After all these years of endlessly repeating the same tired tropes on the New York Times op-ed page, taking Maureen Dowd’s columns seriously requires a suspension of disbelief that is normally only needed to watch science fiction. But though the Queen of Snark lacks the credibility to discuss virtually any issue in an intelligent manner, she does have a knack for picking up on whatever hateful viruses are circulating through the circulatory system of our body politic. Worried about prejudice against Mormons? Dowd was the first to provide mainstream media space to that brand of hate during the current presidential campaign. Concerned about the way some on the left are hoping to utilize the debate about Iran to delegitimize support for Israel? Dowd again is the one to ensure this nasty piece of business gets another airing by arguing that Romney wants to fight wars for the sake of the Jews.
In her column in today’s Times Sunday Review, Dowd picks up on the same theme explored on the paper’s website on Thursday that I discussed earlier today. While it can be argued that she can always be relied upon to seize upon any point, no matter how trivial, to heap scorn on any Republican (her brief stint as a bipartisan basher of Bill Clinton during l’affaire Lewinsky may have earned her a Pulitzer but since then she has stuck to snarking conservatives), her attack on Mitt Romney’s foreign policy stance is particularly creepy. Unlike the rest of the Obama cheerleading squad that occupies the Times opinion pages, she is not content to just bash him for attacking Obama’s apologies, weak leadership and disdain for Israel. Dowd sees him and running mate Paul Ryan as the cat’s-paws of a shadowy group of “powerful” Jewish “neocons” who are out to seize the country in his name and enforce, “a duty to invade and bomb Israel’s neighbors,” on Americans. In a perfect illustration of how hate for Israel shows where the left and right meet, Dowd channeled Pat Buchanan in arguing that Romney/Ryan are the “puppets” of neoconservative conspirators who want Americans to die for Israel.
Dowd doubled down on Eric Lewis’ point that it is “outrageous” for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to demand that the president state some red lines about Iran. But all Netanyahu is doing is asking the president to show us that he has some intention of doing something about Iran other than talking about the threat. The pushback from the pro-Obama camp against the suggestion that the administration stop pretending that failed diplomacy and unenforced sanctions will persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambition reinforces the suspicion that once he is re-elected, the president will have the “flexibility” to choose to “contain” rather than stop Iran. That is a position that would endanger both the U.S. and Israel.
Dowd’s biggest target is Dan Senor, an author and former Bush administration staffer who is one of Romney and Ryan’s top advisors. But neither Senor nor Romney nor any American supporter of Israel needs to apologize to the likes of Dowd for their belief that the U.S. should keep its word to stop Iran. Though those who write about “neocons slithering” are clearly intending to stoke prejudice, even Obama has paid lip service to the fact that a nuclear Iran is a deadly threat to the entire Middle East as well as to the interests of the United States. Though Romney is not always the most consistent or coherent of thinkers about foreign policy, he does seem to understand this dilemma a lot better than Obama and his hateful press hit squad.
President Obama came into office determined to try to distance the United States from Israel and to appease the Muslim world. He accomplished the former but failed miserably with the latter as the spectacle of besieged U.S. embassies in the Middle East this week has shown. Throughout the last year, Obama’s critics have noted that he seemed more interested in stopping Israel from defending itself than in halting Iran’s nuclear program. Now his supporters seek to suppress any pressure for action on Iran by branding it the work of neocon conspirators.
The bottom line here is the same despicable “Israel Lobby” smear that seeks to silence friends of Israel through the use of traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes. Dowd’s column marks yet another step down into the pit of hate-mongering that has become all too common at the Times. This is a tipping point that should alarm even the most stalwart liberal Jewish supporters of the president.
It's not a question of conspiracy. It's open agitation for the US to start an illegal war on behalf of a foreign state. n
As usual, outrageous statements made by the antisemite-in-chief. If- or when- Iran gets the atom bomb – there will be a nuclear mushroom over a city- israel is determined it will not be over Tel Aviv. Is Obama as determiend it will not be over new York?
