Let's start with a definition. The word "neoconservative" means "Jew." At one time it may have described someone with a particular world view, but over the years (and especially since the Iraq war) it has come to describe a Jew with a conservative political view.
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times introduced us in a recent column to Dan Senor, the neocon "puppet master" controlling the foreign policy views of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan. Here's Dowd, a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Times, describing a recent Ryan speech on foreign policy:
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.
Dowd describes the "neocon" worldview thusly:
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.
And then describes how "neocons" manipulate U.S. presidents.
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.
She was taken to task from various quarters, according to Politico:
"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.
"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.
"[A]mazing that apparently nobody sat her down and said, this is not OK," Blake Hounshell, the managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine, tweeted.
On the right, The Weekly Standard's Daniel Halper called it "outrageous," while Commentary's Jonathan Tobin described it as "particularly creepy."
"Dowd’s column marks yet another step down into the pit of hate-mongering that has become all too common at the Times," Tobin wrote. "This is a tipping point that should alarm even the most stalwart liberal Jewish supporters of the president."
But the Times chose to defend her. In an email to Politico, Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor for the Times, said:
“No fair-minded reading of Maureen Dowd's column supports the allegations you and others are making. She makes no reference, direct or implied, to anyone's religion."
Really? That's the best he can do? The paper of record has apparently become the paper of obfuscation and euphemism.
Email to a friend, Share on Facebook, Share on Twitter, and more: