I think we need to educate Peggy Noonan a little about the Israeli occupation, then she'll be even more effective. Here she is on the Republican primary battle being over. Let's have a debate between her and the neoconservatives, David Brooks. WSJ:
Finally, in foreign affairs the Republican candidates staked out dangerous ground. They want to show they're strong on defense. Fine, we should have a strong defense, the best in the world. But that is different from having an aggressive foreign policy stance, and every one of the GOP candidates, with the exceptions of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, was aggressive. This is how their debates sounded: We should bomb Iran Thursday. No, stupid, we should bomb Iran on Wednesday. How could you be so foolish? You know we do all our bombings on Monday. You're wrong, we send in the destroyers and arm the insurgents on Monday.
There was no room for discretion, prudence, nuance, to use unjustly maligned terms. There was no room for an expressed bias toward not-fighting. But grown-ups really do have a bias toward not-fighting.
They are allowing the GOP to be painted as the war party. They are ceding all non-war ground to the president, who can come forward as the sober, constrained, non-bellicose contender. Do they want that? Are they under the impression America is hungry for another war? Really? After the past 11 years?
The GOP used to be derided by Democrats as the John Wayne party: It loved shoot-'em-ups. Actually, John Wayne didn't ride into town itching for a fight, and he didn't ride in shooting off his mouth, either. Etc.
Peggy Noonan blithely floats around in her own cloud of smug self-satisfaction and writes from her Upper East Side Manhattan home. Occasionally she is capable of lucid thinking and reasonable conclusions in her writing, but the smug factor never drops below a 9 out of 10
Irish Catholic Noonan has always cast herself as a woman of the people, up from immigrant roots, even while shilling for the GOP. Finally, a limit is reached.
Yeah many of the male pundits are often pompous but Peggy knows that dance too. That voice and delivery. Aye yi yi
“But that is different from having an aggressive foreign policy stance, and every one of the GOP candidates, with the exceptions of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, was aggressive. This is how their debates sounded: We should bomb Iran Thursday. No, stupid, we should bomb Iran on Wednesday. How could you be so foolish? You know we do all our bombings on Monday. You’re wrong, we send in the destroyers and arm the insurgents on Monday.”
Go Noonan! You can be spot on sometimes. Phil on the I/P conflict. Most of the Peggy Noonan’s Chris Matthews of the world know the story. To afraid to take a stand based on UN resolutions and International law.
Peggy Noonan is a curious case. She made her carrier as GOP flack, but her specialization were more feminine approaches like “real compassion” etc. I recall her rather strange piece supporting the coming war with Iraq where she expressed a conviction that Bush Jr. will obtain enormous political capital from the shining victory in Mesopotamia which will allow him to force necessary concessions from Israel and thus peace in the Middle East.
That was a reversal of neo-con writing on the topic, namely that Palestinians, deprived of Saddam’s support, will abandon foolish hopes and make all the concessions needed for the peace in the Middle East.
A minor heresy, to be sure, and hidden in a case for war, so her peacenik impulses did not deprive her of good standing in establishment commentariat.
Noonan is not an intellectual, but she has two strengths. She is a good stylist, although sometimes she gets a little overboard with pretty prose. She also tends to know what is popular and what is not. Right now the opinion polls show that foreign policy is the ONLY area where voters trust Obama significantly more than GOP candidates (now, just Romney). People are a bit scared of GOP muscular tone! Wars are expensive, gasoline is expensive, there is a see of red ink.
RE: “I think we need to educate Peggy Noonan a little about the Israeli occupation, then she’ll be even more effective.” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: I suspect that she may already know far more than you/we realize.
SEE: “10 things you might not know about security measures”, By Mark Jacob and Stephan Benzkofer, Chicago Tribune, 4/08/12
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to articles.chicagotribune.com
* To elaborate, the neocons in Cheney’s office and at the Pentagon succeeded in having it named “Homeland Security”. Why were they so determined to introduce the concept of the “homeland” into the American vernacular? Where else in the world had the “homeland” concept been used (besides Nazi Germany) ? What were the neocons trying to associate (perhaps via “transference” and/or similar techniques) the U.S. with in the minds (at least subconsciously) of Americans and perhaps other “Westerners”?
P.S. • NOTE: What Does “Homeland” Mean to You?, by Ronald Bailey on July 19, 2007
SOURCE – link to reason.com
• AND LISTEN TO: “HOMELAND” IS A NAZI TERM (AUDIO, 37:44)
The origins of this term are discussed at length in this Paul Craig Roberts interview on the Thom Hartmann show.
Program contains an audio clip [at about 13:30], taken from a Nazi rally, that is an example of how the term was used (in German).
LINK – link to a1135.g.akamai.net
• AND WATCH: Rudolf Hess opening speech (English Subtitles)
In this four minute clip from the film Triumph Of The Will, Hess is speaking at the 1934 Nuremberg Rally and introduces the Heimatland (Homeland) concept that he and Hitler had devised during the writing of Mein Kampf while they were in prison together at Landsberg as a consequence of their convictions for involvement in the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923.
As Hess explains it (at about 3:05), Hitler is creating a homeland for all the ethnic Germans of the world wherever they might happen to live (not just those residing within the borders of Germany).
As translated by the subtitles, Hess says (as if speaking to Hitler): “Thanks to your leadership, Germany will be attainable as the homeland. Homeland for all Germans of the world.”
And be certain not to miss Hess’ “eroticized passion” for der Fuhrer at the conclusion of the clip.
• ALSO OF INTEREST: Wunschkonzert & Blinkfeuer Heimat.wmv (VIDEO, 05:24) – link to youtube.com
• LASTLY: A photo of the device that allowed Goebbels to interrupt all German radio programming to make an announcement – link to germanpropaganda.blogspot.com
RE: “Hess’ ‘eroticized passion’ for der Fuhrer ” – me, above
‘HAT TIP’ TO ALAN DERSHOWITZ, SEE: “THE NEOCONS CELEBRATE: WE GOT ROSENBERG, WE’LL GET YOU”, by MJ Rosenberg, 4/10/12
ENTIRE POST – link to mjayrosenberg.com
P.S. This has to be one of the most truly bizarre statements ever made by Harvard’s Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Alan Dershowitz. Sheesh! Can he “talk some trash” or what?!?!
What in the world did Justice Felix Frankfurter ever do to deserve this? What a travesty!
P.P.S. Does it strike anyone else as quite peculiar that Harvard’s Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Alan Dershowitz, would introduce sex (“eroticized passion” / “spurned lover”) into his unhinged diatribe gloating about his role in what he apparently perceives to be the “castration” [so to speak (wink, wink)] of MJ Rosenberg?
I know Freud supposedly said that “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”, but methinks Professor Dershowitz might have some very unhealthy, twisted/bizarre fantasies involving himself and MJ Rosenberg that I would just as soon not even think about. In fact, I’m already beginning to feel quite ill. Quite ill, indeed!
P.P.P.S. RE: “He [MJ Rosenberg] engaged in hyperbole, name-calling.” ~ Dershowitz
MY COMMENT: a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection”>Psychological projection, much?
“FROM THE HORSE’S OWN MOUTH” OR SOME OTHER ORIFICE: Dershowitz Gives Palin the Go-Ahead on “Blood Libel”, By David Weigel, Slate, 1/12/11
SOURCE – link to slate.com
ALSO SEE: : How Many Violations of US Arms Laws are Too Many? ~ by Franklin Lamb, Counterpunch,
3/16/12
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to counterpunch.org
P.P.P.P.S. RE: “I myself have used it [blood libel] to describe
falseaccusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report.” ~ Alan Morton Dershowitz, Esq., Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Harvard UniversityFROM THE “Hasbara Handbook”, pages 22-23:
SOURCE, “HASBARA HANDBOOK: Promoting Israel on Campus”, published by the World Union of Jewish Students, March 2002 – link to scribd.com
P.S. RE – “MY COMMENT: a href=”en.wikipedia/wiki/Psychological_projection”> Psychological projection, much?” – me, above
SHOULD HAVE BEEN –
MY COMMENT: •Psychological projection, much?
P.S. I hate html! I hate it! I hate it!
Yet, I love it!
Germans spilling precious beer? Noonan should be educated indeed.
It would be interesting to know if the recent Andrew Sullivan critical uptick on this issue prompted (or opened up some space for) Noonan to insert herself.
Hmmm…
Editor of the WSJ page is the ultra Zionist Bret Stephens(former Ehrlich).
So the question is: how long will she last if she keeps this up?
My guess is that we won’t find out. She will return to the fold like she should.
Any long-term deviation means you’re fired.
Noonan writing in 2002:
I don’t see much discretion, prudence, or nuance there.
Speaking of Ron Paul, there is a surprising story in Business Insider:
Can I have my primary vote back?
Hey,knucklehead,that statement is totally responsible and true,that what the state of Israel wants to do is up to them,but it also doesn’t mean we have to agree or support it,as an independent state decides its policy,and our policies should reflect our needs,not Israels,as reality has shown US.
And they will have to deal with the consequences of said decision,and you know that if they didn’t have US and Euro muscle and wealth behind them,they wouldn’t act the way they do.
Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com had a comment about this. This is the response I posted there: