In the fall of 2016, Harvey Weinstein set out to suppress allegations that he had sexually harassed or assaulted numerous women. He began to hire private security agencies to collect information on the women and the journalists trying to expose the allegations. According to dozens of pages of documents, and seven people directly involved in the effort, the firms that Weinstein hired included Kroll, which is one of the world’s largest corporate-intelligence companies, and Black Cube, an enterprise run largely by former officers of Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies. Black Cube, which has branches in Tel Aviv, London, and Paris, offers its clients the skills of operatives “highly experienced and trained in Israel’s elite military and governmental intelligence units,” according to its literature.Much more at the link.
Two private investigators from Black Cube, using false identities, met with the actress Rose McGowan, who eventually publicly accused Weinstein of rape, to extract information from her. One of the investigators pretended to be a women’s-rights advocate and secretly recorded at least four meetings with McGowan. The same operative, using a different false identity and implying that she had an allegation against Weinstein, met twice with a journalist to find out which women were talking to the press. In other cases, journalists directed by Weinstein or the private investigators interviewed women and reported back the details....
ADDED: There's a lot in that article about the ultra-prominent lawyer David Boies.
AND:
David Boies oversaw Weinstein's private spying effort to stop NYTimes story- while also representing the NYTimes! https://t.co/H4EgOjZqbB
— Jane Mayer (@JaneMayerNYer) November 7, 2017
Posts
73 comments:
He was updating his Christmas card list.
Unbelievable.
He sicced undercover former Mossad agents on his victims. No wonder people are afraid of him.
Former Mossad agents doing dirty work for a scumbag.
I thought Mossad people were classier than that.
I am Laslo.
met with the actress Rose McGowan, who eventually publicly accused Weinstein of rape, ...
The explicit goal of the investigations,... was to stop the publication of the abuse allegations against Weinstein that eventually emerged in the New York Times and The New Yorker.
It sure sounds like Weinstein got taken for a ride, apparently scammed by his own lawyers.
In other cases, journalists directed by Weinstein or the private investigators interviewed women and reported back the details ...
And then what happened?
I thought you were supposed to hire former Mossad agents when you wanted to disappear someone - who's missing?
It is pleasant to think that none of them will ever work in Hollywood again. But I doubt it. It would also be nice for Hollywood to add an admission of sex crimes to the opening montage of its movies, but I doubt that will happen either. Or perhaps a tag for new movies - "No actresses or actors were raped or molested to secure a part in this film". But then they would need to actually not rape or molest actors or actresses.
"An arrest warrant has been obtained for actress Rose McGowan for possession of a controlled substance."
Did Weinstein hire the US Federal government?
Oooh, ex-Mossad agents! I notice that in current Leftist and European popular culture, the Mossad occupies the vaguely sinister place held by the KGB 40 years ago.
Oso Negro said...
But then they would need to actually not rape or molest actors or actresses.
I read McGowan's account of being raped - twice! - by Weinstein to my Life Partner of Gender, and she just started laughing.
And the CIA, natch. Though at this point, no one could be blamed for feeling that way.
In addition to David Boies, Harvey kept a highly paid horticulturalist on retainer to quash any eruptions in the potted plant community.
So, David Boies at the direction of Weinstein hires a private eye firm using false identities to get info from reporters on who's squealing about Weinstein, so that they and the reporters can be intimidated into killing the stories? And even though one of the reporters is NYtimes, and he's representing the NYTimes , he sees no conflict. Right.
But the juiciest item in the piece is how the National Enquirer editor was using NE reporters to interview victims, whose name he then provided to Weinstein to start gathering dirt. (He was involved in a lucrative side deal with Weinstein's company that he didn't want to jeopardize.) One reason that Weinstein's abuse was an open secret in Hollywood and media circles is because so many were bought off by HW as part of the scheme.
The word "dossier" kept leaping out at me. That, and the penchant for hiring ex-spies to dig dirt just kept me thinking of Hillary and the DNC and how tied at the hip with Hollywood they all are.
@The Cracker Emcee Activist:
Oooh, ex-Mossad agents! I notice that in current Leftist and European popular culture, the Mossad occupies the vaguely sinister place held by the KGB 40 years ago.
Well, they are a spy agency of a foreign power that attempts to spy on the US and infiltrate American government and industry. Not sure we should give them a pass on that just because a large subset of the American population believe magical events occurred there millennia ago.
had a comment removed that I may have worded poorly.
I was tying in the previous post on gun control, and suggesting if some of these actresses had been armed things possibly would've turned out differently.
In retrospect, In my comment I should've used the word 'orifices' rather than my previous phrase.
Women AND men should protect their orifices.
I am Laslo.
Shades of Avi Rudin from Ray Donovan!
I read McGowan's account of being raped - twice!
Oops, it was "Paz de la Huerta", not McGowan. I don't know, or much care, who any of these people are, so they're easy to get mixed up.
He used super lawyer David Boies to hire the investigators, ex Mossad, for the client lawyer confidential privilege.
And then got dirt from the National Enquirer.
Wow - this is stranger than fiction. If I saw a movie like this, I would think it totally unrealistic and over the top. I feel like Alice in Wonderland.
"Paz de la Huerta, an actress who had prominent roles in Boardwalk Empire, A Walk to Remember and Cider House Rules, has been unsuccessful in convincing a California appeals court to revive her $55 million lawsuit against Lionsgate over the way her voice was overdubbed in Nurse 3D."
Her bogus lawsuit getting tossed reminded her that she'd been raped despite the fact that she looks like that guy in Aerosmith.
@Laslo
1. The first comment (and first few comments) set the tone for the conversation and are looked at more critically.
2. This subject is not a joke. Some joking is okay here, but that was not a good first comment for the thread.
3. The flip suggestion that women arm themselves and start shooting men who proposition them is only funny because you think it will not happen. I sentence you to watch "Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer."
It sounds like the script to a very interesting movie.
But in real life? This probably will set back Weinstein's return to Hollywood by at least 5 months!
The solution is obviously more, much more, mandatory corporate training (/sarc).
@ Althouse.
First two points understood. Want to discuss point three...
Regarding: "The flip suggestion that women arm themselves and start shooting men who proposition them is only funny because you think it will not happen."
I think what Harvey was doing is more than "proposition" them. I think a woman going into a hotel room with a man she doesn't know -- and may have already heard rumors about -- SHOULD have her mind on some form of self-defense.
I don't think Harvey would keep blocking the door if she took a gun out of her purse.
Of course, she wouldn't get the job, but the decision of how to handle the situation now has options for her.
I am Laslo.
This subject is not a joke.
I don't offhand see its seriousness. So what if he looks for backgrounds to use against his lays.
So long as the material is true it's legit. Maybe he uses it to remind the ladies of the deal they made.
You'd think everything would be online anyway these days.
PR is easier of course if you actually lead an upstanding life but you know how Hollywood plots go.
J. Farmer said...
@The Cracker Emcee Activist:
Oooh, ex-Mossad agents! I notice that in current Leftist and European popular culture, the Mossad occupies the vaguely sinister place held by the KGB 40 years ago.
Well, they are a spy agency of a foreign power that attempts to spy on the US and infiltrate American government and industry. Not sure we should give them a pass on that just because a large subset of the American population believe magical events occurred there millennia ago.
11/7/17, 8:50 AM
Classy. At least Cedarford didn't deny that he was an anti-Semite.
The UK spies on us, as does every NATO member. Christopher Steele was MI6. I'd say he's done the US more damage than Jonathan Pollard. You specifically exempt the UK from your desire to have no friends in the world.
Oh, and Iran, who has done, and aspires to do, more harm to the US and our international structures, than probably even Russia. They are your besties.
Nigga pleez!
Laslo Spatula said...
Of course, she wouldn't get the job, but the decision of how to handle the situation now has options for her.
There were always options. The fat fuck couldn't outrun a sloth. It was the first part of that equation that caused the problems.
Ah, yes, Boies, he of the tennis shoes worn with suit. A man who was much admired by liberals during the 2000 Florida vote recount. Our hero!
I thought this was a great comment, that made me think. It's a silly / sarcastic comment, but also deep.
I wish I could write this well.
>Former Mossad agents doing dirty work for a scumbag.
>
>I thought Mossad people were classier than that.
>
>I am Laslo.
Boies can probably represent both fairly.
The job of a lawyer is to make sure his client, if he loses, loses against the best possible defense. You can do that for both sides if you're dispassionate about it.
The jury decides, not the lawyer.
A more difficult problem is the lawyer not trying hard enough even for a single side.
You know what I really hate about the Harvey Weinstein thing? The ammo it gives to idiot anti-Semites. The Nazi propaganda rag Der Strumer routinely featured vile cartoons of hook-nosed, ugly Jewish men molesting pure Aryan maidens. Weinstein's disgusting history feeds a particularly noxious stereotype. And throw former Mossad agents in the mix - uggghhh!
Laslo Spatula said...
Former Mossad agents doing dirty work for a scumbag.
I thought Mossad people were classier than that."
I thought so too.
There are probably American military SpecOps guys doing not-nice things for not-nice people (and themselves) around the world, too.
Excellent reporting by Farrow. Some have mentioned that this would make a good film. I think you'd need a multi year TV series to do justice to the rise and fall of HW.
I recommend that the Blog Administrator return to using the "removed by the blog administrator" indicator to encourage the others.
I haven't had comments disappear for no reason with Blogger, but they sure do with Typepad.
They say the cover up is worse than the crime. Ironic when it involves an exhibitionist.......Can we now say that Hollywood as personified by Harvey is worse than the Catholic Church,at least so far as the post crime cover up goes.?........I think Harvey is an eminently mockable figure, and he should be mocked incessantly. The attempt to say that his crimes cannot be mocked will only serve to enhance the cover up. Mocking the women involved, however, is unfair. They were in Harvey's food chain. To a lesser but similar extent, they were like the women who were raped by Beria. Harvey was not the guy you wanted to lead a crusade against. According to Farrow's previous article, there are many women who even now are reluctant to speak out.
@Bad Lieutenant:
Classy. At least Cedarford didn't deny that he was an anti-Semite
Speaking of classy. Complaining about Israeli spying on US is now enough to qualify you as an "anti-Semite." I thought it was SJWs that resorted to that kind of topic. But there seems to be a strain among the so called right that cannot seem to stomach anything but supine subservience to Israel and label anything less than that "anti-Semitism."
Christopher Steele was MI6. I'd say he's done the US more damage than Jonathan Pollard.
Steele's dossier was something he compiled while working for a private company. He had not worked for MI6 for years. His dossier is not the same thing as the UK government.
You specifically exempt the UK from your desire to have no friends in the world.
If you actually believe that states have "friends," then I can only conclude you are hopelessly naïve. What I said was that the UK, along with Japan and a few other countries, are the only countries I would support a mutual defense treaty with. And that is mainly for geostrategic reasons (i.e. the UK as a counterweight to Europe and Japan as a counterweight to China). And for what it's worth, Estonia and Turkey, through their NATO membership are more allied with the US than Israel is. We are legally bound to come to their defense in the event of an attack. We have no such obligations with Israel. Also, the intelligence community seems to agree with my assessment, given the so called "Five Eyes" of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. Do you see Israel in that list? My god, even more anti-Semitism! And if you want to defend Jonathan Pollard, shouldn't that defense logically extend to Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden? Perhaps you can quote something you have written in defense of them.
Oh, and Iran, who has done, and aspires to do, more harm to the US and our international structures, than probably even Russia. They are your besties.
