By Bruce Bawer
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Its back cover features encomia from Reza Aslan, Andrew
Cockburn, and Oliver Stone, and its jacket copy promises that readers will find
in its pages “the real story behind America’s dealings with the world” and
proof that “the extremist forces that now threaten peace across the globe are
the inevitable flowering of American imperial design.” The book is The
Management of Savagery: How America’s National Security State Fueled the Rise
of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Donald Trump, and its author is Max Blumenthal, the
son of longtime Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal. How the son of a member of
the Clinton inner circle came to write a book that is, in large part, an
indictment of both Bill’s presidency and Hillary’s tenure as secretary of
state—as well as, not incidentally, an apologia for some of the most brutal
tyrants and terrorist groups on the planet—is quite a story.
It begins decades ago, when Sidney, now 70, left a career
in Beltway journalism to become an adviser in the Clinton White House. Ever
since, he has been a major satellite in the Clinton orbit—writing a flattering
book about Bill’s presidency, taking a leading role in Hillary’s 2008 campaign,
working for several years thereafter at the Clinton Foundation, and serving, to
this day, not only as an official consultant to a Clinton super PAC and the
Clinton-linked Media Matters for America but also as an informal Clinton
confidant, counselor, and (as some would put it) courtier.
At first it looked as if Max, born in 1977, did not fall
far from the tree. After studying history at the University of Pennsylvania, he
set out on a career as a left-leaning political journalist for publications
such as the Nation and Salon. From the beginning, he was, like his
father, nakedly partisan, focusing on targets such as Fox News, the Heritage
Foundation, and various GOP politicians. Rarely if ever did he treat his
ideological opposites as honest brokers with whom he merely had a difference of
opinion; no, almost invariably he sought to discredit them, to tar them with guilt
by association, to paint them (however decent, independent, and mainstream they
might be) as extremists, bigots, and tools of nefarious interests, and, not
infrequently, to mount extremely personal assaults, complete with unfounded
rumors and even outright lies. In all this, he was his father’s son, for Sidney
Blumenthal has long been known to go very far indeed in service to the Clinton
cause.
In his now woefully dated first book, Republican
Gomorrah (2009), Max Blumenthal depicted a GOP controlled by evangelical
Christians and obsessed with abortion and homosexuality, and he purported to
psychoanalyze the party’s leaders using methods employed by Erich Fromm in his
1941 study of the Nazi mind, Escape from Freedom. It was one of
countless anti-Republican jeremiads by loyal sons of the left, and one that
many of his fellow Democrats could therefore applaud without hesitation.
It was his second book, Goliath: Life and Loathing in
Greater Israel (2013), published by Nation Books, that marked Max Blumenthal
as a genuine outlier. In describing the Israeli–Palestinian situation, he could
hardly have been more extreme: He blamed the tensions between those two parties
almost entirely on Israelis’ purported love of violence and hatred for Muslims,
and he excused jihadist terror as the understandable response by innocent
victims to Nazi-like oppressors. Though presented as a work of reportage, the
book was in fact a grotesquely slanted polemic; Max Blumenthal emphasized and
exaggerated everything that might make the Israel Defense Forces, and Israelis
generally, look like the most reprehensibly amoral of human beings, while
suppressing facts that showed Hamas terrorists and other Palestinians in a less
than favorable light.
Even his comrades on the hard left couldn’t give Goliath
a thumbs-up. In a column for the Nation headlined “The ‘I-Hate-Israel’
Handbook,” Eric Alterman, himself a frequent and severe critic of the Jewish
state, wrote that the book would “likely alienate anyone but the most fanatical
anti-Zionist extremists.” Goliath “could have been published by the
Hamas Book-of-the-Month Club,” Alterman said, while declaring that Max
Blumenthal “shames all of us with his presence in our magazine.” Nina Burleigh,
another Clinton partisan, so dedicated that she once said she would perform a
sex act on the president as a reward for his pro-abortion stance, described
Blumenthal in the New York Observer as having “staked out a spot on the
Venn diagram of Middle East commentators where anti-Israel meets pro-Islamist.”
