America's Sell Out Intellectuals and the Perks They Get

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/media/americas-sell-out-intellectuals-and-perks-they-get

The rewriting of history by the power elite was painfully evident as the nation marked the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. Some claimed they had opposed the war when they had not. Others among “Bush’s useful idiots” argued that they had merely acted in good faith on the information available; if they had known then what they know now, they assured us, they would have acted differently. This, of course, is false. The war boosters, especially the “liberal hawks”—who included Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Al Franken and John Kerry, along with academics, writers and journalists such as Bill Keller, Michael Ignatieff, Nicholas Kristof, David Remnick, Fareed Zakaria, Michael Walzer, Paul Berman,Thomas Friedman, George Packer, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Kanan Makiya and the late Christopher Hitchens—did what they always have done: engage in acts of self-preservation. To oppose the war would have been a career killer. And they knew it.

These apologists, however, acted not only as cheerleaders for war; in most cases they ridiculed and attempted to discredit anyone who questioned the call to invade Iraq. Kristof, in The New York Times, attacked the filmmaker Michael Moore as a conspiracy theorist and wrote that anti-war voices were only polarizing what he termed “the political cesspool.” Hitchens said that those who opposed the attack on Iraq “do not think that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy at all.” He called the typical anti-war protester a “blithering ex-flower child or ranting neo-Stalinist.” The halfhearted mea culpas by many of these courtiers a decade later always fail to mention the most pernicious and fundamental role they played in the buildup to the war—shutting down public debate. Those of us who spoke out against the war, faced with the onslaught of right-wing “patriots” and their liberal apologists, became pariahs. In my case it did not matter that I was an Arabic speaker. It did not matter that I had spent seven years in the Middle East, including months in Iraq, as a foreign correspondent. It did not matter that I knew the instrument of war. The critique that I and other opponents of war delivered, no matter how well grounded in fact and experience, turned us into objects of scorn by a liberal elite that cravenly wanted to demonstrate its own “patriotism” and “realism” about national security. The liberal class fueled a rabid, irrational hatred of all war critics. Many of us received death threats and lost our jobs, for me one at The New York Times. These liberal warmongers, 10 years later, remain both clueless about their moral bankruptcy and cloyingly sanctimonious. They have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocents on their hands.

The power elite, especially the liberal elite, has always been willing to sacrifice integrity and truth for power, personal advancement, foundation grants, awards, tenured professorships, columns, book contracts, television appearances, generous lecture fees and social status. They know what they need to say. They know which ideology they have to serve. They know what lies must be told—the biggest being that they take moral stances on issues that aren’t safe and anodyne. They have been at this game a long time. And they will, should their careers require it, happily sell us out again.

[gtar100]

1. This is what makes the left/right analogy so deceiving. The left is willing to be self-critical;

the right is not. There is no "opposite but equal" going on here. But we are reduced to using the words we hope will be understood.

[markiv]

2. now, if only being self-critical could bring back the people who died

and the injuries, mental and physical, and the suicides and the trillion plus in debt, and all of the hatred in the world toward us because of it, i could see more value in it

remorse doesnt generally absolve a manslaughter rap among the 'little people'

[gtar100]

18. Are you blaming all that on the left?

That would be a mistake.

[markiv]

25. I'm not blaming it on 'The Left' because not all of 'The Left' supported it

but for those considered to be 'Left' who DID support it, I'm saying that being very belatedly self critical vs those on the right who arent self critical, that it doesnt make a dimes worth of difference to those who were harmed by it

and I also question whether that 'self criticism' is really anything more than 'self serving' with a wet thumb in the air

[KG]

3. the apologists fell out of the ranks of 'Intellectuals' in my worldview.

AutoChrisHedgesXchromeDURec

[xchrom]

4. right? nt

[markiv]

5. agreed - an intellectual who 'sells out', is actually a member of another profession

a very old one, in fact, although the comparison may be unfair, as most of the other members dont get innocent people killed

[hfojvt]

6. some of that seems absurd to me

to oppose the war would have been a career killer for Kerry? Or Clinton? New York and Massachusetts were pro-war? Democratic primary voters were pro-war? Or maybe it is just the big money donors who were pro-war. Al Franken? I was not even aware that he was pro-war. He was a long way from his run for office, was he a big war hawk on Air America? Does being pro-war really help you in Minnesota?

Some of this, if I dare say it, may have something to do with being Jewish, which is true of both Schumer and Franken. I just notice that some other politicians who are Jewish were very pro war, people like my Uncle Ed (Koch (and no, not really my uncle)) and Lieberman, both Jewish, were very pro-war, almost to the point of switching parties. It certainly was not good for Lieberman's career. He might still be in the Senate if he wasn't such a hawk, and Uncle Ed did not really have a career at that point.

So maybe for some, they were not "sacrificing integrity for power" but just, for whatever reasons, they really did support the invasion of Iraq.

[bullwinkle428]

9. Jewish Senators that opposed the Iraq War :

Barbara Boxer, Jon Corzine, Carl Levin, Paul Wellstone, Ron Wyden.

I can list the House members falling into that category if you want that too.

[hfojvt]

17. that does seem to undermine my thesis

but is there another explanation for Franken, Koch, Schumer and Lieberman, because the "they wanted to advance their careers" thesis does not seem very solid either. And you are only listing one side, what does the other side look like besides including Schumer and Lieberman?

[gtar100]

19. I listened to Al when Air America was in its prime. He was definitely not pro war.

Not in the least. But he was very respectful of the troops. He made a distinction.

[JDPriestly]

10. And what other negative traits should we ascribe to Jews?

Substitute any other group: African-Americans, Asians, Muslims, any other group for Jews and you would criticize your post as racist or prejudiced.

Granted, some of those who cheered us into the Iraq War were Jewish. But, the biggest warmongers, those with the power to decide to go to war, George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, were of European descent, as are Hillary and Bill Clinton. Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell were African-American. And John Yoo, a Johnny-come-lately torture advocate, was Asian.

Please. Bellicosity is not the preserve of any particular racial or ethnic group.

Think how the perfectly proper British, Tony Blair in the lead, leaped into war head first without a thought for the warnings of their intellectuals.

Sorry. But I was born during WWII, and although I am not Jewish, I will never forget.

Stereotyping and characterizing some "other" defined by race or ethnicity as having some nasty trait or tending to some nasty behavior is precisely how war-mongerers manipulate public opinion.

How easily we slip into the very habits we condemn.

[moondust]

13. Israel lobby.

Military action was taken by Israel when they bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, fearing that Saddam would use it to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq did not respond until during the Persian Gulf war, in 1991, when Hussein's army fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2%80%93Israel_relations

Perhaps not necessarily about Jews so much as Israelis anxious to get rid of Saddam.

[JDPriestly]

14. We all know what was meant.

There is a lot of blatant anti-semitism here on DU.

Some claim to be anti-Israel. Scratch the surface and you find anti-semitism.

We went to Iraq for the oil. That the Israelis wanted us to was not the reason. It was maybe an excuse for the fundamentalists, but it was not the reason.

It was about the oil. As has often been pointed out on DU, if you read the book, The Price of Loyalty which tells the experiences of Paul O'Neill during his time as the first Secretary of Treasury during the Bush administration, the Bush/Cheney duo had maps of Iraq showing the oil fields and how they could be divided up on the table at, I think, the first (or one of the first) meeting of the cabinet officers on foreign policy.

It was not about Israel. It was about oil.

[moondust]

15. Nevertheless,

whatever the actual reasons, the Israel lobby in the U.S. Congress would be inclined to support Israel by jumping at any opportunity to get rid of Saddam for any reason.

Just sayin'...

[hfojvt]

16. okay then

why then did Lieberman, Schumer, Koch and Franken support the war? Because it advanced their career in Connecticut, New York, and Minnesota? Because Ed Koch, who is now deceased was looking forward to a long and lucrative career in 2003 and 2004? Because they had heavy investments in Exxon?

Bush and others pushed for the war because of oil, no question about that. But oil does not explain Schumers support of the war. Nor does it explain Frankens or Lieberman's or Koch's. Whereas seeing Saddam as a threat to Israel does, and having an emotional connection to Israel also does.

"We all know what was meant."

Yeah, sure we do. Even using the word Jew in a sentence opens one up to attacks of anti-semitism. I knew that was coming "dare I say it".

[HiPointDem]

21. "Scratch the surface and you find anti-semitism." = bullshit.

[kenfrequed]

7. Meh...

Read the article. I think the author uses the term 'intellectual' badly. Pundits are not necessarily intellectuals, nor are media personalities, or even politicians. I marched with many professors and grad students int he lead up to the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003 and they had no fear of being considered anti-war.

I think using a term like 'intellectual' like this could be dangerous as it sort of plays into the fear/hate of the educated and of intelligence itself.

The author should choose another word.

[eppur_se_muova]

11. +1. These are mostly self-appointed pundits, only dubbed "intellectuals" by their admirers. nt

[moondust]

8. Fear.

Suppose you opposed the war and then WMD were found--either belonging to Saddam or planted there by Bushco.

That possibility would have made the decision harder, but why not remain neutral on the grounds of insufficient evidence?

[Blue_Tires]

12. Thomas Friedman a "liberal"? ewww...

[ucrdem]

20. I wonder if he isn't doing a little "rewriting of history" himself,

specifically his own. This is the first time I've heard him say he "lost" his NYT job and I find it hard to believe that if he was "part of The New York Times team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for the paper's coverage of global terrorism," as is frequently noted everywhere, the NYT would boot their prize poodle. http://www.nationinstitute.org/fellows/1328/chris_hedges/

That part of the Hedges backstory has always had a funny smell but it's one of many reasons I distrust him. Even if he isn't some kind of dark player he's a grossly self-praising and intellectually dishonest windbag. Hitchens is dead for pete's sake and I have yet to see Hedges tear into a neocon the way he tears into Democrats let alone piss on their grave the way he does here. And he's supposed to be a Harvard divinity student? That whole business makes me wonder, too.

[HiPointDem]

22. 2002 pulitzer for explanatory reporting went to nyt 'staff'.

http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2002-Explanatory-Reporting

so hedges wasn't a prize poodle, just one of the staff with international experience.

[JitterbugPerfume]

23. hopefully history will sort them out

it is way to soon to tell.

[siligut]

24. Lifestyle trumps ideology

This is why people want to believe in the afterlife.