NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd posts Anti-Semitic Column on Rosh Hashanah?

[stu2002]

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd set the Jewish political community on fire today with a column about the Republican ticket's foreign policy proposals that, according to her critics, peddled anti-Semitic imagery.

Dowd fairly observed that neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan are experts in the field of foreign policy, but asserted their strategy was orchestrated by a "neocon puppet master" who was leading the neocon effort to "slither back" into power.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/maureen-dowd-meets-antisemitism-charge-135700.html?hp=r1

[acptulsa]

Uh huh. Short on direct quotes of the column in question, long on stuff like this: '"Dowd's use of anti-Semitic imagery is awful," Steven A. Cook, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote on Twitter.'

Maybe someone who has an account at the New York Slimes can post the column itself so we don't have to take the CFR's word for it. Until then, this one is flying well below my personal radar.

Maybe we should use the warmongers' tactics against them in the interests of peace. Think we can convince people to look upon every criticism of a self-professed 'Islamic state' as a hate crime? But of course we know that won't happen. Hating on Islam is no hate crime at all, and criticizing any state that identifies with it (or even has a Muslim majority in its population) isn't a hate crime. It isn't a crime at all these days; it's considered American Patriotism.

'I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines.'--Thomas Jefferson

Good for the civil magistrates, though. Gives them a nice, holy shroud behind which to hide their shenanigans.

[stu2002]

"Maureen may not know this, but she is peddling an old stereotype, that gentile leaders are dolts unable to resist the machinations and manipulations of clever and snake-like Jews," Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic columnist and leading journalist on Israeli issues, wrote.

[seyferjm]

Whhaaaa whaa whaaa go the neo-cons

[angelatc]

The paywall at the NYT is easy to beat. Just hit "Stop" on your browser before the nag screen pops up.

Here's the article:

NEOCONS SLITHER BACK



PAUL RYAN has not sautéed in foreign policy in his years on Capitol Hill. The 42-year-old congressman is no Middle East savant; till now, his idea of a border dispute has more likely involved Wisconsin and Illinois.


Yet Ryan got up at the Values Voter Summit here on Friday and skewered the Obama administration as it struggled to manage the Middle East mess left by clumsily mixed American signals toward the Arab Spring and the disastrous legacy of war-obsessed Republicans.


Ryan bemoaned “the slaughter of brave dissidents in Syria. Mobs storming American embassies and consulates. Iran four years closer to gaining a nuclear weapon. Israel, our best ally in the region, treated with indifference bordering on contempt by the Obama administration.” American foreign policy, he said, “needs moral clarity and firmness of purpose.”

Ryan was moving his mouth, but the voice was the neocon puppet master Dan Senor. The hawkish Romney adviser has been secunded to manage the running mate and graft a Manichaean worldview onto the foreign affairs neophyte.


A moral, muscular foreign policy; a disdain for weakness and diplomacy; a duty to invade and bomb Israel’s neighbors; a divine right to pre-emption — it’s all ominously familiar.

You can draw a direct line from the hyperpower manifesto of the Project for the New American Century, which the neocons, abetted by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, used to prod an insecure and uninformed president into invading Iraq — a wildly misguided attempt to intimidate Arabs through the shock of overwhelming force.

How’s that going for us?

After 9/11, the neocons captured one Republican president who was naïve about the world. Now, amid contagious Arab rage sparked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, they have captured another would-be Republican president and vice president, both jejeune about the world.


Senor is emblematic of how much trouble America blundered into in the Middle East — trillions wasted, so many lives and limbs lost — because of how little we fathom the culture and sectarian politics. We’re still stumbling in the dark. We not only don’t know who our allies and enemies are, we don’t know who our allies’ and enemies’ allies and enemies are.

As the spokesman for Paul Bremer during the Iraq occupation, Senor helped perpetrate one of the biggest foreign policy bungles in American history. The clueless desert viceroys summarily disbanded the Iraqi Army, forced de-Baathification, stood frozen in denial as thugs looted ministries and museums, deluded themselves about the growing insurgency, and misled reporters with their Panglossian scenarios of progress.


“Off the record, Paris is burning,” Senor told a group of reporters a year into the war. “On the record, security and stability are returning to Iraq.”


Before he played ventriloquist to Ryan, Senor did the same for Romney, ratcheting up the candidate’s irresponsible bellicosity on the Middle East. Senor was the key adviser on Romney’s disastrous trip to Israel in July, when Mittens infuriated the Palestinians by making a chuckleheaded claim about their culture.


Senor got out over his skis before Romney’s speech in Jerusalem, telling reporters that Mitt would say he respected Israel’s right to make a pre-emptive, unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.


While the Muslim world burned on Friday, Mitt was in New York with Kelly Ripa and Michael Strahan confessing that he wears “as little as possible” to bed. With no global vision or historical perspective — he didn’t even remember during his Tampa convention to mention our troops or the years of war his party reigned over — Romney is simply kowtowing to the right again.


Paul Wolfowitz, an Iraq war architect, weighed in on Fox News, slimily asserting that President Obama should not be allowed to “slither through” without a clear position on Libya.

Republicans are bananas on this one. They blame Obama for casting Hosni Mubarak overboard and contradict themselves by blaming him for not supporting the Arab Spring. One minute Romney parrots Bibi Netanyahu’s position on Iran, the next Obama’s.


Romney’s cynical braying about Obama appeasement in the midst of the attack on the American diplomatic post in Libya and the murder of the brave ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was shameful. Richard Williamson, a Romney adviser, had the gall to tell The Washington Post, “There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation.”


He’s right — a scarier situation. If President Romney acceded to Netanyahu’s outrageous demand for clear red lines on Iran, this global confrontation would be a tiny foretaste of the conflagration to come.


Cheney, described by Romney as a “person of wisdom and judgment,” is lurking. On Monday, he churlishly tried to deny President Obama credit for putting Osama in the cross hairs, cattily referring to a report that Obama had not gone to all his intelligence briefings.


Well, yes. W. got briefings, like the one that warned him on Aug. 6, 2001: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” That didn’t work so well either, did it?

[acptulsa]

'He’s right — a scarier situation. If President Romney acceded to Netanyahu’s outrageous demand for clear red lines on Iran, this global confrontation would be a tiny foretaste of the conflagration to come.'--Maureen Dowd

She doesn't mention Jews even once, and has little more than this to say about Israel.

Anti-Semitic? I say not. But then, I'm neither an Israel apologist nor a neocon with bloodlust on my mind.

[cindy25]

the Holocaust excuse over and over.

[jmdrake]

So now calling someone a neocon snake = antisemitism?

[pcosmar]

So now calling someone a neocon snake = antisemitism?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0kWAqZxJVE

[LibertyEagle]

'He’s right — a scarier situation. If President Romney acceded to Netanyahu’s outrageous demand for clear red lines on Iran, this global confrontation would be a tiny foretaste of the conflagration to come.'--Maureen Dowd

She doesn't mention Jews even once, and has little more than this to say about Israel.

Anti-Semitic? I say not. But then, I'm neither an Israel apologist nor a neocon with bloodlust on my mind.

+rep

[angelatc]

'He’s right — a scarier situation. If President Romney acceded to Netanyahu’s outrageous demand for clear red lines on Iran, this global confrontation would be a tiny foretaste of the conflagration to come.'--Maureen Dowd

She doesn't mention Jews even once, and has little more than this to say about Israel.

Anti-Semitic? I say not. But then, I'm neither an Israel apologist nor a neocon with bloodlust on my mind.

Yes, I checked the date to be sure I even had the right column. They've got their panties bunched up over this?

[Brian4Liberty]

The paywall at the NYT is easy to beat. Just hit "Stop" on your browser before the nag screen pops up.

Here's the article:

NEOCONS SLITHER BACK

...

Nothing anti-semitic on the surface in that article by Dowd. And she mentions Wolfowitz by name because he had been doing interviews last week.


Well, yes. W. got briefings, like the one that warned him on Aug. 6, 2001: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” That didn’t work so well either, did it?

And there we have it. The new revelations (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?389715-New-inside-revelations-about-pre-9-11-discussions) about pre-9/11 intelligence, and the people at the top of the Bush Administration who actively squelched investigating and preparing for the attack will have some ramifications. The neo-conservatives thought that their cover-up had worked. Now that new information is coming out, they are using self-righteous indignation to distract from the real issue: their culpability.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?389715-New-inside-revelations-about-pre-9-11-discussions

Both stories are from the NY Times, and one might guess that their motivation behind this is purely partisan politics to make the GOP look bad, and Obama look like the rational one.

[libertygrl]

Yes, I checked the date to be sure I even had the right column. They've got their panties bunched up over this?

I've been told by someone on another forum (who happenes to be a Zionist) that the word "neo-con" is a code word for Jew. Never knew that! That's why they got their panties in a bunch. It's just another way to shut people up.

If a Gentile exposes Zionism, they are called "anti-semitic" which is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide the Zionists actions.

But, if a Jew is the person doing the exposing, they resort to other tactics.

First, they ignore the charges, hoping the information will not be given widespread distribution.



If the information starts reaching too many people, they ridicule the information and the persons giving the information. 



If that doesn't work, their next step is character assassination.

If the author or speaker hasn't been involved in sufficient scandal they are adept at fabricating scandal against the person or persons. 



If none of these are effective, they are known to resort to physical attacks. 


But, NEVER do they try to prove the information wrong.

- Jack Bernstein, (assassinated by MOSSAD)

h ttp://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/10/06/the_life_of_an_american_jew_in_racist_ma

[Brian4Liberty]

Happy Rosh Hashanah! From your friends at Neo-conservative Central...

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_condoleeza_rnc_cc_120829_wg.jpg

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/23/rumsfeld.jpg

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/wolfowitz.jpg

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/dick-cheney-264x300.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/161005/thumbs/s-LINDSEY-GRAHAM-large.jpg

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/files/original/0107billkristol.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sdDZx9MZfS0/UBmlhwYwM1I/AAAAAAAASYI/_sb1SUOTXnA/s1600/Jeb+Bush.JPG.jpg

http://images.politico.com/global/news/101217_john_bolton_ap_328.jpg

https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/john-mccain-290x368.jpg

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/08/120830_marco_rubio_2_ap_6052.jpg

[Brian4Liberty]

Nick Kristof chimes in (again at the New York Times):


The Republican Party is caught in a civil war on foreign policy, and Romney refuses to pick sides. In contrast to his approach on the economy, he just doesn’t seem to have thought much about global issues. My hunch is that for secretary of state he would pick a steady hand, like Robert Zoellick, but Romney has also surrounded himself with volatile neocons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-the-foreign-relations-fumbler.html?_r=1

[acptulsa]

Nick Kristof chimes in (again at the New York Times):

Romney refuses to pick sides? Is he serious? Did he sleep through that speech the Mormon gave at the Citadel, where he (in his superior position to know as a Mormon) that God wants us to kick the world's asses?

I think Dowd is the last one at the Times who's there for some purpose other than churning out comedy.

[Cowlesy]

Romney refuses to pick sides? Is he serious? Did he sleep through that speech the Mormon gave at the Citadel, where he (in his superior position to know as a Mormon) that God wants us to kick the world's asses?

I think Dowd is the last one at the Times who's there for some purpose other than churning out comedy.

And practically his entire foreign policy staff is neo-conservatives. He has most certainly picked a side.

[Brian4Liberty]

Romney refuses to pick sides? Is he serious? Did he sleep through that speech the Mormon gave at the Citadel, where he (in his superior position to know as a Mormon) that God wants us to kick the world's asses?

I think Dowd is the last one at the Times who's there for some purpose other than churning out comedy.

Here's more from the article:


In the Middle East, it appears he’d [Romney] like to subcontract foreign policy to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu recently tried to push the United States to adopt a nuclear red line that, if Iran crossed it, would lead us to go to war there. Obama was right to resist, and it has been unseemly for Romney to side with a foreign leader in spats with the United States.

(For my part, I think Obama should indeed set a red line — warning Netanyahu to stop interfering in American elections.)

Most dangerous of all is Romney’s policy on Iran, which can’t be dismissed as an offhand misstatement. As my colleagues David E. Sanger and Ashley Parker note, Romney muddles his own position on his nuclear red line for Iran. Plenty of candidates don’t write their own foreign policy position papers, but Romney is unusual in that he seems not to have even read his.

According to clarifications from Romney’s campaign, he apparently would order a military strike before Iran even acquired a bomb, simply when it was getting close. For anyone who has actually seen a battlefield, that’s a blithe, too-light embrace of a path to yet another war. It’s emblematic of a candidate who, on foreign policy, appears an empty shell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-the-foreign-relations-fumbler.html?_r=1

[Brian4Liberty]

Maureen Dowd Is Not an Anti-Semite (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/maureen-dowd-is-not-an-anti-semite/262485/):

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/maureen-dowd-is-not-an-anti-semite/262485/


Nonetheless, I agree with Maureen Dowd in nearly all of her criticism of the foreign policy team around Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. In specific I agree with her (a) that since there is so little there, there to Romney's own expressed foreign policy views, it is fair to observe that he has surrounded himself with advisors whose well-established past opinions are now reflected in his policy statements, and (b) that those advisors were deeply involved in leading the United States into its costliest foreign-policy error of at least the past 40 years, the invasion of Iraq.