Maureen Dowd Bares Bush- and Cheney-Despising Fangs, Only Embarrasses Self
When historians look back in wonder at how a long-established publication like the New York Times could have declined from its virtual king-of-the-world status in mid-2002 to its Bush-deranged, 85%-devalued shadow of its former self, they will surely make a few stops at Maureen Dowd’s twice-weekly, lost-in-another-world columns (the Dowd picture is from the Times’s web site).
Today’s offering from Dowd (HT Hot Air Headlines) is intended to be a final figurative kick in the shins at George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, something she admits to fantasizing about having done to the Vice President this week when she had opportunities.
But the Dowd diatribe really ends up as a self-portrayal of someone who deeply imbibed the kool-aid her paper dished out over the past seven years and is beyond ever letting go, and serves as a microcosm of what the Old Gray Lady has done to itself in that same timeframe:
An Extremist Makeover?
In the past week, I’ve twice been close enough to Dick Cheney to kick him in the shins.
I didn’t. It’s probably a federal crime of some sort. But a girl can fantasize. I did, however, assume the Stay-away-from-me-you’ve-got-cooties stance that Jimmy Carter used when posing with Bill Clinton at the presidents’ powwow in the Oval.
The first time was Tuesday, when Cheney left the ceremony where he gave the oath of office to senators. The senators seemed thrilled, especially Joe Biden, who was getting sworn in for just two weeks and was excitedly showing off a family Bible the size of a Buick. But I thought it gave the ceremony a satirical edge to have the lawless Vice presiding over lawmakers swearing to support and defend the Constitution that he soiled and defiled — right in the heart of the legislative branch he worked to diminish.
The second time I crossed paths was Thursday night, at a glitzy party at Cafe Milano for Brit Hume, stepping down as a Fox anchor. It required extreme defensive maneuvers — much zigging and zagging — to avoid Cheney, Wolfie and Rummy, all three holding court and blissfully unrepentant about the chaos they’ve unleashed on the world.
….. After he leaves office, W. wants to go on more bike rides, because biking through Katrina was not enough.
….. The vamoosing Vice has no apologies about turning America into a country that tortured; indeed, he denies it ever happened. “Torture,” he told Barnes, “that word gets thrown around with great abandon.”
….. Cheney’s theory of executive “unitary” power and pre-emptive war and frightening the world was a theory of Constitutional thuggishness.
The fact is that the contentions Dowd’s column are little different from the supposedly “objective” reports that have emanated from the Times’s newsroom since early 2002:
- Dogged insistence, forever memorialized as “fake but accurate,” that the long-debunked Rathergate story, complete with phony documents and substantive refutations (here and here, for starters) is somehow still true.
- The belief that Bush and Cheney soiled defiled the Constitution with, among other things, the FISA law. How inconvenient it is that no less than Barack Obama voted to keep FISA in place at crunch time.
- The military “chaos” unleashed on the world. All you need to know on this topic is that the word “Iraq” doesn’t appear in Dowd’s column. And how about this: The president-elect, faced with ugly reality, is even getting cold feet about closing Gitmo. I guess doing that would be a little too chaotic compared to our current circumstances. Next thing you know, Obama, again realizing the dangers we face, will have a very, very quiet (and more than likely unreported) change of heart about certain interrogation methods.
- Katrina? Oh stop it, Mo. The weak Katrina response was a failure of city and state officials first and foremost. Start by asking ex-Governor Kathleen Blanco why George Bush is to blame for these underwater buses.
The Times has lost much of its audience, almost all of its credibility, and perhaps its financial viability, during its seven-year infection with Bush Derangement Syndrome. You would think that with the inauguration of Barack Obama just 10 days away, there might be a bit of, well, hope in the hearts of folks like Dowd and others at the newspaper. But it appears that even a change in administrations won’t bring an end to their all-consuming bitter-ender attacks, perhaps accompanied by the more bitter end of the newspaper itself.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
i have never read a commentary by this woman, and never felt as if i were back in high school, and picked up a letter off the floor, to a girl friend who had been spurned by the quarter back of the team. she is a very sophomoric writer as i am so, but i dont get paid to write such drivel. i honestly think she has had a crush on george from day one,wants to be dominated by him. probably rummy also.
Comment by kevin — January 11, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
She’s an embar ass ment to the women of the world.
Comment by Scrapiron — January 11, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Truth hurts, doesn’t it wingnut?
Comment by CincyCapell — January 11, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
#3, Wow, what powers of persuasion and insight. (/sarc)
The truth is what’s hurting the Times, in case you hadn’t noticed, which apparently you haven’t.
Comment by TBlumer — January 12, 2009 @ 12:06 am
So let me get this right:
George Bush didn’t use his family connections to get a cushy stateside wartime assignment and then not even show up to that?