Nothing in Goliath, she lamented, indicated that Blumenthal was “much
troubled by rebels who dream of the once and future caliphate and imposing
Shariah law.”
Extreme though Goliath was, after it came out,
Blumenthal continued his pilgrimage away from the establishment left.
“Blumenthal’s anti-Israel screeds,” reported the Times of Israel in 2014, “have
become progressively more outlandish.” In that same year, Blumenthal publicized
a new hashtag: #JSIL, short for “Jewish State in the Levant”—the point of which
was to draw an explicit moral equivalence between Israel and ISIS. The next
year saw the publication of his third book, The 51 Day War: Ruin and
Resistance in Gaza. It was marketed, like Goliath, as a piece of
reportage—in this case, a comprehensive on-the-ground account of the six-week
2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. But as it turned out, again like Goliath,
this new book was a work of pure propaganda, its assertions undergirded by a
miasma of facts, quasi-facts, and non-facts. Notwithstanding Blumenthal’s
claims, it emerged soon after the book’s release that he had personally
witnessed less than two weeks of the war (during most of it, he had been back
home in the United States). Not that he really needed to be in Israel and Gaza
at all, the book’s conclusions having plainly been formed before he stepped off
the plane at Ben Gurion Airport: Once more, the IDF were the bad guys, barely
distinguishable from the SS, while Hamas was a knight in shining armor.
During the period when he was writing these first three
books, one step taken by Blumenthal stood out as being, just possibly, an act
of principle. In 2011, he became a staff writer for the English-language online
edition of the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar. But the following year, he
resigned, denouncing the newspaper’s editors as apologists for Syrian dictator
Bashar al-Assad. Much of the journalism he produced during the next couple of
years conveyed a strongly anti-Assad message. In 2013, he reported for the Nation
from a refugee camp in Jordan, where, he wrote, every single Syrian he
interviewed supported a U.S. military strike on their homeland.
But then something happened. We don’t know exactly what
it was. All we know for certain is that in December 2015, Blumenthal traveled
to Moscow—all expenses paid by the Kremlin—to attend a gala dinner, hosted by
Vladimir Putin himself, to celebrate the 10th anniversary of RT, the
international TV network owned by the Russian government. When he returned to
the U.S., his position on Assad—and on U.S. intervention in Syria—had turned
around completely. Only a month after the RT bash, Blumenthal founded something
called “The Grayzone Project,” which describes itself as “a news and politics
website dedicated to original investigative journalism and analysis on war and
empire.” Basically, however, Grayzone (thegrayzone.com) is a one-stop
propaganda shop, devoted largely to pushing a pro-Assad line on Syria, a
pro-regime line on Venezuela, a pro-Putin line on Russia, and a pro-Hamas line
on Israel and Palestine. Earlier in his career, Blumenthal had considered
Muslim theocracies preferable to secular autocracies and had treated criticism
of sharia law and Islamic governments, however reasonable and fact-based that
criticism might be, as proof of anti-Muslim hatred. Now, however, by way of
propping up the Assad dictatorship, he did not hesitate to malign Assad’s
Syrian opponents, many of whom were Christians, Jews, and secular Muslims, as
fanatical jihadists or allies thereof.
Among those whom he now maligned were the White Helmets,
a group of volunteers who conduct search-and-rescue operations, carry out
medical and civilian evacuations, and deliver essential goods and services in
Syrian danger zones. The group has saved more than 100,000 lives; more than 200
of its members have lost their lives; it has been nominated for the Nobel Peace
Prize. But none of this kept him from joining lustily in the Assad regime’s
campaign to discredit it. In his attacks on the White Helmets, notably in an
article that appeared on October 2, 2016, as well as in a number of other
articles and tweets, Blumenthal pointed out that the group took money from
USAID and accused it of being a creation of “Western governments, professional
activists, and public relations specialists” that were drawing attention to
Syrian atrocities solely as a means of bolstering the argument for American
intervention. He even charged the group with having al-Qaeda links and repeated
the baseless calumny, spread by Assad loyalists, that some members of the White
Helmets had been “implicated in atrocities carried out by jihadist rebel
groups.”
