Posted by
rycK on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:47:20 PM
Maureen Dowd: The Old Red Lady of The Old Gray Lady
The New York Times continues to grind away on their 19th century political polemics and Maureen Dowd has chosen to put up few more sophomoric swipes at President Bush.
This piece of leftist haze is actually devoid of any constructive comments on Middle East Peace, whatsoever, that might be of any utility to peacemakers and The Old Red Lady of The Old Gray Lady’s digs in Manhattan just lays out her hollow spite using argumentum ad hominem in structuring attacks. This is easier than thinking.
A few examples:
“As an adult, Condi [Rice, ed] was worried about taking the job of top diplomat because it would mean traveling and being away from her things and habits.”
What??
Or
“After subverting diplomacy in his first term, now W. does drive-by diplomacy, taking a playboy approach to peace. He wants to look like he’s taking the problem of an Israeli-Palestinian treaty seriously when his true motivation is more cynical: pacifying the Arab coalition and holding it together so that he can blunt Iran’s sway.”
Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy were not playboys.
I am sure there is some triple-reverse deep thinking here, but I missed the salient point--especially the ’things and habits’ comment. We must first note that our hair-dye-assisted Red Lady [Is that a wig??] is dancing on the outer fringes of plagiarism by nibbling on Rush Limbaugh’s “drive-by media” patent. It is a catchy phrase that grabs attention, something that might hike sales for the NYT. I am sure this is one of Maureen’s best journalistic efforts for a while. Baron Munchausen wrote pieces like this.
“In 2006, when Israel invaded Lebanon and many civilians died, including children, Condi and W. drew Arab and U.N. ire for not forcing Ehud Olmert to broker a cease-fire faster.”
Strange, but “W” has no say-so in Israel any more than he does in Iran or The Congo. We can wonder why Clinton did not stop the wars in Somalia and Rwanda—or can we?
Of course, we are advised that diplomacy is always the solution to peace in the world, which is backward since only war promotes lasting peace. Diplomacy in the hands of Wilson, FDR, LBJ and W. Jefferson Clinton must have accomplished much in the Middle East and elsewhere although I missed some of the important aspects and remain confused by some of the outcomes. We must apparently show appreciation to President Wilson for only killing 160,000, or so, US soldiers during his essay on diplomacy and thank him again, profusely, for this being a small percentage of the 51,000,000 dead in that war. The war debts must have been a gift, the usual central method of leftist diplomacy. That covetous result must be hailed as a victory. Diplomacy must have been successful in either preventing the US entry into this mess or, to a lesser degree, delaying our participation for a few years. But we could wonder why war was not prevented altogether. The same theory must be applied to FDR and his wars on several fronts costing mere 400,000 American dead soldiers, but only a fraction of the 30,000,000 dead in Europe and the Pacific in that diplomatic sensation. The debts were, again, forgiven in a stunning diplomatic gesture, at least to the Soviets, the ideological preceptors of the left-liberals. Triumph again! We must celebrate the notion that although the wars were not halted or prevented by ‘diplomacy’ but the fruits of diplomacy probably did save lives in a limited sense. It could have been 100,000,000 dead, the number that the Leninists, Maoists and Stalinists racked up since the 1917 October Revolution. Apparently we must expect only approximations to peace and justice when we watch the left deftly ply their ambassadorial skills. Talk is more important than results we learn from these examples. Let us just throw money into the Middle East and hope they will not conjure up another jihad. We wouldn’t want to be disliked.
Modern diplomacy, using the Clinton Idiom, means using tax monies to bribe useless, perverted murdering parasites such as ‘Dearest Kim’ in North Korea. The stunning prophylactic effects of negotiation (and more to the point the money) in this case actually prevented North Korea from invading Kansas or Maryland, the solid proof of the efficacy of the noble effort. Of course, the fact that Kim and his Marxist Friends of American Liberals did later develop and test nuclear weapons requires some special mention, but nobody in California lost their drug rehabilitation benefits or had any of their hemp plants wilt because of this adventure. Nobody was attacked by North Korean Shock Troops in Marin County we think. Diplomacy is really quite marvelous.
“That same year, in another instance of spectacular willful ignorance, she was blindsided by the Hamas win in the Palestinian elections.”
Was Bill Clinton blindsided by Newt in the 1993 takeover of Congress? We can wonder who is blind.
Maureen smirks from the outer side of her multiple-face-lifted face and chucks nasty grams toward Condi Rice, churlishly nipping low at her boot heels from envy and frustration and, doubtless, while warming in the eternal glow of Albert (Pinch) Sulzberger or one of his Pustule Peddlers or perhaps her written work is composed just below the Pulitzer Prize Plaque for Walter Duranty, the Patron Saint of the Left. Inspiration is the key to propaganda and disinformation. We have to wonder, however, if these little flea flicks directed at President Bush can do much to improve the declining readership of the New York Times and rescue Pinch from business failure.
So, again, we must thank the New York Times for wasting Internet bandwidth, broadening their carbon foot print by wasting sacred tree paper to print this vein of meretricious fluff, and solving more piquant difficulties in diplomacy. We an always spot their work.
After a studious analysis of 7,000 years of war and strife in the Middle East, we can count on the New York Times to correctly delineate the proper mode and delivery mechanism of modern diplomacy. There will be peace in our time. But, we can also wonder why Yasser Arafat refused the Clinton Gifts that were hailed and sanctioned by the New York Times. Oh well. This was not a failure of diplomacy as the New York Times understands it.
Blame Bush for that—not Yasser.
rycK