Right, they are my besties. Tiny thought experiment, friend. Notice how when I discuss issues relating to Iran, I actually try sticking to the facts and not someone's personal motives, which are utterly meaningless (and logically irrelevant) to the actual argument. That you have to perennially attempt to pull that rabbit out of the hat should give you pause to consider how confident you are in your actual arguments (and knowledge of the subject matter).
Chilling and stunning and infuriating. What could David Boies have been thinking?
Weinstein's investigators failed to kill the story - this time. But given a pattern of accusations going back something like 40 years, it's reasonable to assume this method likely worked in the past.
Second point: The details of the story - including a half-baked, generic website - makes me suspect that at least at times this was a deliberately "noisey" investigation, i.e., sometimes the agents wanted their cover to be blown, in order to up the intimation factor.
Up
Sounds like the NYTimes doesn't buy Boies' conflict analysis. Of course, Boies hiring a private eye firm to intimidate witnesses and reporters in order to kill stories regardless of their truth doesn't seem to fit the definition of legal representation, either.
Given the defensiveness of Boies comments in the New Yorker, its hard not to believe that Boies was the source of Farrow getting his hands on the contract between Boies firm and Cube (the ex-Mossad firm). Like Lisa Bloom, David Boies is desperately trying to rescue his reputation. I guess the Code of Ethics is, after all, more in the nature of guidelines.
Lots of power displayed and it's influence on what we yahoos are fed. Scary.
What could David Boies have been thinking?
This takes generating bogus billing hours to a whole new level.
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows when you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake.
You better not pout
You better not shout
You better not cry
I'm telling you why
The Weinstein Group is running this town
Chilling and stunning and infuriating. What could David Boies have been thinking?
Answer: $$$$$$$$$
Laslo Spatula said...
"I think a woman going into a hotel room with a man she doesn't know -- and may have already heard rumors about -- SHOULD have her mind on some form of self-defense."
Maybe she should just pat him down to make sure he doesn't have anything dangerous hidden under his clothing.
1. The July [11, 2017] agreement included several “success fees” if Black Cube met its goals. The firm would receive an additional three hundred thousand dollars if the agency “provides intelligence which will directly contribute to the efforts to completely stop the Article from being published at all in any shape or form.”
Interesting legal work. That $300,000 success fee could be used in any way by the outfit hired by the lawyers - bribe the reporters, pay off someone, etc. and it would be very difficult to track or discover due to privilege. But somehow this reporter got the agreement. Did someone at the law firm, within Weinstein's office, or Black Rock leak it?
2. From the beginning, [Boies] said, he advised Weinstein “that the story could not be stopped by threats or influence and that the only way the story could be stopped was by convincing the Times that there was no rape.”
So he dishes attorney client communications when it's in his personal interests. More interesting legal work.
That's why these guys are the best.
I was going to post something about David Boies, but he used to be the most revered and admired litigation counsel in the world and I don't want to get sued by expressing my opinion in this blog of what he has now become.
"Boies confirmed that his firm contracted with and paid two of the agencies and that investigators from one of them sent him reports, which were then passed on to Weinstein. He said that he did not select the firms or direct the investigators’ work. He also denied that the work regarding the Times story represented a conflict of interest. Boies said that his firm’s involvement with the investigators was a mistake. “We should not have been contracting with and paying investigators that we did not select and direct,” he told me. “At the time, it seemed a reasonable accommodation for a client, but it was not thought through, and that was my mistake. It was a mistake at the time.” "
Like we're supposed to believe that in 2016 David Boies was some sort of naif who had no relevant knowledge or experience to warn him about a law firm hiring, paying, and directing contractors it did not select or direct, on behalf of a client who was intent upon covering up activities that, if not criminal, were at best borderline?
No, I think we now know everything we need to know about David Boies.
