OK folks, look, I messed up. I skimmed this piece, zeroed in on the neocon criticism, and shared it without seeing and considering the rest.
— Valerie Plame Wilson (@ValeriePlame) September 21, 2017
So, this was Valerie Plame Wilson’s (sort of) apology for tweeting this:
And upon received criticism added insult to injury by tweeting this:
And this. Clearly she can’t be antisemitic because ancestry or something :
Then dug her hole a little deeper:
Before lecturing her critics:
So let’s break down her mea culpa to expose that it is first and foremost both ludicrous and insincere. She says she “skimmed” the piece she tweeted and clearly defended for hours. I skimmed the title and found it offensive enough to have skipped reading the article completely. But I am not Valerie. Agree or disagree with Bill Kristol and his politics, he is a well known Jewish Conservative. The title alone tells you the article is going to be an indictment of other like minded Jewish commentators and political figures.
So what constitutes a “skim”? Do you suppose it might involve reading the first paragraph of what you tweet out as a “provocative”, “thoughtful” piece by Philip Giraldi? I’d like to think that’s a fair expectation. So I read it. Here’s what it says:
I spoke recently at a conference on America’s war party where afterwards an elderly gentleman came up to me and asked, “Why doesn’t anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu? Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?”
Dare I say there is a 600 pound gorilla in the first paragraph? I am totally sure this conversation took place (not) and it wasn’t at all imagined by the author as an opening to set himself up to go on one of the most offensive screeds I have read in awhile. It is 10 minutes of my life I will never get back and I blame Valerie.
The piece goes on to place all of of our foreign policy decisions in the Middle East on the shoulders of prominent Jewish commentators and civil servants. It creates the construct that opposition to the Iran deal comes only from the corridors of AIPAC and asserts the media in general (all Jewish controlled according to the author) is somehow complicit pushing a narrative that the Iran Deal must go. Does this guy even watch the news?
Finally he suggests that American Jews who support Israel should be somehow flagged in the media if they refuse to “recuse” themselves from the debate. I think he really means shut up, but recuse sounds voluntary. Here is the author’s suggestion to remedy the problem:
For those American Jews who lack any shred of integrity, the media should be required to label them at the bottom of the television screen whenever they pop up, e.g. Bill Kristol is “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” That would be kind-of-like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison – translating roughly as “ingest even the tiniest little dosage of the nonsense spewed by Bill Kristol at your own peril.”
He likens the opinions of pro-Israel American Jews to rat poison and suggests providing some sort of chyron when they appear to warn people. In the course of the article he names 15 Jewish commentators and officials by name, alludes to Jared Kushner and condemns the entire membership of AIPAC, WINEP and the Hudson Institute. In no uncertain terms he suggests they all remove themselves from Middle East policy debate because they are incapable of being impartial based on their faith.
What the article really promotes is silencing of the opposition based on their faith. This is just a grossly antisemitic point of view and pays no heed to the fact that polling prior to the 2016 midterms showed up to 84% of American Jews supported the deal. The author turned an article about political opposition in one about religion. Plain and simple.
I am not Jewish. I opposed the Iran Deal. I listened to Ben Rhodes when he said he manipulated a complicit and inexperienced press pool to run with the administration’s preferred narrative and I believe him. I am furious we sent pallets of cash to the number one state sponsor of terror and am fine if this administration decided to decertify it. Maybe I need a chyron or a special designation? I’m not sure. Maybe Valerie can tell me.
So as to Ms. Wilson’s assertion she skimmed the article, I find it ludicrous. It was antisemitic from beginning to end. To have “zeroed in on the neocon criticism”, neocon was literally the only word she read. Her tweets in defense of herself told her critics to “read the whole thing” and “think clearly”. I think it is a valid assumption that at that point she had read the entire thing. Well Valerie, after reading the whole thing myself, I clearly think you should grab a tiki torch and a Pepe T-shirt and join Richard Spencer at his next rally.