To take a page from Spock, MJ Rosenberg doesn't often lie but he doesn't often exaggerate, though the two may often be indistinguishable. His latest headline does a perfect job of telling exactly half of the truth of a new Senate resolution, the subject of his article:
Is that true, is that really what the Senate resolution says? Are they really doing what Rosenberg often claims that they do, i.e. hand over control of America's foreign policy and military to a foreign country?
Oh no, of course they aren't. But who needs to tell the truth when you've got a gig writing for the Huffington Post? Rosenberg spends most of his article talking yet not talking about the resolution in question, which you can read for yourself here if you are feeling impatient. But here is what Rosenberg calls "the pitch:"
"If the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence."If this sounds at all familiar, you may remember that Rosenberg was complaining about it back in March and had the expect same "interpretation," that "if Israel goes to war with Iran we are at war too." Reusing topics again? How lazy can you be?
So if he is going to be lazy and repeat himself, I am going to do the same. Here is the debunking of Rosenberg's spin that I wrote back in March:
"Ha! Actually, that's your interpretation of the resolution. The way I see it, it's almost meaningless. America provides diplomatic, military and economic support anyway. What this resolution is saying is that it is asking the US government to continue doing what it does in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran. Rosenberg loves thinking that these resolutions means America loses control over its own abilities to declare or not declare war, but it just doesn't stand up to reality.
Also, let me toss in that it's long been established that Iran will interpret any attack by Israel as an attack by America. So it's a moot point, and always will be. I guess the well of grievances against AIPAC is running a little low."Which is exactly correct. Good job, past self. You really nailed it. Check out how Rosenberg retreads old ground:
"In other words, if Israel goes to war with Iran we are at war too." (March 3, 2013)
"No, the point of this resolution is to tell Israel that it can go to war with Iran, with the assurance that if it gets into trouble, the United States will step in and finish the job...Just do it, and we are in too." (April 17. 2013)Of course the resolution doesn't say that at all. At the most it says that the USA should help to defend Israel. But hey who are you going to believe, a man who hates Israel for a living or your own lying eyes?