Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Petraeus schemes with journalist to get out a pro-Israel story

by shergald Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 06:22:30 AM EST

Originally posted on June 3, 2010

The journalist in question is Max Boot. Who is Max Boot and just how does he get access to high brass military personnel like David Petraeus?

Wikipedia describes Boot as....."a Senior Fellow at the ,Council on Foreign Relations a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, a weekly columnist for the Los Angeles Times, and a regular contributor to other publications such as The Washington Post and The New York Times. He blogs for Commentary Magazine on its page Contentions. He serves as a consultant to the U.S. military and as a regular lecturer at U.S. military institutions such as the Army War College and the Command and General Staff College."

Right Web, a website which "tracks militarists' efforts to influence US foreign policy," however, writes this about Boot: "Max Boot is an award-winning writer who promotes militant U.S. security policies similar to those backed by Neoconservative writers like Charles Krauthammer and Michael Ledeen. Boot holds privileged perches in the U.S. news media and foreign policy communities.... An example of Boot's inflammatory writing style was his review of the "Goldstone Report," the UN investigation led by the South African jurist Richard Goldstone whose report was released n late 2009."

In short, Max Boot is a pro-Israel Neoconservative, and in this story, we have General Petreus answering to him on matters related to his recent comments concerning the fact that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is endangering the lives of American soldiers in the field in Iraq and Afganistan.

Philip Weiss got inside this story:

Last March General David Petraeus, then head of Central Command, sought to undercut his own testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that was critical of Israel by intriguing with a neoconservative writer, Max Boot of Commentary, to put out a different story, in emails obtained by Mondoweiss.

The emails show Petraeus encouraging Boot to write a story-- and offering the neocon details about his views on the Holocaust:

Read on at Mondoweiss

Thanks to Phillip Weiss for giving us all a bit more insight: Neoconservatives have the ear of top American generals, Israel's expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem will continue without military criticism, Patraeus will run for president as a Republican candidate in 2012, and nothing in Washington has changed re. US-Israeli relations.

Display:
Petraeus schemes with journalist to get out a pro-Israel story | 30 comments (30 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (4.00 / 2)
[ET Moderation Technology™]

You again copy-pasted an entire article. Though it is from a blog and doesn't appear to offer copyright problems, this is not acceptable posting behaviour here. It has been edited.

Final warning. Stop doing this or stop posting here.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 06:25:25 AM EST
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 0)
Delete this diary.

by shergald on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 07:22:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 1)
Do you have a particular reason for wanting us to do this?  unless so I think leaving it here would be preferred as  we wouldn't want the final warning to just disappear.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 07:51:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 0)
You can add a warning elsewhere or everywhere if you wish. That's not the point. We just have a disagreement regarding permissions, when and if about fair use. It seems to me that the administration is making up rules as it goes along.

No problem. If you just make the rules beforehand, or make them comprehensive, it would help.

I notice that you don't have a rule about a groups of bloggers conspiring to wreck someone's diary a few may not like. May I suggest that this bannable behavior be stipulated in the rules.

by shergald on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 01:32:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 1)
You've had the rules explained to you in detail on several occasions. The idea that these rules are being made up as we go along is rubbish, the rules on quotes have been in the New User Guide ever since I joined, and that's in the region of four years ago. You've been pointed to them on several occasions. Acting innocent or martyred or claiming there's a conspiracy against you here will be met personally by me with little more than laughter.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 04:10:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 0)
Laughter is no excuse to make a new rule that someone who has full rights to delete their own diary, and a delete button was there, that he cannot do so. Last warning, I may never return.

by shergald on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 04:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 1)
Barring diarists from deleting diaries is not a new rule, either. I think it is three years old.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 05:19:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 1)
The reason the 'delete' button still exists is that we are not able to reconfigure the site at the level without delving into a PERL hell nobody has been known to return from.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 05:25:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (2.00 / 2)
Well maybe that's where some of you should go! I have been blogging here for over two years, and now I find that my contributions are unappreciated, at least by some.

Swen Trilqvist told me something important a few weeks ago when we were having that debate about all this crossposting, especially the notion that this place is a "community" and crossposting is unwanted.

Said Swen: on any blog and perhaps more so on political blogs, 1% are "very active," 5% are just "active," and the remainder, the 96% are "lurkers." The 1% are the "community" that Helen likes to talk about, and apparently constitute the "think tank" that Jake likes to talk about. Frankly I don't like the term lurkers because it carries negative connotations. Lurkers may just be people who stop by daily interested in getting information. Here a lot of them might be interested in economics or energy. I prefer to see them as information seekers, which I too am one on many sites.

Given ET's daily site visitor numbers, about 2 thousand a day, that means that about 20 of you are "very active" bloggers, possibly people without jobs or retired and have the time, who have come to run this place and make rules.

All I can say to you is this: either get a real job or volunteer at nursing homes. But stop making rules that make no sense.

by shergald on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 05:44:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 0)


By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 06:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 1)
Then get rid of the delete button. Period. At the present time, I can't even edit grammar and spelling. What kind of a site is this, when you can't even do that?

by shergald on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 05:29:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 1)
A SCOOP site.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 05:41:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 0)
See above.

by shergald on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 05:46:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 0)
Then get rid of the delete button. Period. At the present time, I can't even edit grammar and spelling.

