the US would absorb all the fallout, Israel isn’t firing a peashooter at Iran. No such guarantee would be forthcoming under President Paul.
But what about the Gaza “war” or massacre, rather? Is anyone here pretending that the US was restraining Israel? Would not a position of neutrality been infinitely better?
And of course, war and warfare aside, without the massive subsidies the US provides, how attractive would Israel be as a place to live? I suspect many Israelis would rediscover their European roots at that point.
To sum up, Ron Paul would try to end US interventionism around the world. Would try to eliminate all US bases abroad. Would try to end sanctions and open hostility against Iran. Would withdraw from Afghanistan. Would cease all foreign aid to Israel. Would cease all aid to Arab dictators (aid that is given to encourage collaboration with Israel) It is hard to interpret that as Pro Israel, but I guess some of you managed to do it.
Granted, in the campaign Paul tries to phrase these things in a way that makes it seem palatable to the Christian Zionists that are such a big part of the Republican base. I doubt they will be fooled, but I am surprised that so many M of A commentators are.

Posted by: Lysander | Oct 20 2011 0:36 utc | 16

Re Ron Paul…
Noirette @ 8.
“Ron Paul is not pro-Israel. Not A Zionist in any way.”
Ron Paul supports Israel’s right to defend itself (from people whose land the Jews are stealing) in any way the thieves deem necessary. Why isn’t that pro-Israel?
His Iraq stance, cited by your good self, is NOT intended to be anti-war. It is a rather obvious contribution to the process known as Manufacturing Consent.
“Against abortion. for sure. So what? He is in Europe considered a Hero as he opposed the Iraq war, and continues to oppose US intervention in parts abroad.”
He’s American. He lacks the wit (and the will) to prevent cowardly fake wars which have killed countless millions of post-natal human beings (i.e. people with lives and families) since WWII, but he launders his contempt for life by proclaiming the right to life of … wait for it … unborn foetuses!
Forgive my frankness, but that is not just hypocritical – it’s insane.
It doesn’t matter whether he’s a “hero” in Europe, or not. He’s irrelevant there. It’s America where his influence could do serious damage if people are silly enough to elect him.
The Lew Rockwell cite begins Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. The Iraqi people would no doubt be better off without him and his despotic rule.
It doesn’t matter what he says after that intro – it is flagrant Manufacturing Consent spin. It’s nobody’s business but the Iraqis if Saddam is a ‘ruthless dictatoer’.
His fake non-interventionism is exposed later in the same cite:
Secretary of State Colin Powell underscored recently this lack of planning on Iraq, saying, “I never saw a plan that was going to take [Saddam] out. It was just some ideas coming from various quarters about, ‘let’s go bomb.'”
So, on the strength of a dubiously equivocal statement from Powell, Ron Paul adopts Powell as his ‘non-interventionist’ poster boy. And we all know how that turned out, don’t we?
………………..
Cynthia @ 9.
“When it comes to government’s role in society, war and the economy are about the only two issues that matter to me. So it really doesn’t bother me all that much that Ron Paul opposes abortion and doesn’t believe in providing equal rights to women.”
I find it very hard to believe that a woman could say that with a straight face, ‘Cynthia’. Women are a 50% demographic. What margin do you think he’s trying to lose by?
He sure as Hell isn’t trying to win, as your later point of policy disagreement makes crystal clear.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 20 2011 2:09 utc | 17

Waxahatchie Slim @ 12.
Anyone that bases their opinions on Wikipedia should leave politics to the adults and go back to their Wolverine comics.
Everything in Wiki’s Ron Paul Policy entry is sourced, which is more than can be said for your churlish and infantile comment.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 20 2011 5:30 utc | 18

Hoarsewhisperer, please tell us what policy that Ron Paul would like to implement that would benefit Israel better than the status quo, or better than other candidates of either party? How come pro-Israel lobbyists never give him money? Why do so many Christian zionists, who otherwise like Ron Paul, claim they will never vote for him precisely because he will abandon Israel? Why is he the only candidate during the debates to refuse to pay obeisance to Israel when asked?
I’ve been to many Ron Paul supporter meetups. His supporters do not like Israel at all.
PS, I’ve run into many people who agree with RP on foreign policy and civil rights but hate him for his anti-social welfare, anti-abortion positions. If that includes you, why not identify your real areas of disagreement and discuss those, rather than attack the candidate with the best foreign policy positions by light years? If his position on abortion is a dealbreaker, just say so.

Posted by: Lysander | Oct 20 2011 10:57 utc | 19

@Lysander
I’m one of those who likes Ron Paul for his foreign policy–and that’s it. I disagree vehemently with his economic policies. I also disagree with his social policies. For example, the war on drugs: he’s a states rightist not a libertarian.
Having said that, I would vote for him.
Any talk, debate, or discussion about the nature of this country–low taxes v. social democracy–is purely academic unless and until military spending is reined in. Close the bases, slash the dod budget, and then the u.s. will have the money to decide what sort of society we want–rebate the savings in tax cuts or implement universal healthcare for example.
As president and commander in chief, the one thing he has the constitutional authority to implement in the face of a hostile congress is withdrawing the military. On the other hand, slashing what little remains of our social safety net would require congressional approval, and there Paul would face some opposition.

Posted by: sleepy | Oct 20 2011 12:46 utc | 20

His supporters do not like Israel at all.
Oh, I’m sure they don’t, but they also don’t like “N..g..ers”, Catholics, Yankee Intellectuals and a whole host of other parasites, so that’s not saying much.
Ron Paul’s job…his mission..is to give Hope to the increasingly disenfranchised Lower Middle and Lower Class Rural “Americans.” He does it well, but he’s not a serious candidate, and he knows it.
In fact, no candidate is really a serious candidate when you get right down to it. The job is a Front Man….a Cheerleader….a Pitchman, and Ron Paul sucks at it.
I realize politics is about lies and deception, but shit, at least be good at it, if that’s the case….and it is. In the conventional sense, and I don’t mean to add legitimacy to electoral politics by delving into this so this is just to make a point and then I won’t waste any more time on it because at this point you can’t elect yourself out of this, Paul’s a blundering idiot. Take this for example:

In fact, he would not even prohibit Israel from initiating a devastating nuclear attack on Iran.

I have to believe he is purposely playing the Stooge on this, because that statement is so inappropriately inane, it borders on preposterous.
For the record, I’m neither for or against Ron Paul, I simply see electoral politics as irrelevant Kabuki Theater at this point, however, I am going to criticize everybody and everything that tries to prop this charade up as legitimate, and that’s what I see Ron Paul supporters doing.
Ron Paul is a Nationalist Isolationist from what I can see, and whilst I agree with some of the things he espouses as a matter of principle, Isolated Nationalism is not the solution to the complex issues with which Humanity is confronted. Hell, it’s not even the right direction.
PS: Type Pad would not accept the “N” Word, even though it was in quotes. I had to disguise it with breaks. If that don’t beat all…….using Venn Diagrams, that’s one of the things in which Ron Paul and I would agree. In my World Vision, there is no censorship.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 20 2011 13:05 utc | 21

On the other hand, slashing what little remains of our social safety net would require congressional approval, and there Paul would face some opposition.
Minor opposition, if any, at this point. Let’s face it, D.C. is a division of Global Corporatism at this point, and Global Corporatism wants that money……like yesterday. Any opposition will be feigned.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 20 2011 13:11 utc | 22

Lysander, I can’t answer your question about which RPaul policies you might or might not prefer to the status quo because I don’t care
and:
1. He’s never going to be in a position to implement anything – he’s just there as a vote-splitter. Paul is making sure that any ‘thrilling’ run-off won’t include him. The two sides of politics is just as big an illusion in USA as everywhere else in the West.
2. It’s of little concern to me who becomes the next US Prez – so long as the next Prez is as committed to the destruction of the USA as Bush II and Obama (and as Cameron and Sarko are to the destruction of the EU). And with the Israel Lobby calling the shots in US politics it’s almost a done deal.
3. I’m in Oz(au) and we’ve got cranks, deceivers and “for sale to the highest bidder” liars of our own to weed out and expose.
Just as an aside (in light of your PS) I was going to comment that I’d mainly heard positive (but qualified) remarks about Paul, but thought it wouldn’t do any harm to check out his ‘ideological purity’ factor for myself. So what I ended up saying was quite different from what I had expected to be saying about him.
(I’ll understand if you don’t find that as amusing as I do)

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 20 2011 14:29 utc | 23

whatever israel cuts from its terrorist budget that actually comes out of its pocket will come from american/euro taxpayers and forcefully taken from palestinians.
pincus is a zionist. dont care what he says.

Posted by: joe | Oct 20 2011 17:05 utc | 24

@ Morroco Bama, 14. When Ron Paul says Israel is a vibrant economy – partly because the shackles of socialism have been removed, he is mistaken imho. He adds: Cutting the apron strings to the US would, I think, make Israel become more maturely self-confident, because it would be more self-reliant….. is also, imho, an illusion.
That statement and all the rest quoted only show that his paleo-conservative US Republican stance is Neolithic 🙂 It is all about self-gvmt, no favors for anyone, everyone has his lot in life and must make the best of it. It is standard non-interventionism.
It is not Zionist or a support for Israel in any way whatsoever. He says clearly that it is up to Isr. itself to sort out its problems on its own. This is all perfectly consistent.
Abortion, gay marriage, incest, youth emancipation, prostitution, birth control, euthanasia, parent power, women’s clothing (etc.) are questions to be handled by communities, and have nothing to do with killing / displacing 6 million ppl or nuking whomever.

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 20 2011 17:29 utc | 25

@22 PS: Type Pad would not accept the “N” Word, even though it was in quotes. I had to disguise it with breaks. If that don’t beat all…….using Venn Diagrams, that’s one of the things in which Ron Paul and I would agree. In my World Vision, there is no censorship.
Just to try: Nigger, “Nigger”, nigger, “nigger”
Censorship? Really?

Posted by: b | Oct 20 2011 18:19 utc | 26

Are you disputing my experience, b? I didn’t say you censored me, so don’t take it personally. I had it in quotes and when I attempted to post it, it gave me a message saying it would not accept my words. I copied my post, clicked out of the link and came back in fresh and attempted the same, but it kept the post and preview buttons grayed out. I then thought maybe it was my language, so I changed “Nigger” and the grayed out buttons became clear and it let me post. Maybe it wasn’t censorship by Type Pad, but it sure as hell seemed like it at the time.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 20 2011 18:53 utc | 27

HW,
If you’re argument is “Paul’s positions are irrelevant since he can’t win” or “US politics is simply meant to give the illusions of choice” then fine. I have no argument against the second statement since it is clearly true, and against the former I can only say we’re doing what we can. But both are very different than arguing Paul is a Zionist of some kind.
MB,
“Ron Paul’s job…his mission..is to give Hope to the increasingly disenfranchised Lower Middle and Lower Class Rural “Americans.” He does it well, but he’s not a serious candidate, and he knows it.”
If so the establishment is playing a dangerous game. Since he entered the public eye, he has already opened up serious criticism of the Federal Reserve (unheard of before) Openly stated that the US’s actions are the main cause of terrorism, advocated essentially ending the US empire and called for ending aid to Israel. Those were all things that were NEVER mentioned in the political arena in the US. Now, win or loose, Paul has made the discussion of these things acceptable.
Win or loose, it is essential in my view, that as many people as possible be exposed to Paul’s views.
Sleepy, those are all legitimate points of disagreement and I share many of them with you. But I guess both of US know how important reigning in the US empire is.

Posted by: Lysander | Oct 20 2011 23:21 utc | 28

Lysander, I know you’re trying to put words in my mouth but that’s the way it’s beginning to look. Neither of your proffered options sums up my perception of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a Zionist which, by my definition, means an individual committed to the perpetuation of the inexcusable crime known as Israel.
If he wasn’t a Zionist, and had a shred of decency (which he clearly does not), he would insist on a return of Israel to its 1967 borders, the return of all land the Jews have stolen since 1967, compensation for Palestians for their trashed and stolen economy, and the total cessation of Jewish harassment of, and hostility towards, Palestinians.
But the Israel Paul seeks to preserve bears no resemblance whatsoever to that image of Is/Pal.
The notion of eliminating US subsidies and support to Israel won’t change Israeli (and Neocon) “Nile to Euphrates” ambitions one iota. It is such an aimless policy that the most favourable assessment of it would be to liken it to rolling dice.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 21 2011 3:16 utc | 29

Oops!
I know you’re NOT trying to put words in my mouth…

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 21 2011 3:18 utc | 30

Ron Paul is a Zionist which, by my definition, means an individual committed to the perpetuation of the inexcusable crime known as Israel.
Your perspective is quite myopic, wouldn’t you say? Your litmus test for everything, so it seems, is tainted with Zionist coloring. It’s a big world out there, and unlike you, I don’t believe the Zionists run it, although they do exert substantial influence in certain matters. However, your perspective appears to be Zionist-Centric, which is ironic, because in the end, at least as far as you’re concerned, the Zionists are successful. They now control your perspective….see, they need you to hate them and make them larger and more sinister than they really are. It feeds any success they have already achieved. Chew on that, if you can, and put on a new pair of glasses….without Zionist Tint this time.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Oct 21 2011 11:07 utc | 31

HW,
I may have indeed been putting words in your mouth by ascribing to you thoughts that are much more reasonable than your own. Since you did not nbother to address any of my points in comment #16 or answer my question in #19, I had assumed you had quietly withdrawn your utterly ludicrous “Ron Paul is a Zionist” allegation. But I guess not. Now if in your mind there can only be Zionists and Anti-Zionists and no neutrals, then admittedly Paul is not an anti-Zionist.
I have no more to add to this topic.

Posted by: Lysander | Oct 21 2011 11:38 utc | 32

@ 31 & 32.
You two are beginning to sound like Hasbarites.
I can’t begin to tell you how shocked I’m not.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 21 2011 23:58 utc | 33