Maureen Dowd Lies

Looks like Ms Dowd is a graduate of the same deceptive writing techniques as our own esteemed Mr Loney. He's long quoted Bush as saying Al Qaeda is no longer a threat, based on half quotes.

 

Maureen Dowd was a crap journo when she was taking shots at my avatar, and she's a crap journo now. Being the smartass putdown queen stopped being interesting when you're, what, 20 years old?

It's a testament to our pathetic media industry that this lady is reknowned and her style copied.

 

Is this paper from one of those towns that sponsorsed a 'Dixie Chicks CD Smash-em-up' festival?

 

Needless to say, my response to this is typical of every time Ian criticizes me - I stand by what I wrote, only more so.

Bush's wording was and is mealy-mouthed double-talk. Dowd is right to call him on it, especially in light of AQ's recent recovery.

There are still only two ways to read that sentence. Either Bush wanted to make people believe that AQ as a whole was beaten, or he is stupid enough to believe that he was making some important point by saying incarcerated or dead AQ members aren't still operative. I'm sure there's a way you can spin that Bush saying something so blindingly pointless is some kind of important statement - Bush fans have and will swallow worse.

But to me, the phrasing was meant to mislead or diminish the threat. If you want to defend Bush for that - be my guest.

 

Hey, Dan, I did call you "esteemed".

 

I am sorry, but you are not making sense. President Bush is pointing out that we had success against Al Quaida, because terrorists who planned attacks on civilization are incarcerated or dead. Certainly, there are still some who are active. Unfortunately this war that Al Qaida started against our civilization is a long term war, and they are still likely to have a many active cells that are still secretly planning murders all over the world. Victory against such a foe won't come easy.

But every one of these terrorist that we can catch is one less murderer that we have to worry about. What Bush said is true, and not pointless. We have had remarkable successes all over the world. Not just America, but all the nations around the world that are finally accepting that there is a problem and are investigating and arresting terrorists. Only somebody blinded by hatred can fail to see the successes against very difficult odds, and can call Bush's comments pointless.

 

cough * Ann Coulter* cough

 

Premise: It was a good idea for George Bush to let the American people think that decisive progress was being made against Al-Qaeda.

Discuss.

 

Strangely enough, one of the newspapers here in the 70% Republican state I live in carries her columns.

Molly Ivins is funnier.

 

After giving them a nice long recovery period while we fart around in Iraq.

How many GOP "wag the dog" quotes from 1998 would you like?

 

So, you're giving 100% of the credit for catching Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the Pakistanis?

 

And it would have been impossible for you to express so deep a thought without fucking up the page spacing.

I seem to remember that when Ron Jeremy was captured, it was trumpeted as this huge blow against AQ. That was before the war, and of course before the Saudi Arabia attacks, and before a big old article in the LA Times this past Sunday about how Al Qaeda has totally rebuilt and recovered.

Kind of a different story from Osama being captured in the next six hours.

Yes, it was nice to see him captured. Yes, it was nice to see the Predator grease the other AQ guys. Remind me why we haven't seen more of that.

Oh, wait, I remember. Because we decided to fart around in Iraq.

 

The following appeared this morning in my newspaper's editorial page under "Corrections":

A Column by the New York Times' Maureen Dowd that appeared in the May 15 Register contained a shortened, misleading version of remarks by President Bush that indicated the president had said al-Qaida was "not a problem anymore". In fact, Mr. Bush said leaders of al-Quaida who had been captured or killed were "not a problem anymore."

What I don't understand is why is this nonsense necesary when there are legitimate criticisms that can be made about the Bush administration. We can look at the lack of WMD's in Iraq, or at the way the post-war contracts are handled. We can debate his tax cuts, or his environmental policies, or his ties to the religious right.

But to attack him on his war on terror is ludicrous, because he has done a lot of good. The Taliban is not in power anymore and Bin Laden and his band of murderers don't have the luxury of being able to plan attacks from a confort zone. al-Qaida is wounded. And most of the cells that are still active can probably be traced to the do-nothing time of previous administrations.

Even I, who am not always the biggest fan of Bush, get angry when people make these type of accusations. Or, when they critizice his contribution to the fight against AIDS. Or his efforts (although a bit belated) to pressure Israel and the Palestinians to try to reach an agreement.

Give Bush his due, because unless you admit to the obvious when he is doing well, you lose credibility on issues in which there are legitimate concerns.

 

I don't agree with your general take on the Bush presidency, not completely anyway, but you're dead on right here.

But I'll answer your rhetorical question. Because Dowd is an astonishingly lazy thinker. There are dozens of posters here who are more rigorous in the posts we pound out at lunchtime or when the boss is in a meeting than she is in a typical column.

Which is bad enough. But she's like this hero who gets emulated. I mean, rather than take a bit of time and talk about the issues you raised, she went for the dick joke.

 

I think Maureen Dowd is witty and inciteful.

 

CP...because she's popular.

Is this astonishingly clever, or bad grammar?