The first I heard of David Boies was when the Democrats decided that Bill Gates was getting a little too independent for their taste. Gates was bragging about how Microsoft didn't need to hire DC lobbyists, because they had a good product. The Swamp had Boies sidle up to Bill in a courtroom and explain to him how unfortunate it would be if something were to happen to his company. Bill got the message. Microsoft now spends gazillions on lobbyists, and of course, they have loads of competitors, so the Swamp hasn't needed to file another antitrust suit to protect consumers against them.
Were Weinstein's legal fees with Boies tax deductible? If so, this sounds like tax fraud.
The NYT is shocked by misbehavior they knew all about on the part of Weinstein as well as the political swamp creatures he hired, and by the character of the lawyer they have retained since forever.
Shocked, shocked.
They are all exactly what they are.
SDaly said...
"This is probably the type of conflict that could be waived, but it should have been disclosed by Boies so that the client could make an informed decision and give consent."
You mean Boies should have told the Times that Weinstein was shitting peachpits over the story they were working on, and had hired him to quash it, so they could say, "Oh, that's OK. Not a problem. Just don't let Maureen find out, she's funny."?
I'm not sure Weinstein would have liked having his lawyer tell the Times about those peachpits. This looks to me like an example of what they mean by "running with the foxes and hunting with the hounds".
They both would have to waive conflicts. More interesting legal work had it occurred - would love to see that leaked communication.
But Boies is not naive. The waiver request was never going to happen. Harvey couldn't allow his lawyer to disclose to the NYT that he was behind an effort to kill their story. That's the whole reason for the lawyer in the first place, FFS.
Not to defend David Boies, who was a notorious lothario in his younger days at Cravath, but it appears the New York Times's standard engagement letter with Boies's firm contains an advance conflict waiver, recognizing that at a big national law firm there will be clients in conflict with one another and giving its okay to such conflicts. These waivers have become controversial but I am not aware of a New York court striking one down. Of course it would be different if any of the specific personnel representing Weinstein were also representing the Times, but I assume Boies would not be so crazy.
Probably been said before, but Weinstein would do everyone a favor if he would just deep-throat a revolver and pull the trigger.
Didn't you watch it's a wonderful life?
With former spies involved in Hollywood, maybe Randy Quaid isn't so crazy when he talks about the star whackers.
In the fall of 2016, Harvey Weinstein set out to suppress allegations that he had sexually harassed or assaulted numerous women. He began to hire private security agencies to collect information on the women and the journalists trying to expose the allegations.
Fifty years or so too late. Up till 1975 or so, Nero Wolfe would have had this sorted for him by the cheese course. Ah, for the old days when people feared scandal and guarded their reputations...
I saw this art and ref on twitter this morning, and clicked to it, but you know, that miserable curdled street poster art for the piece was enough dirt street for me. Stopped me cold.
Reminds me of running out of money having too much fun with my sailor friend in new Orleans in the 70s. So We sold hot dogs a few more nights til midnight and partied on the cash til dawn.
Great to have done it, but oh, those dirty streets, some things "I can't unsee", so I am taking a pass on this latest in the weinstein tsunami, the art a helpful warning all somehow dated and stale.
And if you want to defend Jonathan Pollard, shouldn't that defense logically extend to Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden? Perhaps you can quote something you have written in defense of them.
Pollard transmitted secrets to an ally. You may not want Israel as an ally but I do.
Turkey has not been an ally at least since 2003. Estonia is a small country that would like us to be an ally since Putin may want to reinstate the Duchies to pre-WWI status.
Snowden and Manning transmitted secrets to enemies.
"Laslo Spatula said...
Former Mossad agents doing dirty work for a scumbag.
I thought Mossad people were classier than that."
I thought MI-6 agents were classy too (Brioni suits, amiright?) but apparently they're not above assembling lie-filled dossiers for Hillary Clinton.
Israel is an ally, but Pollard stepped over the line, got caught and needed to pay a price.
If Jewish Americans had just shut up about him, a quiet deal could have been done years ago. But instead the matter was kept under a blight spotlight.
@Michael K:
Pollard transmitted secrets to an ally. You may not want Israel as an ally but I do.
Oh, I forgot that asterisk to the Espinonage Act that says it's okay to transmit top secret information to a foreign power, so long as they're "an ally." Really, Michael, this is just pathetic. Israel is a client, not an ally.
Turkey has not been an ally at least since 2003. Estonia is a small country that would like us to be an ally since Putin may want to reinstate the Duchies to pre-WWI status.
We are legally bound, through the NATO treaty, to defend Turkey and Estonia in the event that they are attacked by an outside power. Now I think that's absurd, and have long opposed NATO, but we have much more significant commitments to Turkey and Estonia than we do to Israel. You may not wish this to be so, but the facts remain. The US receives pretty much nothing of strategic value from Israel, and in fact our relationship with Israel is a liability. Our relationships with Canada and Mexico are much more significant and important to us than our relationship with Israel, but would you be as blithe about a Mexican national transmitting top secret information to the Mexican government? The degree to which many Americans, most of whom have never stepped foot in that country, are obsessed with Israel is truly baffling. Outside the religious interest in Israel, I cannot make sense out of it.
Snowden and Manning transmitted secrets to enemies.
The information that Manning released was classified "secret," which is much lower classification than the "top secret" information Pollard disclosed. Also, Snowden released his information to media outlets not to "enemies."
p.s. Michael K, who do you consider our "enemies?" If you mean China and Russia, how are they our enemies in any meaningful way? We have normal diplomatic relations with both countries, conduct a large amount of trade, and are not involved in armed conflict with either. If you are so ready to excuse Pollard, why not just give the Israeli government carte blanche to all of our classified information? I doubt you would support that, but why not?
Blogger holdfast said...
Israel is an ally, but Pollard stepped over the line, got caught and needed to pay a price.
No argument.
If Jewish Americans had just shut up about him, a quiet deal could have been done years ago. But instead the matter was kept under a blight spotlight.
In truth I haven't heard the name of Pollard in some time. (I bring him up only because Pollard, the USS Liberty, and maybe Suez, seem to be the only somewhat reasonable causes of the well-modulated but nonetheless mouthbreathing rage that J-Farm feels towards Israel, the kind he does not feel for Iran, who put its hands on our people and held them for 444 days, or Russia or China for that matter.) We've recognized Cuba, but Jonathan Pollard remains immured.
Oh, I have no objection to Jonathan Pollard getting whatever he has coming to him. Israeli intelligence officers have suffered worse fates than to be caught and imprisoned by Americans.
I won't quibble over details of measure, fairness, or "friendly" or cooperation, or Weinberger or any of that. He is not to my mind of the same stripe as the Hanssen, Walker, Ames, Nicholson, Pitts... But he can do the life, or is there something else they want from him?
But I am curious that the significance of the breach has not been obsoleted by the fall of the Soviet Union. He must have gotten hold of some Intel of cosmic importance. Or is it old laundry lists in hindsight? Or is it some dirt. Some scandal like Robert Cook is right and the NRO has sat photos of GHW Bush in the SR-71.
Anyway, where were we? No, I hold no brief for Pollard, but in a scholarly way, a generation later, we can look back and consider. Given the loose shit of today, these traitors in all but statute, getting fines, getting free surgery, getting movie deals, what did he do again? But whatever, it's not worth the special relationship to dig at it.
Oh, I forgot that asterisk to the Espinonage Act that says it's okay to transmit top secret information to a foreign power, so long as they're "an ally." Really, Michael, this is just pathetic. Israel is a client, not an ally.
You keep on using that word client. What does it mean to you? Israel is a client.
KSA is a client. Who else are clients? It doesn't sound very nice. How do you get to be not a client?
Turkey has not been an ally at least since 2003. Estonia is a small country that would like us to be an ally since Putin may want to reinstate the Duchies to pre-WWI status.
We are legally bound, through the NATO treaty, to defend Turkey and Estonia in the event that they are attacked by an outside power. Now I think that's absurd, and have long opposed NATO, but we have much more significant commitments to Turkey and Estonia than we do to Israel.
You illustrate yourself that interests are not defined by commitments.
You may not wish this to be so, but the facts remain. The US receives pretty much nothing of strategic value from Israel,
Apparently nothing that you will permit yourself to recognize, either positive or negative. If words elude you, consult a map.
and in fact our relationship with Israel is a liability.
See, a liability. And there it is.
Maybe you're thinking, there are 6 million Jews in Israel and 600 million Muslims in the ME, or 20M and 2B respectively in the world, and quantity is better than quality. Yeah, we can add too, I've heard it said that we are good at math.
But never mind any chest pounding about Nobel Prizes and inventions and books and history and culture and freedom,
Selling out Israel to Iran, or throwing Iran at Israel, will do you absolutely no sort or kind of good. What will it get you?
If you took the people of Israel and colonized them bag and baggage to the I-5 corridor, or to Australia or the moon, just got them out of the way
(we'll assume it doesn't trouble you to spare their lives, so forget the slaughter your policies would otherwise create)
Who should get what parts of it? Why? Who says? And how long would that last? I can answer that one for Messrs. Sykes and Picquot: As long as an Israeli greenhouse in Gaza.
Our relationships with Canada and Mexico are much more significant and important to us than our relationship with Israel, but would you be as blithe about a Mexican national transmitting top secret information to the Mexican government?
Apparently you are super blithe about it going out to Canada, though.
The degree to which many Americans, most of whom have never stepped foot in that country, are obsessed with Israel is truly baffling. Outside the religious interest in Israel, I cannot make sense out of it.
Having deleted an extremely unkind passage... No one would expect you to make sense out of it.
If more proof were needed that you are not a serious person:
The information that Manning released was classified "secret," which is much lower classification than the "top secret" information Pollard disclosed. Also, Snowden released his information to media outlets not to "enemies."
Leaving aside Manning, Snowden traveled to areas of Chinese and Russian control. His media traveled with him. He has showered and slept. Therefore, axiomatically, all his media have been accessed by Russia and China.
And if Russia and China are not enemies, yet Israel is an enemy?
Oh, you're not anti-Semitic. You just abhor the State of Israel.
SOMEBODY HATES THOSE CANS!
You don't impress me. You're ludicrous. You're a joke. I've got chunks of Buchanan retreads like you in my stool.
@Bad Lieutenant:
Let me offer a simple suggestion. Instead of talking about me, which you seem to think is the subject under discussion, how about sticking to the actual subject. Now you just a wrote a lot of frothing nonsense, and I am still not sure what point you are trying to make, but I'll try to address your points, such as they are. And notice how in everything I write, I never say one thing about you. One, because I don't know you. Second, because I don't care. And third, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. Even if every absurd accusation you leveled against me were true, it would still make no difference to the argument. That you seem incapable of grasping that elementary point does not bode well for our ability to have a meaningful conversation about the subject, but once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.
You keep on using that word client. What does it mean to you? Israel is a client.
"Israel has to understand – like it or not – it is not a great power. It is a client state. And therefore, it must be dependent upon a great power." -Mort Zuckerman, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
Apparently nothing that you will permit yourself to recognize, either positive or negative. If words elude you, consult a map.
Go ahead and enumerate the strategic benefits we gain from our relationship with Israel, and I'll give my response.
Selling out Israel to Iran, or throwing Iran at Israel, will do you absolutely no sort or kind of good. What will it get you?
As for this and the several straw man that followed it, perhaps you can point to a single thing I've said to which that could be considered a coherent response. What I have said many times is that Israel is an independent nation and should be treated as such. They have a right to defend themselves, but I do not believe in taxpayer welfare for Israel and I do not believe in supporting every action they take in regards to their foreign policy. I think the "no daylight" argument is absurd. Now if you want to argue for welfare for Israel or for the "no daylight" position, go ahead. That would at least be relevant to something I have actually said.
