The subject this time is a House resolution that is being voted on today which has all the usual victimized caveats: AIPAC is sponsoring, AIPAC will destroy you if you don't vote for it, boo hoo hoo. Then Rosenberg gets up on his high horse and pretends to know more than our elected representatives:
"Most of the language in H. Res.568 is unremarkable, the usual boilerplate (some of it factual) denouncing the Islamic Republic of Iran as a "state sponsor of terrorism" that is on the road to nuclear weapons capability.""Some of it factual," huh? Would you care to back up this claim with any kind of fact-based analysis? Or is this a return of the classic Rosenberg argument: "It's true because I say so?" Most informative here is that he has "state sponsor of terrorism" in quotation marks, as if to say that it isn't true but the resolution contained it anyway. Unfortunately for Rosenberg if he had read the resolution in its entirety he would have seen that the resolution merely quoted the State Department which declared that Iran is the ‘‘most active state sponsor of terrorism." Does MJ Rosenberg really think he knows better than his own State Department?
There are two options here: Rosenberg didn't read the section about the State Department and therefore is a sloppy journalist, or he did read the section about it and intentionally didn't put it in the article, knowing that if he did it would give the resolution more legitimacy. In which case he is intentionally deceiving his own audience.
I'll let you reflect on which case is more likely because he is about to pull the same tactic again. Watch closely, because the emphasis are his:
"But there is also this: The House "urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.""Let's try that again with my emphasis:
"But there is also this: The House "urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and "The point of the resolution to encourage the President to reaffirm what he has already said: that containment is not an option. There is very little new in the resolution (making it kind of pointless) but it works very well in making hay for MJ Rosenberg. And make hay he does: even though in his own quoted paragraph he admits that the House is not "making" or "forcing" the President to do anything, he still tries to spin it so that they are:
"Congress would be telling the president that any U.S. response to that threat other than war is unacceptable."Congress isn't telling the president to do anything. They are urging him to maintain the positions that he has already endorsed (presumably at AIPAC's bidding, if you ask MJ Rosenberg).
So having set up the strawman of what the resolution actually says Rosenberg spends the rest of the article tearing that strawman down, and blaming AIPAC every step of the way as usual. Because some things never change.