There is an English saying to the effect that putting
lipstick on a pig does not make the pig look better. As it happens, this saying
applies 'right-on' to the editorial page, and to the op-ed one that came in the
March 5, 2015 edition of the Wall Street Journal. Three opinion pieces were
published on that day, all having to do with Iran 's nuclear installations, and
with Netanyahu's reaction to them.
What happened is that Netanyahu the stud turned out to be
the eunuch who promised to grace America with an explosive
Churchillian sort of speech, but mortified the nation with a speech that turned
out to be a dud. And so, to repair the damage that resulted from the fiasco,
Netanyahu's admirers who were too dumb to realize they were buying a pig in the
poke, are now trying to embellish the pig with lots of lipstick.
Daniel Henninger who is an editor of the Journal obviously
believes that the best defense is the offense. Thus, instead of coming right
out and defending Netanyahu, he chose to attack President Obama … making this
whole episode sound like it is a contest between the two men. Henninger wrote:
“Obama's Iran Entitlement,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “What
has Obama done to earn trust for this unilateral deal?”
But how to attack a President who, unlike his predecessor
who was called a war criminal, won the Nobel Peace Prize? The answer is that
you write the following: “Mr. Obama has eroded the trust that the political
world normally concedes to the U.S.
president.” Worse, Henninger goes on to say: “A principle reason domestic
policy is at a standstill in the U.S. is that congressional Republicans no
longer believe Mr. Obama will keep his word on any legislative commitment.”
The fact is that even before his inauguration – the first
time that Obama was elected President – the congressional Republicans that
Henninger is talking about, had come out and declared they will do their utmost
to make this man a one-term President. And they kept repeating the refrain.
This has had a profound effect on both the domestic policy, and the trust that
the political world concedes to an American president. As time passed, the
foreigners saw that the Republicans meant what they said, and were engaged in
sabotaging the work of their country's administration. Whatever they thought of
Obama, they knew that the traitors in the other branch of government were going
to spoil whatever he tries to accomplish … and they pulled back.
As to Karl Rove, his article came under the title: “How the
White House Botched Bibi's Speech” and the subtitle: “The public relations
assault on an ally gave the address far more attention and import.” You can see
right there what the man is trying to do. He says that if the thing looks like
a pig, it's because the White House gave it that look. He adds that there is a
silver lining to all of this, however, because the effort gave the speech more
significance than it would have garnered on its own. Well, it can only be said
that Karl Rove must have used tons of sticks as he tried to make the pig's lips
look attractive … but he accomplished a doubtful result.
Rove made three mistakes. First, he chided Kerry for making
the subtle “confession” that as senator, he listened to the advice of
Netanyahu, and made the mistake of voting for the war on Iraq …
something he does not want to see other legislators repeat. Second, Rove says
that Netanyahu demolished Obama's arguments one by one. Hey Karl, how did he do
that when he did not even take up Obama's arguments? Third, Rove called Israel “a
vibrant nation that is a champion of liberty and human rights.” He can get away
saying this in America
where all the megaphones are ordered to sing the same refrain. But to a world
that saw the brutal inhumanity of apartheid South
Africa and Rhodesia ,
and now sees the murderous horror of Israel , Rove looks much like a
mental case.
To top it all off, the editors of the Wall Street Journal
came up with a piece of their own in which they smothered lipstick on the
Netanyahu pig by attacking Nancy Pelosi. They wrote: “Pelosi's Netanyahu
Complaint,” which also came under the subtitle: “The Democratic leader wasn't
'near tears' when she courted Assad.”
They picked on her who said she was near tears during
Netanyahu's speech, and they tried to draw a parallel between that moment and
the time when Pelosi visited Assad of Syria. It was a time, they say, she was
not near tears. But where are the parallels? The fact is that she did not break
protocol to go to Syria .
And she did not listen to an Assad speech insulting the intelligence of
Americans. Also, Assad did not condescend toward the knowledge that America had with regard to the situation in the Middle East . There are no parallels, WSJ.