Apparently you are super blithe about it going out to Canada, though.
I am fine with the Five Eyes arrangement. And Israel is not on that list. Must be more anti-semitism, huh? That seems to be your answer to anything that is the maximally pro-Israel position.
Having deleted an extremely unkind passage... No one would expect you to make sense out of it.
Well, you could actually try constructing an argument. I am going to assume you have never been to Israel, so perhaps you can explain why you are so worked up over the subject.
Leaving aside Manning, Snowden traveled to areas of Chinese and Russian control. His media traveled with him. He has showered and slept. Therefore, axiomatically, all his media have been accessed by Russia and China.
No, actually, that is not axiomatic at all. And you have zero evidence of it, which is you just try to assert it. And even if that were true, Russia and China are not our enemies. As I said, we trade with them, we have full diplomatic relations with them, nationals from their countries and ours travel freely, and we are not engaged in any armed hostilities with them. They are competitors, but they are not enemies.
And if Russia and China are not enemies, yet Israel is an enemy?
No, Israel is not an enemy. They are a client state, as I have said. This seems to be a fault in your reasoning. You seem to imagine that there are only two positions, pro-Israel or anti-Israel, and if you're not one you must be the other.
Oh, you're not anti-Semitic. You just abhor the State of Israel.
I have no emotional attachments to Israel one way or another. And even if I did, I would hope to approach the situation rationally and not based on my emotions. Israel is a state and as a state has a right to defend itself. I think we should have a normal relationship with Israel like we do with most every other country in the world. I do not believe in having a special relationship with Israel.
You don't impress me.
I'll survive.
p.s. And as for "mouthbreathing rage," I think that descriptor is much more apt to you than it is to me. You and I disagree on a subject. I am fine with that, and I am fine with trying to argue our differences. It certainly does not anger or fill me with rage, which I would consider an unhealthy reaction to a difference of opinion. And it certainly does not compel me to write "extremely unkind passage[s]."
No, you've actively spoken against Israel. On this very forum you've said, I paraphrase, that Iran isn't a terror sponsor because Hezbollah only hits Israel. In other words, No Humans Involved.
@Bad Lieutenant:
On this very forum you've said, I paraphrase, that Iran isn't a terror sponsor because Hezbollah only hits Israel. In other words, No Humans Involved.
No, that is not what I said at all, but if that's how you read it, it says much more about you than it does about me.
What I have said is that the "largest state sponsor of terror" label is largely meaningless. And I have pushed back on erroneous notions of Iran being on some kind of march of conquest across the region. I have said that Iran's sponsorship of Hamas and Hezbollah is a sign of their weakness and not their strength, and that Hamas and Hezbollah are not significant threats because their activities are localized to Israel. They are a problem for Israel, but Israel is not the United States. Note none of this denies that Iran sponsors Hezbollah and Hamas. Similarly, the Tamil Tigers are a terrorist group, but their threat is very localized to Sri Lanka. Pointing that out does not deny Sri Lankan personhood.
And let me now point this out for the umpteenth time. Imagine that your fevered imagination was real and that I was 100% motivated by hatred for Israel. It would still make no difference to the argument. There are plenty of American Zionists who agree with my perspective on the US-Israeli relationship. And there are plenty of Israelis who are much more critical of Israel than I am. Motive is completely irrelevant to the rationality or logical soundness of an argument. That is why ad hominem arguments are fallacious. IF you want to do this correctly, then point out what I have gotten wrong about my arguments. Simply claiming that I am motivated by some hidden sinister motive is a complete waste of time. In addition to being completely wrong.
Imagine if you made a case against affirmative action, and someone said, "You're obviously a racist motivated by anti-black sentiment." How convincing would you find that response?
Post a Comment