Peggy Noonan blasts Republicans for Iran warmongering

US Politics
on 18 Comments

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.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

18 Responses

  1. radii
    April 15, 2012, 10:18 am

    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

  2. CitizenC
    April 15, 2012, 11:12 am

    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.

    • Kathleen
      April 15, 2012, 2:18 pm

      Yeah many of the male pundits are often pompous but Peggy knows that dance too. That voice and delivery. Aye yi yi

  3. Kathleen
    April 15, 2012, 2:17 pm

    “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.

  4. piotr
    April 15, 2012, 3:50 pm

    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.

  5. DICKERSON3870
    April 15, 2012, 6:47 pm

    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

    1. Before the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, hardly any American used the word “homeland.” Yet President George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, upsetting writers such as Peggy Noonan, who thought it sounded too Teutonic: “It summons images of men in spiked helmets lobbing pitchers of beer at outsiders during Oktoberfest.” She and others unsuccessfully* suggested Heartland Security, Homefront Security and Mainland Defense.

    2. The moat is one of the earliest security measures and one of the smelliest, as it often became an open sewer for the castle residents. . .


    * 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”?

    • DICKERSON3870
      April 15, 2012, 7:09 pm

      P.S. • NOTE: What Does “Homeland” Mean to You?, by Ronald Bailey on July 19, 2007

      I was getting my daily dose of NPR this morning when Morning Edition’s listener letters segment came on. One comment from Linda Lewis from Branson, Mo., really resonated. She was complaining that when NPR interviewed Homeland Security advisor Frances Townsend about the new National Intelligence Estimate that the interviewer had “bought into” the language of “protecting the homeland.”
      Ms. Lewis complained: “I wasn’t alive during World War II, but I associate “the homeland” with Nazi propaganda. It’s fascistic and offensive.” She prefers “U.S” or “America.”
      For me, too, the word “homeland” conjures a kind of antediluvian primitive nationalism (tribalism) based on blood and soil , not a people united by their devotion to political ideals like liberty and free speech.

      SOURCE –

      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 –

      • 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) –

      • LASTLY: A photo of the device that allowed Goebbels to interrupt all German radio programming to make an announcement –

      • DICKERSON3870
        April 15, 2012, 7:49 pm

        RE: “Hess’ ‘eroticized passion’ for der Fuhrer ” – me, above


        (excerpt). . . Then there is the “Israel Firster” issue, which particularly irked the right, especially “liberal Democrat” Alan Dershowitz.
        Here is what the famous OJ Simpson lawyer had to say about me leaving Media Matters in the Daily Caller:

        “Rosenberg was an extremist,” Dershowitz told the Daily Caller. “He didn’t engage in careful, nuanced critiques of Israel, which is fine. He engaged in hyperbole, name-calling. He just hated, hated, hated, with a passion, almost an eroticized passion of anything associated with Israel. He was like a spurned lover — irrational.” . . .

        ENTIRE POST –

        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!

      • DICKERSON3870
        April 15, 2012, 8:10 pm

        P.P.P.S. RE: “He [MJ Rosenberg] engaged in hyperbole, name-calling.” ~ Dershowitz

        MY COMMENT: a href=””>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

        (excerpt) Big Government scoops a statement from Alan Dershowitz, the acting chairman of Making Sure Things Aren’t Offensive to Jews.

        The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations
        against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report.
        ~ Alan Morton Dershowitz, Esq., Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Harvard University

        SOURCE –

        ALSO SEE: : How Many Violations of US Arms Laws are Too Many? ~ by Franklin Lamb, Counterpunch,


        (excerpt). . . Alarm centered on whether or not Israel had used U.S.-supplied antipersonnel cluster bombs against civilian targets during its carpet bombing West Beirut during the nearly three month siege.
        The House Foreign Affairs Committee held hearings on this issue in July and August 1982. On July 19, 1982, the Reagan Administration announced that it would prohibit new exports of cluster bombs to Israel…
        …During a late June 1982 meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Begin, Reagan was handed a note from George Shultz. Based on the information he had in hand, Reagan directly told Begin that the US had reliable information than Israel was using American weapons against civilians in Lebanon. At this point according to Reagan, Begin became very agitated. He lowered his glasses and while glaring at Reagan and shaking his index finger said, “Mr. President, Israel has never and would never use American weapons against civilians and to claim otherwise is a blood libel against every Jew, everywhere.” Following their meeting Reagan told Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, as reported by Weinberger and by various biographers of Reagan that “I did not know what the term “blood libel” meant, but I know that the man looked me straight in the eyes and lied to me.”. . .


      • DICKERSON3870
        April 15, 2012, 8:21 pm

        P.P.P.P.S. RE: “I myself have used it [blood libel] to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report.” ~ Alan Morton Dershowitz, Esq., Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Harvard University

        FROM THE “Hasbara Handbook”, pages 22-23:

        • Name Calling
        Through the careful choice of words, the name calling technique links a person or an idea to a negative symbol. Creating negative connotations by name calling is done to try and get the audience to reject a person or idea on the basis of negative associations, without allowing a real examination of that person or idea. The most obvious example is name calling — “they are a neo-Nazi group” tends to sound pretty negative to most people. . .
        . . . For the Israel activist, it is important to be aware of the subtly different meanings that well chosen words give. Call “demonstrations” “riots”, many Palestinian political organizations “terror organizations”, and so on. . .
        . . . Name calling is hard to counter.
        Don’t allow opponents the opportunity to engage in point scoring. Whenever “name calling” is used, think about referring to the same thing (e.g. Gilo), but with a more favorable description (e.g. “suburb”). Consider calling settlements “communities” or “villages”. Use the same names back; if somebody talks about Sharon’s “war crimes”, talk about Arafat’s war crimes and involvement in terror. . .

        SOURCE, “HASBARA HANDBOOK: Promoting Israel on Campus”, published by the World Union of Jewish Students, March 2002 –

      • DICKERSON3870
        April 16, 2012, 5:40 pm

        P.S. RE – “MY COMMENT: a href=”en.wikipedia/wiki/Psychological_projection”> Psychological projection, much?” – me, above

        MY COMMENT: •Psychological projection, much?

        P.S. I hate html! I hate it! I hate it!
        Yet, I love it!

    • piotr
      April 16, 2012, 12:57 am

      Germans spilling precious beer? Noonan should be educated indeed.

  6. ritzl
    April 15, 2012, 9:06 pm

    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.


  7. Krauss
    April 16, 2012, 1:25 am

    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.

  8. mudder
    April 16, 2012, 9:55 am

    Noonan writing in 2002:

    The Bush administration says Saddam Hussein is sinister and vicious. Let me, with confidence and admitted presumption, assert on behalf of the majority of Americans: We believe it. Saddam has used poison gas, has already invaded two neighboring countries, has murdered people in the coldest of blood. The administration says Saddam is gathering weapons of mass destruction, and again: We believe it. There is plenty of evidence, and there is also proof. They say he is pursuing nuclear arms. Again: We believe it. He would.

    The opponents of war, it seems to me, must face the questions that flow from what we know.

    If you know Saddam is wicked, know he’s gathering weapons of mass murder, know madmen are likely to ultimately use the weapons they stockpile, and know, finally, that he wishes America ill, then why not move against him? And why not now? Wouldn’t inaction be irresponsible?

    I don’t see much discretion, prudence, or nuance there.

  9. mudder
    April 16, 2012, 10:40 am

    Speaking of Ron Paul, there is a surprising story in Business Insider:

    EXCLUSIVE: Ron Paul Shocks Campaign Staff With New Position On Israel

    Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul revealed this week that he would support moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem…

    “The real issue here is not what America wants, but what does Israel want,” Paul told evangelical leaders, according to a transcript of the meeting obtained by Business Insider. “If Israel wants their capital to be Jerusalem, then the United States should honor that.”

    Can I have my primary vote back?

    • dahoit
      April 16, 2012, 12:37 pm

      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.

    • CloakAndDagger
      April 16, 2012, 10:38 pm

      Justin Raimondo at had a comment about this. This is the response I posted there:

      Justin said: “I note, with a sigh of resignation, the “news” that Rep. Ron Paul has supposedly come out for moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem in recognition of the Israeli claim to that city as its capital.”

      I think this is creative (and deliberate) re-interpretation by Doug Wead for the benefit of the Evangelicals. I am willing to bet that what RP said is more along the lines of: “Look, I don’t really care what Israel or any other country does about their capital. They can move it where they want and don’t need the permission of the US to do so. Now, the UN may have other ideas about the legality of such a move, but it is not our job to police Israel or any other country. I am not going to waste my time worrying about this – I have a country to save.”

      Or words to that effect.

Leave a Reply