Maureen Dowd slimes President Bush over the liberation of Iraq
Gerard Jackson
Maureen Dow, the New York Times resident banshee, was at her lobotomised worst again. Dowd's obvious shortage of brain cells has been made painfully evident by her latest attack on President Bush (The good ol' boys, wreaking mayhem just because they can June 23, 2004).
This moral cretin is preaching that liberating 25 million people from a mass-murdering thug is to be condemned as the work of a couple of hillbillies who spend their spare time pulling the wings off butterflies.
Finding it inconceivable that President Bush acted in good faith and with the intention of dealing a deadly blow against Islamo-Nazi terrorists, Maureen Dowd claimed without a shred of evidence (since when did Democrats need evidence to slime Republicans?) that Bush launched the invasion "because it would feel good."
According to this brilliant geopolitical thinker President Bush couldn't go after "Iran or North Korea because they could defend themselves and retaliate, maybe with nukes." Get the message? President Bush is a cowardly bully.
That taking out the murderous Saddam before he too acquired nukes might be the safest course of action for the US is not a thought her scrambled brain cells was able to construct.
That the witless but bitter little Miss Dowd finds the war morally and strategically incomprehensible is only to be expected from someone whose idea of learning is to down martinis at Westside Manhattan cocktail parties while listening to fellow guests snigger at such primitive concepts as good and evil. Not that lefties like Dowd deny the existence of evil. Why else do you think they condemn Republicans? To this crew the real enemy is not al Qaeda but the GOP.
That the war was justified by UN resolution 1441 and that Saddam could easily have averted war by complying with UN resolutions is not something she cared to raise. After all, assassinating Bush's character is far more fun than doing something as boring as reporting facts.
Among Dowd's progressive cocktail set facts are something Democrats invent to slander Republicans. That's why she insists on ignoring the fact that the Senate voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam refused to adhere to resolution 1441. The House approved the same resolution by a 296 -133 vote. Among those who voted in favour of war was Senator John Kerry — at least before he decided to vote against it.
Stressing salient facts and putting together a closely reasoned argument is not what political bigots like Maureen Dow are about. To these self-anointed leftwing clowns it's self-evident that anyone who challenges their weltanschauung must, by definition, be evil, stupid or both. And in the case of Bush, it's obviously both, except when he is being diabolically clever.
The blithering likes of Dowd have made it an incontrovertible fact that for the left evil consists in being conservative. And as every reasonable person knows, at least among Westside Manhattan's progressive cocktail set and the literati that infests Martha's Vineyard, one cannot reason with evil.
Having defined evil as Bushworld, a world in which a president liberates 25 million people from the clutches of a sadistic thug, Dowd therefore finds it unnecessary to even think about what she is writing. That's why so much of what she says is intentionally funny, at least to those of us who take facts and reason seriously.
Her comments on North Korea and Iran, for instance, exemplify what I mean. It was the Clinton administration that provided Mad Dog Kim with the means and incentive to advance his nuke program and so help the mad mullah's of Tehran.
And how did these medieval wackos get control of Iran? Well bless my soul, if it wasn't the work of a brilliant Democratic president by the name of Jiminy Cricket. No, wait. Now I remember: it was Jimmy Carter.
Maureen being Maureen as well as a pompous ass of a lefty couldn't help but throw in the mendacious claim that the "September 11 commission debunked the White House attempt to suggest an axis of evil between Saddam and bin Laden."
This statement is living proof that the left inhabits a peculiar alternate world (I think it is called Westside Manhattan) in which the truth really is whatever you want it to be and she gets to play Wee Willie Wonka. If Dowd had been living in the real world when she wrote her vindictive fantasy she would have known that the commission said no such thing.
Perhaps she was holidaying in her alternate world when in 1998 the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden. The Department stated that Saddam and bin Laden had arrived at an understanding whereby al Qaeda would not cause trouble for Saddam. In return Saddam would help bin Laden on "weapons development". (Now I wonder what kinds of weapons they could have been). Later on in 1998 a top administration official revealed intelligence linking Saddam to bin Laden's chemical weapons program in the Sudan.
Now I don't recall little Miss Dowd sneering at the Clinton administration's claims regarding Saddam's links to al Qaeda. Moreover, when in 1999 the leftwing Guardian published an article by Julian Borger (Washington, Saturday 6 February 1999) disclosing that in December 1998 Saddam held talks with bin Laden in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar the ever vigilant Maureen Dowd found the subject too boring to merit her attention.
It's because her rag — laughingly called the paper of record — was deliberately distorting the commission's findings that Lee Hamilton, a Democrat and commissioner, felt impelled to tell PBS that "There are all kinds of connections. And it may very well have been that Osama bin Laden or some of his lieutenants met at some time with Saddam Hussein's lieutenants."
Fortunately for the truth Wee Willi Wonka's article was exquisitely timed because the following day the Times confessed that for several weeks it had been concealing a document showing that Saddam had collaborated with bin Laden, despite the fact that little more than a week ago its headlines screamed No Qaeda-Iraq Tie.
Dowd has once again revealed that it is not some phony nightmare called Bushworld that Americans have to fear but the bigotry, mendacity and hate that flows from the leftwing editors and columnists of the New York Times and those who share their America-hating ideology.
Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 28 June 2004