Right Message, Wrong Messenger

Lots of talk in the 'sphere about the new book John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." Their thesis is that pro-Israel lobbies such as AIPAC have harmed U.S. interests by forcing the government to take inappropriate positions towards Israel, the Arabs, and the Palestinians. It's clear to me that this thesis is both factually wrong and borderline anti-Semitic (the most obvious reason being that all ethnic groups - and, in fact, all groups of every kind, including commercial ones - lobby vigorously and effectively about every conceivable topic, and it's how America works; and yes I know Walt and Mearshimer acknowledge that, but it's a hand-wave rather than a real response).

There are lots of competent people - political scientists, pundits, lobbyists, foreign-relation experts - qualified and ready to make that distinction. The New York Times unfortunately picked Leslie Gelb instead, and his op-ed is astoundingly audacious. He makes lots of good points against Mearsheimer/Walt, but ruins it all when he hypothesizes that they must have written the book due to "their vitriol about the Iraq war — about being so right while others were so wrong". He says they "should feel very proud, indeed, for their foresight in opposing the Iraq war. Their writings were more on target than anyone’s, and they are justifiably mystified about how the United States could have been so stupid and self-destructive."

Really, Leslie? Didn't you criss-cross the country trying to sell that very war? Didn't you say (via an old Joe Klein Time article, h/t Atrios):

"I have never seen such unanimity on any foreign policy issue," says Leslie H.
Gelb, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who made a speaking tour of
mostly business audiences in the Midwest and on the West Coast in December.
"They want a smoking gun. It doesn't make a difference when I point out that we
have a smoking forest, that it's clear Saddam has these weapons and doesn't want
to disarm."

Mearsheimer/Walt need to be attacked, but not by someone who was active in pushing the war and now tries to associate with the anti-war crowd. (p.s. What's up with that quote? Who says "smoking forest" when they mean "a really big smoking gun?")