Follow by Email

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Gail Collins, "Housebound for the Holidays": What Gail Isn't Telling You

In her Thursday New York Times op-ed, "Housebound for the Holidays" (, Collins trots our more tripe regarding recent Republican braggadocio in the House and Senate. No mention of Romney's dog, which she will so cleverly inject into her Saturday column.

But what is missing from Collins's column? You want empty braggadocio? What about Obama's recent claim regarding his White House achievements, which was "conveniently" edited out of “60 Minutes” (see:

“As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history."

Apparently, Obama, surrounded by flunkeys, has grown delusional. This is beyond a narcissistic personality disorder. Where is Jon Stewart when we need him?


  1. Jeff:
    Ron Dermer, senior advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, sent following letter to the editorial board of the New York Times. Unfortunatley, it is too long to be accepted here. I know you will appreciate it. How can I share it? Here is, at least, the first portion:

    I received your email requesting that Prime Minister Netanyahu submit an
    op-ed to the *New York Times.* Unfortunately, we must respectfully decline.

    On matters relating to Israel, the op-ed page of the "paper of record" has
    failed to heed the late Senator Moynihan's admonition that everyone is
    entitled to their own opinion but that no one is entitled to their own

    A case in point was your decision last May to publish the following bit of
    historical revision by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas:

    It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian
    statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to
    the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned
    into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its
    recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist
    forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in
    the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further
    expulsions ensued.

    This paragraph effectively turns on its head an event within living memory
    in which the Palestinians rejected the UN partition plan accepted by the
    Jews and then joined five Arab states in launching a war to annihilate the
    embryonic Jewish state. It should not have made it past the most
    rudimentary fact-checking.

    The opinions of some of your regular columnists regarding Israel are well
    known. They consistently distort the positions of our government and ignore
    the steps it has taken to advance peace. They cavalierly defame our country
    by suggesting that marginal phenomena condemned by Prime Minister Netanyahu
    and virtually every Israeli official somehow reflects government policy or
    Israeli society as a whole. Worse, one
    stooped to suggesting that the strong expressions of support for Prime
    Minister Netanyahu during his speech this year to Congress was "bought and
    paid for by the Israel lobby" rather than a reflection of the broad support
    for Israel among the American people.

  2. continued, part II:

    Yet instead of trying to balance these views with a different opinion, it
    would seem as if the surest way to get an op-ed published in the *New York
    Times* these days, no matter how obscure the writer or the viewpoint, is to
    attack Israel.

    Even so, the recent piece on
    "Pinkwashing, "in
    which Israel is vilified for having the temerity to champion its
    on gay-rights, set a new bar that will be hard for you to lower in the

    Not to be accused of cherry-picking to prove a point, I discovered that
    during the last three months (September through November) you published 20
    op-eds about Israel in the *New York Times* and *International Herald
    Tribune. * After dividing the op-eds into two categories, "positive" and
    "negative," with "negative" meaning an attack against the State of Israel
    or the policies of its democratically elected government, I found that 19
    out of 20 columns were "negative."

    The only "positive" piece was penned by Richard Goldstone (of the infamous
    Goldstone Report), in which he defended Israel against the slanderous charge
    of Apartheid

    Yet your decision to publish that op-ed came a few months after your paper
    reportedly rejected Goldstone's previous submission. In that earlier piece,
    which was ultimately published in the *Washington
    man who was quoted the world over for alleging that Israel had
    committed war crimes in Gaza, fundamentally changed his position. According
    to the *New York Times* op-ed page, that was apparently news unfit to print.

    Your refusal to publish "positive" pieces about Israel apparently does not
    stem from a shortage of supply. It was brought to my attention that the
    Majority Leader and Minority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives
    jointly submitted an op-ed to your paper in September opposing the
    Palestinian action at the United Nations and supporting the call of both
    Israel and the Obama administration for direct negotiations without
    preconditions. In an age of intense partisanship, one would have thought
    that strong bipartisan support for Israel on such a timely issue would have
    made your cut.

    So with all due respect to your prestigious paper, you will forgive us for
    declining your offer. We wouldn't want to be seen as "Bibiwashing" the
    op-ed page of the *New York Times.*

    *Do you agree with Bibi's decision? Let us know in the comment section