SCOOP was open-source last time I checked. If you want to change a feature in the software, nothing's stopping you from getting busy with the coding and presenting the results of your effort to the site owner for review and implementation. I'm sure you can get the source code from the frontpagers...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 05:55:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 0)
you heard that frontpagers. Come up with the code and I'll resolve the problem. Who is the site owner, by the way?

by shergald on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 08:05:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 0)
Talk to Colman.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 08:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 0)
EIther return my diary editing privilege or I may never return here again.


by shergald on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 03:58:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 1)
Well that's your choice.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 04:12:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 0)
"never let desperation get in the way of judgement."

So the truth is that you want me to stay regardless. You folks here are impossible. Make up your minds!

by shergald on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 04:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 1)
Break the rules again and you won't return here again. Understood?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jul 7th, 2010 at 03:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 1)
[ET Moderation Technology™]

For the record, the relevant rule: European Tribune - New User Guide

What are the rules for quoting off-site material?

As a general rule, we recommend users to follow three guidelines:

  1. Identify your source - if it is on the web, you should link to it. (Linking is explained in point How do I embed a link? above.)
  2. Put the quoted text in blockquote (for that, see How do I insert a quote box? below). This helps readers to quickly recognise text you didn't author.
  3. Last but not least: try to keep your quote as short and concise as possible, ideally 3 paragraphs per blockquote or less. If readers want to read the full article you quote from, they can do so by following your link. A quote should only incite interest, or show claims you react to/follow up with comments in your own words. The reason you quote a passage can be further emphasized by bolding key words or half-sentences.

The above guidelines are strongly recommended for quotes from anything published off ET, be it a newspaper article or a comment in a discussion forum; or indeed even for quotes from other diaries on ET. However, they should be followed stritly as rules for copyrighted material.

Also for the record, the previous warning.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 07:59:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 0)
I wish to note that the original date of this diary was June 3rd and not June 5th.

by shergald on Tue Jul 6th, 2010 at 01:27:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 1)
Israel's expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem will continue without military criticism

Has it ever been the job of the military to criticise foreign politicians? The news that worries me about this story is less the exposure of the already well known spin culture, but military brass playing diplomacy.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 08:14:52 AM EST
Re: Petraeus schemes with journalist (none / 0)
Petraeus statement merely parroted VP Joe Biden's irrate statement during his Israel visit, when the government had the temerity to announce more building in Jerusalem during this visit.

It was a slap in the face. And no one seems to be seeing a rebuke of Petraeus for chiming in. Afterall, what he said is likely true, and was likely talked about in the White House and Pentagon.

by shergald on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 09:34:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Petraeus is a shit (none / 1)
Irrespective of the contentious nature of this diary, I think it's laughable the way the USA allows Israel Likudnik zealots to run its foreign policy.

almost as laughable as the way that the UK allows its foreign policy to be run for the benefit of the USA (and therefore Israel) and how the EU is bent to US corporate interests.

Actually, it isn't funny at all.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 08:27:57 AM EST
Re: Petraeus is a shit (none / 1)
It makes a lot of sense for the Americans to support the Israeli far-right.

  • It secures a dependent client state (near Suez), because the American sugar daddy is the only game in town for a country that has pissed off pretty much all the rest of the planet. Egypt has options on the international diplomatic scene; Israel does not.

  • It is a wonderful way to launder subsidies for the American armaments industry.

  • It is a wonderful way to channel taxpayer money into politicians' campaign coffers.

  • Israel is a poster child for the wrr on trr. Yes, that's propagandistic bullshit. But the entire wrr on trr is propagandistic bullshit.

And in favour of removing support you have nothing, nothing and then human rights and international law...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 08:39:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus is a shit (none / 0)
LOL!  "Petraeus is a shit"  I love this place!!

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 08:43:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus is a shit (none / 1)
Center for Strategic & International Studies - Anthony H. Cordesman - Israel as a Strategic Liability?

The United States does not need unnecessary problems in one of the most troubled parts of the world, particularly when Israeli actions take a form that does not serve Israel's own strategic interests. This Israeli government in particular needs to realize that as strong as U.S.-Israel ties may be, it is time to return to the kind of strategic realism exemplified by leaders like Yitzhak Rabin


keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 08:50:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus is a shit (4.00 / 3)
But the people who formulate and execute US foreign policy serve their own (short-term) best interests, not the best interests of the USA, or even necessarily their own long-term best interests.

Yes, Israel is a strategic liability to the US. So is the empire. So is Wall Street. So are their client states in Central Asia.

But all of those are assets to the people making US foreign policy, which means the US will keep supporting them until and unless they either cease being assets to the management, the US ceased to be physically able to support them or the US comes under new management.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 08:56:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Petraeus is a shit (none / 1)
Aye, there's the rub

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jul 5th, 2010 at 09:15:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Petraeus schemes with journalist to get out a pro-Israel story | 30 comments (30 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]