Blumenthal isn’t alone at Grayzone—which, after a
two-year-long association with the left-wing Alternet website, went independent
when Max was fired from it. The principal contributor to Grayzone is Ben
Norton, a former Salon staffer who became pro-Assad around the same time
(perhaps, indeed, at exactly the same time) that Blumenthal did; after his
conversion, Norton even took care to remove his old anti-Assad writings from
the Internet. In addition to providing content for Grayzone, Norton and
Blumenthal co-host a “podcast and video show” entitled “Moderate Rebels”
(moderaterebels.com). On recent episodes they have presented the “real story”
about Venezuela as told by chavista scholars and mocked Univision journalist
Jorge Ramos for telling Nicolás Maduro in an interview that he was widely
considered a dictator. Implicit in pretty much every item at the website is
that it’s impossible to be an opponent of Putin or Assad or Nicolás Maduro
without having nefarious motives—either you’re working for the CIA or Mossad,
or you’re tied up with some terrorist group, or you’ve taken dirty money under
the table, or you have business interests (probably shady) that would benefit
from regime change.
Even as Blumenthal is a reliable content provider for
Grayzone, he continues to comment elsewhere on a wide range of topics. He
remains a staunch champion of Islam, routinely responding to explicit acts of
jihadist terror by denying their Islamic roots. After the June 2016 massacre at
the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, which took 49 lives and wounded 53, he
denied that perpetrator Omar Mateen—who told a 9-1-1 operator that he was a
“mujahideen” and “Islamic soldier” and that he owed his allegiance to ISIS head
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—was a jihadist. After the May 2017 bombing at the Arianna
Grande concert in Manchester, which killed 22 and injured 139, Blumenthal
attributed it to “blowback from interventionist policies” by the West. In an
2016 article, he denied the incontrovertible fact that antigay prejudice is
intrinsic to Islam, calling the idea a product of “talking points…first honed
by the Israeli government and its international network of supporters.”
That’s not all. Blumenthal has also denied that Jeremy
Corbyn is an anti-Semite. (Those who say otherwise, Blumenthal maintained, are
actually irked not over Corbyn’s Jew-hatred but over his “anti-imperialist”
sentiments.) While quick to stand up for Corbyn, Blumenthal was equally quick
to deride Elie Wiesel after the latter’s death in July 2016, accusing the
Auschwitz survivor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate of “inciting hatred,
defending apartheid & palling around with fascists.” Blumenthal has
written, moreover, about “anticommunism” as if it were a psychiatric affliction
and has dismissed the Victims of Communism Foundation as a “neoconservative
initiative.” He’s labeled Leopoldo López, the Venezuelan freedom activist and
longtime political prisoner under Maduro, a “putsch leader”; he’s charged
former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley with pursuing a “vendetta against virtually
the entire world”; and he’s called Clarissa Ward, CNN’s chief international
correspondent and the host of the Peabody Award–winning 2016 documentary Undercover
in Syria, an al-Qaeda stooge. He even accused President Obama’s UN
ambassador, Samantha Power—whom precious few observers would categorize as
pro-Israel—of being an anti-Palestinian Israeli tool.
Some of Blumenthal’s smears are near-epic in scale. In a
June 2012 piece for the Nation, he took on the philanthropist Nina
Rosenwald, head of the Gatestone Institute, for funding Israel-friendly groups
as well as “a Who’s Who of anti-Muslim outfits” and thereby “fuel[ing] a
rapidly emerging alliance between the pro-Israel mainstream and the
Islamophobic fringe” that “serves to sanitize and legitimize professional
anti-Muslim bigots.” Among these “bigots” were Irshad Manji and Zuhdi Jasser.
Oh? Manji and Jasser are themselves Muslims—but their support for Israel and
U.S. counterterrorism measures and their acknowledgment of Islam’s need for
democratic reform places them, in Blumenthal’s view, beyond the pale.
Blumenthal also brought up the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik’s
references in his manifesto to certain beneficiaries of Rosenwald’s
largesse—which, for Blumenthal, were enough to consider her tainted. He also
tarred Rosenwald for funding the invaluable Middle East Monitoring and Research
Institute (MEMRI), whose subtitled online postings of Arabic-language TV
programs provide abundant evidence of the hatred of the West, Jews, gays, and
independent-minded females disseminated daily around the Middle East.
No smear job by Max Blumenthal would be complete without
an unfounded personal attack, so in his piece on Rosenwald, one was able to
read this bit of gossip: According to an “acquaintance” of his, “Rosenwald has
a penchant for launching into anti-Arab anti-Palestinian tirades at public
forums, leaping up like ‘a jack in the box’ to denounce the evildoers.” As it
happens, I have been present over the past two decades at a great many public
forums attended by Rosenwald, and I have never observed any behavior on her
part that would remotely fit this description. I’ve also spoken with other
people whose paths have crossed Rosenwald’s frequently, and none of them has
ever experienced such conduct either, or heard of it from anyone else. In
short, another dose of pure calumny.
In 2013, writing at the Electronic Intifada website,
Blumenthal sought to take down Thor Halvorssen, founder of the Foundation for
Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), the Human Rights Foundation (HRF), and
the Oslo Freedom Forum (OFF). The piece provided a splendid example of his
six-degrees-of-separation approach to guilt by association. Halvorssen,
Blumenthal explained, was a bad person because his organizations had received
“significant funding from the same financiers”—such as the Sarah Scaife
Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation—“who support the
Islamophobes” (read, mainstream conservative critics of Islam) “who inspired
anti-Muslim Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik.” Yes, Breivik again.
Note that Blumenthal doesn’t hesitate to blame one lunatic’s massacre on
critics of Islam who have never called for violence, but he refuses to acknowledge
that innumerable jihadists have, in fact, as they themselves proudly declare,
murdered countless innocents in obedience to what they regard as the divine
commands set down in the Koran.
Blumenthal’s piece on Halvorssen also displayed his taste
for selective quotation and the cherry-picking of evidence. The half-truths and
smears in the article are too numerous to mention. As a student at the
University of Pennsylvania, Halvorssen had noted in an op-ed for the college
paper that “it may be deadly to live in West Philadelphia.” Blumenthal
presented the op-ed as evidence of racism, since that neighborhood is largely
African American. In fact, Halvorssen’s op-ed was motivated by the murder in
West Philadelphia of his friend Al-Moez Iqbal Alimohamed, a Pakistani Muslim
teaching assistant who had been shot in a robbery. Similarly, Blumenthal called
FIRE a “right-wing group” because it had “defend[ed] evangelical students
against charges of anti-gay discrimination and combating hate crimes
legislation.” Unmentioned was the fact that FIRE under Halvorssen’s leadership
had also defended radical leftist Ward Churchill, PETA members, and innumerable
gays and Muslims, including Sami Al-Arian, a Palestinian professor arrested on
terrorism charges.
Another lengthy smear appeared in 2017 at Alternet. This
time Blumenthal’s target was Daily Beast editor and fresh CNN hire Michael
Weiss, co-author of the New York Times bestseller ISIS: Inside the
Army of Terror. Under the headline “CNN Analyst Michael Weiss Hosted Anti-Muslim
Rally with Far-Right Hate Queen Pamela Geller,” Blumenthal upbraided Weiss for
the crime of having helped Geller put together a protest against plans for a
so-called Ground Zero mosque in lower Manhattan. This was false; Weiss had had
nothing to do with that event. Weiss was also scorned for having organized a
New York rally in solidarity with the Muhammad cartoonists in Denmark. This was
true; among the participants was the Danish consul general. In his effort to
blacken Weiss’s name, Blumenthal reached back to Weiss’s undergraduate days at
Dartmouth, when one of the comic strips that Weiss contributed to the student
paper showed a gay frat pledge involuntarily becoming sexually aroused during a
hazing ritual. Again, leave it to a man who has whitewashed Islamic regimes’
execution of gay people to point to a harmless cartoon as an indication of
vicious homophobia.
But Weiss’s major offense, in Blumenthal’s eyes, was
opposing Assad and Putin. Weiss, complained Blumenthal, dared to write about
Russia even though he “speaks little or no Russian”—this from a man who had
written books on Israel and the Palestinians without being fluent in either
Hebrew or Arabic. In another characteristic move, Blumenthal noted that a
website run by Weiss had been funded by former billionaire Mikhail
Khodorkovsky, whose eight years as a prisoner of conscience in Putin’s Russia
Blumenthal omitted to mention but whose allegedly corrupt business practices
prior to his incarceration he banged away about at length. Blumenthal treated
other associates of Weiss in a similar fashion, in addition to targeting
drive-by smears at other writers whose politics diverge from his own. The gay Spectator
contributor Douglas Murray, wrote Blumenthal, was “xenophobic” and a “hardcore
Islamophobe,” while Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the heroic Muslim apostate and critic of
Islam who has to live with around-the-clock bodyguards because of jihadist
death threats, was a “Dutch anti-Muslim activist and serial fabricator.”
In an article for Medium in December 2018, foreign
correspondent Sulome Anderson announced that she was suing Blumenthal and his
colleague Ben Norton. As part of their “dangerous campaign of disinformation
against people whose work threatens Russian and Syrian interests,” she charged,
they’d accused her of being “an agent of the U.S. or Israeli governments.”
Anderson speaks Arabic, has reported from the Middle East for such outlets as
the Atlantic, NBC News, the Daily Beast, and Newsweek, and is the
daughter of the AP reporter Terry Anderson, who was held captive by Hezbollah
for six years between 1985 and 1991. Sulome Anderson made it clear that while
she was extremely reluctant to challenge anyone’s free-speech rights, she felt
compelled to file the lawsuit because the steady drumbeat of lies about her
from Blumenthal and Norton has compromised her and her sources’ personal safety
when she’s working in danger zones. They need to understand, she wrote, that
“there are consequences” for putting reporters like her “in harm’s way.”
A few months after Anderson’s announcement came the
publication of Blumenthal’s The Management of Savagery. It is a critique
of the enthusiasm of many American officials, including politicians in both
major parties, for international military intervention. This enthusiasm, the
author argues, led the U.S. government to fund terrorist groups during the Cold
War that would later become its enemies, and also led America to get mired in
Iraq. This unnecessary foreign adventurism helped elect Donald Trump, and that
election, in turn, caused the D.C. establishment to push the argument that
Putin had played a pivotal role in Trump’s victory.
Many Americans across the political spectrum will concur
with Blumenthal about much if not all of the above. While many reasonable readers
might share his view that, say, the U.S. invasion of Iraq wasn’t a good idea,
they would likely balk at his claim that the negative image of Saddam Hussein
in the U.S. was the product of dishonest propaganda. (Iraq, claims Blumenthal,
was “stable” before the U.S. invasion. Well, that’s one way to put it.) Then
there’s Blumenthal’s distinction between the U.S. and Soviet invasions of
Afghanistan. The former, he maintains, was a hostile act of imperialism,
period, whereas the 1979 incursion by the USSR was motivated by an admirable
desire to stabilize an anarchic society, and it had the effect of introducing a
socialist government that had benign consequences for Afghanis.
What about 9/11? During a nearly two-hour-long
presentation at his book launch, which can be viewed on YouTube, Blumenthal
mentioned 9/11 only to deplore the immediate response of some Americans to that
monstrous atrocity and to call them Islamophobes; the attitudes toward infidels
that actually drove those Muslims to commit that act of mass murder went
unremarked. For him, the salient fact about 9/11 is that the U.S., since that
day, has been awash in “Islamophobia,” which he describes as “the language of a
wounded empire.” (The implication here, of course, is that 9/11 was a “wound”
that the “empire” amply deserves.) Blumenthal savages post-9/11
counterterrorism efforts in New York City and elsewhere as the work of bigots,
but he drops own the memory hole the innumerable post-9/11 acts of Islamic
terror in the U.S. and Europe. He is far kinder to the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar
Abdel-Rahman, who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, than to the
late Chris Kyle, the Navy SEAL whose life became the subject of Clint
Eastwood’s movie American Sniper.
So it goes. According to Blumenthal, those who believe
that there are terrorist cells in the U.S. or that some American Muslims
cheered the fall of the Twin Towers on 9/11 have fallen for a “folk myth.” The
only people who celebrated 9/11, he said at his book launch, were “a mysterious
group of Israelis.” He also mocks the idea of “creeping sharia”—as exemplified
by, for instance, the arrest, harassment, and prosecution of critics of Islam
in many Western countries and the increasing recognition by Western governments
of Islamic marriage laws. On the subject of jihad, Blumenthal is inconsistent.
In some cases, he seems to recognize it as rooted in religion, but more often
he treats it as if it’s always blowback against Western imperialism. He has no
doubt, however, that the idea that jihadists “hate us because we’re free” is a
“crude mantra.”
One striking feature of The Management of Savagery
is Max Blumenthal’s bluntness about the Clintons, Sidney’s personal cause for
decades. The Clinton Foundation, Max writes, accepted tens of millions from Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and other sources even as some
of these donors “were propping up ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria.” Blumenthal
doesn’t shrink from blaming Hillary for pushing the Russiagate story, which he
describes as a “national security state narrative,” or from blaming Bill for
ignoring the threat of al-Qaeda during his presidency. At his book launch,
Blumenthal stated quite bluntly that, owing to their actions in Libya, Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton “helped bring slavery back to Africa.”
Some of the arguments made by Blumenthal in this book
have been made before by respected writers on both the left and the right who
oppose what they see as reflexive and counterproductive U.S. interventions
abroad—and, as with portions of his previous work, many readers with mainstream
views will find those arguments congenial. But one cannot imagine that many
readers with functioning moral compasses will respond with anything but disgust
to the passages in which he defends the Assad regime, maintains that people in
the West have a “blinkered view” of Assad, and denounces what he describes as
the “Western media’s tendency to paint the Syrian conflict as a one-sided war
between a maniacal dictator and his defenseless subjects.” In his attempt to
sugarcoat Assad, Blumenthal reminds us that in 1971, Assad’s father “sparked
massive Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations by issuing a stringently secular
constitution.”
Again and again, in The Management of Savagery,
Blumenthal insists that Assad’s enemies in Syria are at least as bad as he is;
that those enemies have been funded and abetted by the West; that other tyrants
in the region are, likewise, no better than Assad; and that Assad and his
circle have long been the targets of “armed Sunni Islamist groups,” presumably
because Assad does not share their backward theocratic views. It is interesting
to observe that whereas Blumenthal, prior to his Moscow trip, almost invariably
stood up for Islamic theocracies, he now sees things the other way around and
is willing to speak critically about “Islamists.” He is willing to do this,
that is, so long as he can cast them as the tools or allies of the U.S., or the
West generally, against Assad and Putin. The one constant in his view of these
matters is that he has always been more critical of the U.S. and other Western
liberal democracies than of any tyrannical Middle Eastern regime, whether
theocratic or secular.
More than any other American writer who has reached his
level of notoriety, Blumenthal has proven consistently to be too hard-left even
for some of the banner names of the hard left. “Pro-Assad, pro-Maduro,
pro-Putin—literally nothing redeemable about this fellow and his moronic
second-campism,” tweeted the British writer James Bloodworth, an old Trotskyite
and longtime Guardian contributor, on June 9. The good news is that more
and more respectable members of the journalistic profession have woken up to
the fact that Blumenthal’s work is simply not to be trusted—that he is not a
legitimate reporter but a propagandist. The bad news is that he is still able
to get his books published and still has readers who, heaven help them, take
his writings seriously.
Perhaps even more striking to contemplate are the emails
released by WikiLeaks in which Sidney Blumenthal proudly shared his son’s
writings with Hillary Clinton, who responded by praising them and even passing
some of them around to her State Department colleagues. This included the
epilogue to his Israel-bashing Gomorrah. “I loved the epilogue but it
stopped abruptly and I can’t pull up the rest so I’m anxiously awaiting for the
rest,” Hillary Clinton wrote to Sidney. “Pls congratulate Max for another
impressive piece. He’s so good.”
How sharper than a serpent’s tooth is a Max Blumenthal!
No comments:
Post a Comment