QandO
Questions and Observations| « "Am I at the right rally?" | Main | Opportunitarianism » |
|
July 26, 2004 Maureen Dowd - literate irrelevance There is very little upon which both the right and left side of the blogosphere agree, but there is one: Maureen Dowd is an astounding hack, and the only explanation for her presence on the NYTimes op-ed page involves some very compromising pictures of Arthur Sulzberger Jr and a less-than-reputable (probably) vertebrate. Dowd's dedication to accuracy is as legendary as that of Michael Moore, and her pursuit of style over substance makes her columns as politically important as a fashion show. A bad one. Her latest column is prima facie evidence. Beginning with a litany of current events that make her uncomfortable, she writes.... Call me crazy, Mr. President, but I don't feel any safer.There are two problems with this:
...which, in the context of an op-ed focusing on the 9/11 report and the question of whether we are safer or not--seems relevant to me. And it only gets worse.... The report offers vivid details on our worst fears. Instead of focusing on immediately hitting back at Osama, Bush officials indulged their idiotic idée fixe on Saddam and ignored the memo from their counter-terrorism experts dismissing any connection between the religious fanatic bin Laden and the secular Hussein.Remember that? Remember how, immediately after 9/11, instead of attacking Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, we invaded Iraq? No? Funny, I remember us invading Afghanistan, too. In fact, as evidence, she cites the fact that Rumsfeld mentioned the possibility of striking Saddam, along with Bin Laden. Left unmentioned is the fact that he wrote that prior to our discovery of who was behind 9/11...at a time when we were making contingency plans for everybody who could have been behind 9/11. Seems relevant, no? And, as regards her assertion that "Bush officials indulged their idiotic idée fixe on Saddam" and ignored the lack of proof of connection between Iraq and 9/11.....well, Maureen must have also missed this bit from the 9/11 report... Powell said that President Bush did not give Wolfowitz’s argument “much weight.” Though continuing to worry about Iraq in the following week, Powell said, President Bush saw Afghanistan as the priority. [...] Iraq was not even on the table during the September 15 afternoon session, which dealt solely with Afghanistan.Later in the column, she takes on the generous job of reverse-fisking herself, writing that, if it weren't for the Iraq war, "they could have stomped Osama in Tora Bora. Now it's too late. Al Qaeda has become a state of mind." Though, in the immediately preceding paragraph, she cites the 9/11 Commission Report, which states that Bin Laden's death "would not end terror. His message of inspiration to a new generation of terrorists would continue." So, if I'm to understand Dowd, it's now "too late" to stop the spread of terrorism by killing Bin Laden....though, killing Bin Laden earlier wouldn't have stopped the spread of terrorism, anyway. Whatever. Either way, it's Bush's fault. And that is Maureen Dowd. Literate irrelevance. |
You'll make yourself crazy fisking Dowd.
Her research is conducted by having lunch, drinks, and reading the style section.
There is little substance or coherence, and usually not even a point in any of her columns.
I stopped reading her about a year ago, but I confess to an occasional lapse, which causes a reaction exactly like yours. How can she get paid for this drivel?
Posted by: pilsener at July 26, 2004 08:49 AM
My daughter's name is Maureen Dowd. She lives on the west coast and is also a writer, although a good one. This other Maureen Dowd, who sometimes writes for the NY Times is very embarrassing to us...
Posted by: Jon Dowd at September 9, 2004 08:06 PM
I agree with what you say - makes sense to me.
Looking for some propecia?
Posted by: propecia at November 13, 2004 01:11 PM