This nasty piece of SH-T should not be written here. If I could obtain the home address, it wouldn't be. Must be the local KKK headquarters or insane asylum. As for Dowd receiving the Pulitzer, so have other frauds receive that 'prize'. Why haven't they awarded the prize for Mein Kampf? It's in the same category.
If you could obtain the home address you would do what? Is Commentary publishing personal threats now?
Just worry. I don't have a very high level of tolerance for Nazis or their like.
Vandag, I rarely agree with our resident Obama shill Hillel, but it disturbs me to see posts here that can be intepreted as a threat to anyone's life or safety, even that of a disgusting piece of Jew-hating trash like GOM. n nOne reason I like your posts is that you are not afraid to call em as you see em, but this one goes a little too far for my comfort.
No, but you seem OK sitting through anti-Jewish smears intended to incite mobs to come to our houses and burn then to the ground afterwards. That's OK, eh Hillel? Stand on the other foot bro.
Terminal anti-Semitism, as with one-balled Adolph, is indistinguishable from terminal syphilis–what are you babbling about? Obama is President. He isn't going to war. If he did go to war it wouldn't be "illegal". You might not like it but illegal? But it's OK then to back Iran against Israel and work for Iran to exterminate the Jews? Then you are advocating helping a…foreign state. Because through war or peace, activity or inactivity, advocating for Israel, or as you do, advocating tor international Islamic hegemony, foreign states as well as American foreign interests are involved. And droning on and on about "Illegal" wars adds as much illumination as mooning us.
The Gr. Old Man is a hateful little tool. n nUnimpressive and non influential, just as he should be. n n
Yeah, not influential, but Chris Matthews repeats the same junk ("war mongering neo cons") stepped on with 20% milk powder and he is.
Where is Alan Dershowitz? He is to be blamed for unwittingly helping the enemies of Israel to increase their political power. It is time for him to speak out. Maureen Dowd is only echoing the true views of the Obama administration. This is what these people say behind closed doors. n
Meanwhile Susan Rice continues the despicable CYA policy of Team O–the LIbyan operation was "spontaneous" protest against a despicable film, hijacked by "extremist elements". So don't blame Team O appeasement or the Arabs themselves for their animalistic lust for resentment-filled rapine and pillage, oh no, it's all due to bad bad bad defamers of the Prophet. Welcome to Dhimmi America. And don't blame Team O for set backs in its war against Al Qaeda networks, waged mostly via drones, oh no, they are just "extremist elements" not particularly associated with an ideology (AQ) or an organization (AQ) network. n nBut this article misses the main point. Lib-left anti-Semitism and exploitation of anti-Semitism is a given. What is not a given is a Presidential candidate's refusal to fight back. Romney, by not launching his own attacks to defend his bona fides not only betrays himself. n nHe has betrayed and will continue to betray his base. n nAnd his conflicted, pull-your-punches, sporadic and content-free invocations of Israel in his campaign and MIA status when the "Jewish lobby" smears are predictably raised betrays Jews and Israel both.
'Illegal War" says the grumpy. n nConcentration camps were 'legal' in the Third Reich. n nWhat does our resident legal scholar have to say about that? n n
Apparently Obama, in his quest to create daylight between between the neocons and the official US policy, has left no daylight between US policy and that of Pat Buchanan.
A second term Obama will ratchet antisemitism to European levels.
To Iran's theocrats the US is "The Great Satan" while Israel is merely "The Little Satan." There is plenty of reason for us citizens of the US to fear the outcome if Iran gets the bomb. And that's even putting aside concern for Israel, which is the only democracy in its region as well as the only country whose citizens don't wish us all dead.
Are we reading the same thing: Dowd's article published today? There isn't a whiff of anti-Semitic language in there, none. So tired of the paranoia from Commentary. Better to worry about the stupidity of Paul Ryan at the Values Voter Summit ("We Will Never Have the Elite, Smart People on Our Side") and the sensible comment by PM Netanyahu today (after noting that there was no difference between Romney and the President on Iran) responding to host David Gregory's pointed questions about Mitt's accusation that the President had thrown Israel under the bus ("There is no bus…we have a strong alliance and we're going to continue to have a strong alliance…the only bus that is really important is the Iranian nuclear bus, that's the one that we have to derail.")
Hitler analogies prove nothing other than how easy it is to make some folks hysterical. n nIt's a cheap argument for a wicked and dangerous course of action (attacking Iran).
I don't know how to break this to you, Achmed, but when the subject is the genocide of the Jewish people, Hitler isn't an analogy.
Wicked, dangerous, or illegal. And why wicked, and why dangerous? Well, because you approve of Iran's Hitlerian policies. Grumpsengruppschmuck: hysterical, perhaps not. But wicked. Dangerous? Not you, merely, under the veneer of talking pithily to bait the Jews, dog shit dumb.
“Dowd again is the one to ensure this nasty piece of business gets another airing by arguing that Romney wants to fight wars for the sake of the Jews.” n nThis is another crude and transparent attempt to play the anti-Semitic card, Jonathan, which succeeds only in exposing you as an unsophisticated propagandist rather than a polished social commentator. The vast majority of Jews throughout the Diaspora aren’t in the slightest bit interested in America going to fight wars for the Zionists of Israel. n nYou have belittled and besmirched the real meaning of the word ‘anti-Semitism’ by using it for political purposes. n
Come off it, Damian. Your web site says the 9/11 bombings were committed by Israel, the Mossad and the international zionists as part of their quest for world dominance. You are hardly qualified to judge what "real" anti-Semtiism is or isn't.
Says the man whose web site blames Israel for blowing up the Twin Towers and plotting world financial domination.
Am reading u all, from the hills above Budapest, Hungary & am amazed & somewhat amused at the level of Anti Jewish expressions coming out of some empty minds. The homosexual Ambassador to Lybia was 10 years ago stationed at your “East” Jerusalem Consulate, he was very understanding of the “Arabs plight” but his sympathy delivered death by Arabs. Obama has as many if not more Jewish Leftists advising him, as does Romney. As was the case with another pres. Who “just loved” Israel & the Jewish Nation, Nixon!!! Same with the impotent Carter, thanks to whom Iran looks & act as it is/does 2day. The USA need not be so proud of its elected “leaders”… Yet, each Nation deserves the leaders it gets.
<a href:"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqN1glz4JY&feature=related">Listen.
It is so apparent that B. Obama wants to isolate Israel. Why does he get so much Jewish support? One can only conclude that a majority of U.S. Jews don't care much about the state of Israel.
Buchanan also blames us for Pearl Harbor, saying we failed to bow to some prince. In referring to Obama's awful foreign policy as being driven by the "likudniks" his and Ron Paul's followers show that they are actually leftists; Buchanan's running mate was a member of Communist Party USA.
How worried are the Europeans about an Iranian nuke? I remember Jacques Chirac making a tough-talk speech aimed at the mullahs several years ago. But what are they saying/doing now, since they are the ones that would be next in line downrange, after Israel and Saudi Arabia?
[cont'd] So although I am not a big believer in the code word or dog whistle theory, it does appear that Dowd is calling Jews neocons whether they are or not., and is saying that non-Jewish who clearly are neocons are merely tools for the neocons. Whether or not other people use neocon as code for 'the wrong kind of Jew" , it sure looks as though Dowd is doing just that. n n
To-day,Iran agreed to face to face talks with the US0fA, Have you visited Iran lately,prices for basics are through the roof,and escalating,every day!! their currancy has lost 58% of it's value,there are shortages of every thing,medical supplies/technical parts/etc.etc.etc. Obama has done more for Israel's Security,than any other President of the U.S. BiBi and the President have orchestrated an "Act", and it's a Brilliant plan!!! look at it from Iran's perspective!!!……….and whats happening there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Nomlas Fisher,Vancouver.
Agreed. When someone uses Likudnik as an insult, it usually means they don't know the first thing about Likud, Israeli politics, or Jabotinski, but they know they will appear discredited if they just say Zionists — which most of the time is what they mean by it.