Jeffrey Goldberg gets "props" from a pro-NATO propagandist for *not* doing actual journalism. With a once in a lifetime opportunity to view high level discussions on the US launching an illegal war on Yemen, Goldberg chose to avert his gaze and leave the scene as soon as he could, apparently because maintaining access would have compelled him to report on discussions that might have complicated a war being waged on behalf of the Israeli apartheid state to which he emigrated as a young man. Instead of exploiting his front row seat to the Trump admin's war planning - a vantage point any adversarial journalist would have dreamed of - Goldberg bolted and dutifully informed the White House about the unfortunate situation. He then framed the story as an OPSEC scandal, instead of one about the policy itself, which entails a gargantuan empire bombarding a poor, besieged country because it is controlled by a popular movement that is currently the only force taking up arms to stop Israel's genocide in Gaza. In the fourth paragraph of Goldberg's Atlantic article about the principals' Signal group, he strongly implied that he supports the war's objectives, describing Ansar Allah, or the Houthis, as an "Iran-backed terrorist organization" which upholds a belief system that is (what else?) antisemitic. Goldberg previously propagandized for the US war on Iraq, earning two citations during Meet the Press appearances by then-VP Dick Cheney, and has campaigned for a US attack on Iran's nuclear sites. When asked in an interview earlier tonight with CNN's Kaitlan Collins why he left the Signal group voluntarily, Goldberg refused to answer the question. But as Ian Bremmer suggests here, he did so out of deference to power and an abiding belief in a US empire hellbent on protecting Israel. And in the culture of Beltway access journalism, that's a laudable trait.
Mike