The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Sully: Israelis ‘Got Their US Media Mouthpieces’ to Criticize Obama’s Speech

Posted on | May 23, 2011 | 15 Comments

“So it’s pretty obvious that it was the Israelis who immediately got their US media mouthpieces to spin the speech as some sort of attack.”
– Andrew Sullivan, May 20

Doug Ross called attention to this rather disturbing accusation: U.S. criticism of President Obama’s speech was not really of domestic origin, Sully says, but rather was the result of Israeli manipulation.

Sullivan makes specific mention of Matt Drudge, Fox News and Mitt Romney. Which of these, or which others, does he outright accuse of being “mouthpieces” issuing “spin” at the behest of Israelis?

My own response to the speech was to aggregate the reactions of others, and I noted that Max Boot of Commentary, Ed Morrissey of Hot Air and John Tabin of The American Spectator all initially saw Obama’s speech as very Bush-like. William Jacobson was immediately critical, as was Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, but there seemed to be a delay before John Podhoretz and Omri Ceren came out with negative reactions.

It may be fair to suppose that some of Obama’s critics took their cue from Israeli sources: “Let’s see what Bibi says” is a reasonable stance for those who profess friendship for Israel. But that is a very different thing than Andrew Sullivan’s depiction of Israeli puppeteers secretly pulling the strings of their American media marionettes.

You can’t just casually drop that kind of accusation into a post and then walk away as if you hadn’t said it.

UPDATE: Jeff Dunetz sees widespread use of the “Jewish media manipulation” meme on the Left.

UPDATE II: Linked by Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom – thanks!

UPDATE III: Linked by Moe Lane, although I’m pretty certain it’s spelled “Joooozz!”

Bookmark and Share
Category: Andrew Sullivan, Doug Ross, Israel

Comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1385852725 Richard Mcenroe

     You just another one a them sinister Baptist Zionists…

  • Anonymous

    The issue, Richard, is not whether one is Zionist or not, or whether one liked or disliked Obama’s speech. The issue is whether Andrew Sullivan is correct to accuse the Israelis of secretly manipulating U.S. media or whether — as I think more likely — this is further evidence of Sully’s descent into paranoid madness.

  • Pingback: The wretched Jew-controlled media (and their banker enablers, no doubt) wrongly and unconscionably spun Barack Obama’s very very pro-Israel speech to make it seem like his calling on the Jews to surrender Jerusalem and the Christian Holy sites to a

  • Pingback: New Fiction From Andrew Sullivan « The Rhetorican

  • Svt1999

     Tomorrow is a Special Election in NY-26.  We have the GOP’s candidates first campaign commercial posted now on Common Cents…

    http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

  • Anonymous

     He’s been the poster boy for dementia for years.

  • http://thepagantemple.blogspot.com/ ThePaganTemple

     It’s neither. It’s just a trial balloon Sully’s floating out there to try to shore up support for Obama’s position by labeling the opposition as Zionist Likud supporters with divided loyalties.

  • http://thepagantemple.blogspot.com/ ThePaganTemple

     It’s neither. It’s just a trial balloon Sully’s floating out there to try to shore up support for Obama’s position by labeling the opposition as Zionist Likud supporters with divided loyalties.

  • http://thepagantemple.blogspot.com/ ThePaganTemple

     It’s neither. It’s just a trial balloon Sully’s floating out there to try to shore up support for Obama’s position by labeling the opposition as Zionist Likud supporters with divided loyalties.

  • Pingback: Moe Lane » #rsrh Andrew Sullivan’s revelation: it’s all because of the Jooosss…

  • Anonymous

    Directly speaking, you’re right that the issue is “Sully’s descent into paranoid madness.” And yet this is exhibit #1,292 in the case against Sully (put a fork in him already), whose opinions no longer hold much weight anyway.

    I’d be more interested in uncovering the extent to which western elites quietly share some of Sully’s delusions about Israeli “manipulation” of American media/affairs. But those transnational elites know much better how to disguise such attitudes in “respectable” language.       

    Moreover, how is it possible for American Jews not to comprehend that a small but key part of the Democrat base/leadership evolved out of a loose, informal alliance between the anti-colonial hard left (e.g., 1980s/1990s wannabe FMLN revolutionaries) and the “respectable” elements of the Muslim Brotherhood?         

  • Joe

    Jeff described Sully as a hirtsute ramora.   I protested, only because I felt that unfair to ramoras.  Sully is more of this sort of fish.    Hense his expertise with Sarah Palin (he will go where no blogger has gone before!).   

  • dmpward

    Obama’s words sound great to the man in the street and your average commentator.  However, anyone reasonably conversant in the subject matter sees the flaws straight away.

    Some go out of their way to see good in Obama’s speech and comment accordingly.  Maybe they should seek, or wait for, an expert dissection of the wording before being positive.

    Obama’s First Sermon to the Ummah at Cairo walked back Israeli – Palestinian negotiations to Settlements in Jerusalem, something not on the table.

    Obama’s Second Sermon to the Ummah last week introduced the pre 1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations.

    Andrew Bostom provides some expert commentary:
    http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2011/05/20/a-man-educates-a-manchild%e2%80%94allen-west-responds-to-obama%e2%80%99s-demands-on-israel/

  • D. G. Myers

    Sullivan’s accusation is nuts. Jonathan Tobin, live-blogging the president’s speech for Commentary, said this at 1:00: “The decision to inject a passage detailing what Obama’s vision for an
    Arab-Israeli peace agreement into this speech makes no sense if it is
    seen as an actual blueprint for a resolution of that conflict. The
    circumstances are such that his ideas have no more chance of being
    accomplished than any past American plan. The reason for throwing it in
    is a way to appease the Arab world so as to help “reset” U.S. relations
    with the Islamic world. Israel is being asked to pay the price for
    Obama’s popularity in the region.”

    D. G. Myers
    Online Editor
    Commentary

  • Anonymous

    Has anyone pointed out to that dipshit Sullivan that his words usually sound better in their original German?

    What a fucking wanker.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE