Ilan Goldenberg Going to the Pentagon
Spencer Ackerman first reported that my friend Ilan Goldenberg, currently Policy Director at The National Security Network, will be leaving NSN shortly for an important post at the Pentagon. Specifically, he’ll be working as special adviser to Colin Kahl, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, with a portfolio focused on Israel and Iran issues.
I don’t want to discredit Ilan with unduly fulsome praise, but suffice it to say that the above is a photo of him on a panel at Netroots Nation alongside such DFHs as myself, Spencer, and Alex Rossmiller who you may recall from Americablog. He’ll be, of course, one voice among several on a few concrete issues that involve many, many, many thorny details. But I’m a “big picture” kind of guy, who thinks it matters a lot where people situate themselves on the broad questions, so I just went back and read this and smiled.
17 Responses to “Ilan Goldenberg Going to the Pentagon”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 20th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I wish him luck, although he is going to probably have to wear a jacket and tie now. DFHs? Y’alls hair is way too short…
May 20th, 2009 at 11:42 am
instead of a chas freeman in the administration, we get this kid?
sounds about right given how everything else is going
May 20th, 2009 at 11:47 am
More like DemocracyASSenal. AMIRITE?
May 20th, 2009 at 11:55 am
A little more pork for the biggest pork-barrel on earth.
I’m sure he’ll write a lot of interesting memos for his counterparts to read and then shitcan.
May 20th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Dictionary.com:
ful·some (fʊl’səm) adj.
Offensively flattering or insincere. See synonyms at unctuous.
Offensive to the taste or sensibilities.
Usage Problem. Copious or abundant.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
1) If you read Matthew’s article to which Goldenberg linked, you will encounter the following argument:
“These ideas have some differences and some merits, but all share a common flaw — the envision these ”
2) I can’t wait until Matthew gains enough influence that Foreign Policy editors are forced to accept Matthew’s manuscripts.
But then I have a mean streak.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
On a slightly related topic, attached is a link to an article about Keith Weissman, the former AIPAC employee against whom charges of espionage were recently dropped. Since Mr. Weissman has been bad mouthed by Mr. Yglesias and many of his commentators (I’m looking at Mr. Don Williams), it is interesting to note that he is very negative about preemptive attacks on Irans’ nuclear facilities.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212417034&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
A few excerpts follow.
There is no viable military option for dealing the Iranian nuclear threat, and efforts by the Israeli government and its supporters to link that threat to progress in peace with the Palestinians and Syria are “nonsense” and an obstacle to the Arab-Israeli and international cooperation essential to changing Iranian behavior.
“The only viable solution is dialogue. You don’t deal with Iran with threats or preaching regime change,” said Weissman, who has lived in Iran, knows Farsi (as well as Arabic, Turkish and French) and wrote his doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago on Iranian history. That’s where the Bush administration went wrong, in his view.
Sounds like Mr. Yglesias kind of appeaser guy.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Lord, will it never be that the people who run the government and its tentacles in industry and other entities which feed, compliment, and run cover for it will not also be BFF’s with the members of the allegedly free and independent media?
Nothing like the site of you young, bright fellows all cozily assembled at a Internet Industrial Comples circle jerk to make my blood run cold for dread of the future. More of the same old same old…
Why can’t we have commentariat who stay in Kansas and New Mexico and Ohio and…? Why do you all have to get together and live together and love one another and go to the same cocktail parties to do your jobs…?
May 20th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Re Tim at 8: “Why do you all have to get together and live together and love one another ”
—————-
Hmmmm.
I guess That answers Bob Oso at 1:
DFHs can have short hair if they’re gay.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Matt, Matt, Matt … MoDo School of Journalism?
Creative Commons is awesome but attribute your photos.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikedish/2727949319/
May 20th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Let me guess, what’s happening in the photo is that it’s quesiton time and the questioner in the audience is not if fact asking a question but rather is making a little speech about their hobbie horse. Three of the panelists look on in horror – the speech must be really bad – while Matt stares off into space sipping his Coke.
My question is if Matt enjoys a nice cold soda every know and then, why would he want to lay another regressive tax on the average taxpayer?
May 20th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Re: SLC
“Sounds like Mr. Yglesias kind of appeaser guy.”
Too bad he’s a spy, then. Can’t win e’m all.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I don’t agree that America and China are likely to see each other as competing powers. I think that China is heavily dependent on being able to trade with the US and with Europe and we are dependent on being able to trade with China so it is extremely unlikely that we won’t manage to have a cooperative relationship.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Matt — in the interest of having you around for a long time, please stop ingesting high fructose corn syrup. It is just one of the latest experiments in the lack of corporate foresight and limits on our poisoning ourselves to early deaths.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Well, one can say that Mr. Yglesias is the fattest guy at the table.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Alex Rossmiller is hot.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
You appear to be drinking sake directly from the flask, Mathew. Firstly, who knew they served liquor at NetNat? I may just have to attend next time. Secondly, is there some explanation of this strange, loutish behavior on your part? Or, was it: “just that kind of panel”.