November 22, 2004
NEWSPAPER SAD
Maureen Dowd on her New York Times cellmates:
They're fragile and frazzled, depressed and self-doubting.
Well, she's actually talking about Democrats, but same thing.
Posted by Tim Blair at November 22, 2004 12:55 PMWatching Bush supporters shred a war hero into a war criminal was tiring." — Nah, easy as pie. All it takes is a few facts and a few hundred witnesses... and the candidate himself.
Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 22, 2004 at 01:05 PM"A war hero" -- you mean the guy that got medals for scratches and shot someone who was fleeing? Oh, did I write that?
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 22, 2004 at 01:11 PM"Self-doubting" is a term I never thought I'd see applied to Democrat supporters. We should consider that a breakthrough!
Posted by: Big Johnny at November 22, 2004 at 01:24 PMAndrea —
Ensign Kerry went to war,
to prove he was no phoney
He bought a movie camera too
to capture his baloney.
Ensign Kerry, keep it up,
with bullshit proudly glaring.
Ensign Kerry keep it up.
and with the facts be sparing!
The Viet Cong they were bad sports,
For shooting back at Kerry,
He went and bruised his pink backside
'cause Viet Nam was scary!
Ensign Kerry, keep it up,
with bullshit proudly glaring.
Ensign Kerry keep it up.
and with the facts be sparing!
They scared him so, he sped right up
And ran upstream for cover,
Nor turned around nor slowed right down
Before the fight was over!
Ensign Kerry, keep it up,
with bullshit proudly glaring.
Ensign Kerry keep it up.
and with the facts be sparing!
Wow. The woman writes like an unmedicated sophomore with her own website. I stopped reading Dowd when her column about how she and her (fortysomething boomer) girlfriends thought Eminem was just so peachy gave me a case of the willies that lasted for a week. She's actually slipped further into dementia. It amazes me that the Times keeps her on the payroll, but then again my own hometown has a columnist (Heather Mallick) at a similarly "respectable" broadsheet (The Globe & Mail) who's just as bad, if not worse.
Posted by: rick mcginnis at November 22, 2004 at 01:48 PMSlightly OT — But if anyone wants to speak up for a real hero, that Marine being villified for his actions in Fallujah, here are some phone numbers:
If anyone wants to stand up for our Marine in the places where it counts, here are some numbers:
Commandant, USMC:
703-614-8661
Marine PR Dept
703-614-1492
Defense Dept 703-428-0711
Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 22, 2004 at 01:59 PM"A war hero" -- you mean the guy that got medals for scratches and shot someone who was fleeing?"
I think Kerry's service in Vietnam was as lacklust as many poster here. But I don't think we should hold it against him for shotting someone would who is fleeing. In military parlance, this is known as retreating. It is something soldiers everywhere try to take advantage of by killing as many of their enemies as possible. An enemy that is retreating is still considered to be offering resistance.
Posted by: MacTheKnife at November 22, 2004 at 02:35 PMYe gods, Dowd is really twisting things:
The Department of Homeland Security is making employees and contractors sign pledges barring them from telling the public about sensitive but unclassified information.
Well, duh! I'm a Federal employee (not the CIA); "sensitive but unclassified information" has a specific meaning with the Feds, as it relates to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Specifically, it is information that is not to be released unless specifically authorized by the agency FOIA advocate. My agency doesn't require a signed pledge, but the rules are pretty clear. This pledge is likely an acknowledgement of those policies by the employee; not required by law, but not forbidden either.
BTW, Maureen, this has been on the books for years. No news here, unless you work for the New York Times, or have mental problems. In your case, both.
Porter Goss has warned C.I.A. employees that they should support the administration and "scrupulously honor our secrecy oath" by letting only the agency's public affairs office and Congressional relations branch talk to the media and Congress.
Well, again, DUH! I had to sign a lifetime pledge of secrecy years ago, which stays on file for 50 years; no news here. Again. And the Congressional relations protocol has been in place for decades, and I'm surprised the CIA is being so lenient with a "warning"; I've seen senior leadership get seriously burned for not toeing the line on this policy.
Virtual head shaking here; Dowdy is treating old news like a recent threat. All these agencies are doing is enforcing existing standards. That is teasonable under the circumstances.
Has this creature overdosed on Botox, with her brain unable to switch synapses? Or is she just naturally insane?
Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 22, 2004 at 02:36 PMMacTheKnife -- many people would not have blamed Kerry for that, except for his post-Vietnam anti-war activities, including the 1972 Senate testimony. It's difficult to accept that Kerry was sincere in his anti-war activities then, and his glorifying his Vietnam exploits in 2004, including that particular event. Do consider the dichotomy.
But you knew this; that was a major meme running through the 2004 elections. Unless you just woke up from a long hibernation, and realized Kerry lost.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 22, 2004 at 02:43 PMMactheKnife — I will give Kerry NO credit for his military service ever again until he signs the form 180 and we can see his complete record. Until then. I see no reason not to believe every allegation against him.
Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 22, 2004 at 02:55 PMMy only point was that we should not critise any soldier -- even a perfidious one as Kerry -- for carrying out reasonable military behaviour. Such critism can come back and bite our soldiers on the ass (e.g. current marine being investigate for shotting iraq for feigning death, an act of resistance).
Posted by: MacTheKnife at November 22, 2004 at 03:01 PMPretty much par for the course from the Airhead of Record.
Posted by: M. Scott Eiland at November 22, 2004 at 03:02 PMWell actually I don't fault the behavior of Kerry back then. But I do fault the double-standard people use -- see, Kerry's a hero because he shot someone running away (which I know full well is allowed when that someone is an enemy -- or even a common criminal, as police are allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect, but we are dealing with a country raised on Hollywoodised notions of "fair" fighting) but the marine is a Bad Man because he shot someone who was playing possum in a situation where the enemy has used such tactics to draw our forces close for a kill via suicide-bomber tactics. Maybe the best thing the marine can do now in his situation is claim he's a Democrat who sent in his absentee vote for Kerry and then he'll suddenly see the media heat disappear and maybe Maureen Dowd will write a column titled "OMG! I heart the marines even more than Eminem!"
("OMG" added for a certain person who shall be nameless. Enjoy OMG!)
Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 22, 2004 at 03:08 PMSuch critism can come back and bite our soldiers on the ass...
It already has bitten our soldiers in the ass, so Pandora's Box is open. Thanks to the MSM, who seemed to have forgotten about Senator Kerry's actions in Vietnam, and Senator Kerry, who, by the way, served in Vietnam.
No matter. Hypocrisy abounds, and I suppose we shouldn't aggravate it with snide remarks on Senator Kerry's life choices.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 22, 2004 at 03:14 PMThe stupid bitch doesn't even know what 'uxorious' means (2nd paragraph). Dowd's one of those deeply ignorant people who nonetheless have a reputation for erudition and profundity. Al Gore is another example.
Posted by: David Gillies at November 22, 2004 at 03:21 PMDavid, don't be so mean. Maureen was just trying to "enervate" the base.
:)
Posted by: Quentin George at November 22, 2004 at 03:38 PMDavid:
Wow, you're right! Calling gays "excessively submissive to their wives???" Who killed all of the New York Times' editors??" Or can't they pay someone enough to read MoDo's drivel??
Posted by: Rob C. at November 22, 2004 at 03:46 PMI find Dowd's columns difficult to wade through. I am unable to read much beyond the first paragraph. She's just too boring. It's not even worth the time to get a few laughs at her inanity.
She strikes me as someone who is still emotionally back in high school.
I've seen her on a few of the AM talk shows. The times I've seen her she has just reinforced my idea that she's stuck in her late teens for some reason.
I wonder what she's like in person?
"They're fragile and frazzled, depressed and self-doubting."
And this differs from their mental state before the election in what way?
It becomes clearer with every rant and whine from the Petulant Left that they needed a Kerry victory -- or more accurately, a Bush defeat -- so that they could receive a national validation. Having failed to receive it, they can no longer deny their self-doubt.
Posted by: John "Akatsukami" Braue at November 22, 2004 at 10:06 PMThe Real Jeffs:
Ye gods, Dowd is really twisting things:
The Department of Homeland Security is making employees and contractors sign pledges barring them from telling the public about sensitive but unclassified information.It's not just in government, either. Employees of, say, Tropicana aren't supposed to talk about what-all they do to an orange, and employees of Klondike can't say how they get that chocolate coating just so on an ice cream bar. If Maureen Dowd knew about these things, she would be shocked, shocked. Maybe she needs to get out more. Posted by: Ernie G at November 23, 2004 at 01:01 AM
I'd forgotten about industrial secrets, Ernie. God, I hope she drinks Coca Cola....her head will really pop about that secret!
Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 23, 2004 at 02:18 AMBush supporters turned Kerry into a war criminal? Bullshit. It was Kerry himself who admitted participating in war crimes during an interview back in the 70's (believe it was on Meet the Press).
Not that anyone in Dowd's audience would have been made aware of such a thing during the campaign, of course . . .
Posted by: Cosmo at November 23, 2004 at 03:30 AMTurns out Tina Fey does a great MoDo impression.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at November 23, 2004 at 04:23 AMEmployees of, say, Tropicana aren't supposed to talk about what-all they do to an orange
Err... if it's more than "squeeze the juice out of it", I don't really want to know.
Posted by: SpoogeDemon at November 23, 2004 at 07:38 AMI'm still trying to figure out what the op-ed means at the top of the page that MoDo appears on. In most papers this would be "opposing editorial" or some sort of alternative viewpoint to the editorial voice of the newspaper. It appears to me (I don't read her stuff anymore except in situations like this) that MoDo represents the "inner child" of the NYT. I don't think that is all that helpful or all that op-ed. She just says stuff that they can't get away with, much like a precocious 5-year-old. "Isn't she a little devil? The *things* kids say!"
As for misusing uxorious, I'm reasonably sure she's too intelligent for us dummies to criticize.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at November 23, 2004 at 08:26 AMMoDo, please, please, please.
A fistful of Oxycontin washed down with a quart of cheap gin does not constitute a good breakfast.
No matter what Helen Thomas says.
-N. O'Brain
Posted by: N. O'Brain at November 23, 2004 at 10:49 AM