Our wiretapping and e-mail reading has led to the arrest of hundreds of brutal terrorists in our midst with no loss of rights to millions of Americans?
Our torture of minor underlings has made us safer while enhancing our prestige in the world community?
The federal government has no role in protecting its citizens when natural disaster overwhelms a community if its local leaders are incompetent buffoons?
Thanks for setting me straight.
Comment by Mo MoDo — January 12, 2009 @ 5:52 am
#5, I see you are engaging is self-parody and pathetic attempts to stuff words in my mouth that aren’t worthy of a response.
Follow the links, and ask your Barack Obama why he supported FISA.
Comment by TBlumer — January 12, 2009 @ 6:30 am
Why did Obama ultimately support the revised FISA bill? I followed your link and found the answer:
Obama came down on the side of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who argued that a provision in the new law reaffirmed that FISA, and that act’s courts, gives the final say over government spying. President Bush has argued that a war-time chief executive has powers that trump FISA.
“It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance — making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law,” Obama said today.
Comment by Tony B. — January 12, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
#7, two words: Fig. Leaf.
Comment by TBlumer — January 12, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
#7, in other words Barack Obama did what he was told to do as typical of order taking underlings. Pelosi is Obama’s puppet master.
btw-interesting comment about circumventing the law, as it implies not being above the law. One has to wonder why he was so insistent on not allowing the vault copy of his birth certificate like he has something to hide.
Comment by dscott — January 13, 2009 @ 11:10 am
“One has to wonder why he was so insistent on not allowing the vault copy of his birth certificate like he has something to hide.”
Wow.
Comment by Tony B. — January 13, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
#10, since you have obviously conceded the point of Obama being an order taking underling and Pelosi being his puppet master we can move on to you wow comment.
Tell us Tony, why would Barack Obama deliberately refuse to show the vault copy of his birth certificate???? Why did he spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees when for zero dollars he could have put the issue to rest???? Please explain this to us. Go ahead, please explain. John McCain showed his birth certificate, so why shouldn’t Obama??? One rule for Democrats and another Republicans? One set of rules for liberal elites and another set for the rest of us? Is that justified under the Law if no one is above the Law?
Comment by dscott — January 14, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Double wow. I have conceded nothing other than the possibility that your tinfoil topper may be a tad too tight.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Comment by Tony B. — January 14, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
#12, nice try there Tony, the birth certificate shown is NOT the vault copy. That is a modern duplicate copy, it does not certify Obama was born in the US. Hawaii during this period allowed the mother to register a birth without any documentation by simply presenting the child.
This is what a real Hawaii Birth Certificate looks like from the time period: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iKcZ3qcCmyo/SQXQM_XNQqI/AAAAAAAAKxo/75-wDfqzJZw/s1600-h/2BObirth.jpg The redacted one on the right.
Now you still haven’t answered the question, WHY DID OBAMA FIGHT ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT TO BLOCK SHOWING HIS VAULT COPY when he simply could have shown the vault copy which would have cost him zero dollars?????????????? Why did he spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to block it Tony?????? Where there is smoke, there is fire.
However, at this point the issue has been made irrelevant by the courts since the Supreme Court would not force the viewing since apparently no one has standing to make such a challenge. The SCOTUS never looked at the REAL birth certificate because that was not the question before them thus the Constitution has been rendered moot on the finagling of a technicality. So much for everyone being under the Law. Here we see how the Constitution is being unraveled before our eyes. This is the lawless behavior of the elite and how they plan to rule over us. Barack Obama was elected by a majority on November 4th and on January 20th we will see the Republic as we knew it die to the applause of the 50% plus one. We are on the road to revolution. You call it CHANGE.
Comment by dscott — January 15, 2009 @ 9:34 am
Stop it, dscott. You are making a spectacle of yourself. Did you read the article at the link, or did you just look at the pictures?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Comment by Tony B. — January 15, 2009 @ 11:41 am
#14, FactCheck is a pitiful place to cite for support.
At a minimum, it’s not a clear-cut situation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYdk26ezVio
Comment by TBlumer — January 15, 2009 @ 11:53 am
You too, Tom?
What is your beef with factcheck.org?
Comment by Tony B. — January 15, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
#14, I read it and still yet you haven’t answered the simple question, Why did Obama fight tooth and nail to NOT show the vault copy of his birth certificate. You just like Obama are unwilling to face the same standards as the rest of us. Are you afraid Tony, afraid to ask the question?
The spectacle will be a ruined economy and the only ones laughing will be the Iranians, Venezuelans and other enemies of the US.
Yes Tom, it has ceased to be relevant anymore as far as his qualification to be President since the vault copy will never be shown and it seems no one can make him do so.
Comment by dscott — January 15, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
#15, What about “it’s not a clear-cut situation” don’t you understand? I say let the litigation proceed to a conclusion, and then read the post-mortems to see if the courts involved are doing or shirking their duties. That hasn’t happened yet.
Factcheck.org was so wrong so many times during the campaign it’s not even worth trying to chronicle them all. There are only so many hours in a day.
Comment by TBlumer — January 15, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
You two crack me up. Obama didn’t fight anything “all the way to the supreme court,” right-wingnuts did. And factcheck.org compares very well to that goofball site Tom linked to. Go easy on the Kool-Aid, boys, or it’ll be a long eight years.
BTW, where was John McCain born?
Comment by Tony B. — January 16, 2009 @ 3:16 am
#19, again, What about “it’s not a clear-cut situation” don’t you understand?
My link was not an endorsement. It was an example showing that it’s not a clear-cut, resolved situation.
One of the main “right-wing nuts” involved in one of the actions is a former Dem statewide elected official from PA.
Only someone drinking Kool-aid would claim that the issue doesn’t exist, as you seem to. It is probably a long-shot, but it remains to be seen if that’s the case because Obama is clean, or if it’s because the courts wantonly shirk their constitutional duties. We don’t know yet.
McCain was born in Panama, and Congress passed a resolution indicating that for the purposes of the election he is a natural-born citizen:
If Obama was really born in Kenya (which I doubt, but it hasn’t been definitively proven that he was born in Hawaii, though I believe he probably was), I don’t think there’s an “original intent” argument available.
Comment by TBlumer — January 16, 2009 @ 8:43 am
Tom, I didn’t mean to hijack your thread with the birth certificate issue, but it seems I did strike a nerve with Tony.
Here is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, the man refuses to answer the question because he dare not contemplate WHY Obama fought all the way to the SCOTUS even though he knows the case made it to the SCOTUS. He dare not look over the edge of his cozy world view which may reveal its contradictions. He is in total denial for the reason that the proceedings took place by a Democrat who was a former prosecutor.
Tony, you are an intellectual coward, because you choose not to exercise critical thinking to even speculate least you might learn something new. Instead, you call anyone who questions the Party Line wing nuts in order to cover up for your cowardice. Therefore you are incapable of independent thought and unable to form your own opinions contrary to the official view lest you be without their approval, I call such people weak minded sheep. You are incapable of questioning for fear you might come up with an insight or answer that is contrary to the Party Line.
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
Comment by dscott — January 16, 2009 @ 9:33 am
Dscott, why do you continue to maintain that Obama “fought all the way to the SCOTUS?” He did no such thing. Obama did not fight to withhold anything. Obama was not sued. Do you truly not understand?
You have bewildered even those of your own kind.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/04/the-sadly-obligatory-scotus-birth-certificate-post/
Tom, I, too, am sorry that dscott hijacked your thread.
Comment by Tony B. — January 16, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
#22, if Obama reps were in ANY of the courtrooms where these suits have been heard, then they were there either to fight full disclosure, to fight for dismissal, or to keep the motions from moving to SCOTUS.
Given that there are 16 lawsuits at various stages of percolation, I doubt that you know otherwise. If you do, come out with it, with proof.
Thus, Dscott’s “hijack” has been useful. The burden is now on you.
Comment by TBlumer — January 16, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
Dscott asked, “WHY DID OBAMA FIGHT ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT TO BLOCK SHOWING HIS VAULT COPY…?”
Dscott asked, “Why did Obama fight tooth and nail to NOT show the vault copy of his birth certificate”
Dscott wrote, “…Obama fought all the way to the SCOTUS…”
Dscott then debunked himself by writing, “The SCOTUS never looked at the REAL birth certificate because that was not the question before them…”
Tom passed Dscott’s unsupported rantings through unchallenged, but has now placed the burden of proof on me. One more wow.
Dscott got one thing right. He asked if there was “One rule for Democrats and another Republicans?” On the Bizzyblog, that certainly seems to be the case.
Comment by Tony B. — January 16, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
#24, yawwwn.
I wasn’t commenting on Dscott, I was commenting on your #22, which was your most recent take on the situation.
Only now, when cornered, do you bring up an apparent contradiction in what Dscott wrote earlier and pretend that your #22 never happened.
Nice try. No sale.
You remain saddled with the burden identified earlier on you.
Dscott is also welcome to explain his contradiction if he wishes. That doesn’t relieve you of your burden.
Comment by TBlumer — January 16, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
Tom, since I can’t prove a negative, why don’t you find just one of these sixteen cases in which Obama “fought” in any way, shape or form, the release of anything. Or you could ask Dscott to do it.
You both are way out there on this one.
Comment by Tony B. — January 16, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
#26, YOU are the one that made the assertion (#22 – “Obama did not fight to withhold anything”) that you now say you can’t prove.
And you think WE are the ones that are “way out there”?
But I’m a gracious guy, and I’ll lift your heavy burden:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q1twiyRpN4
At about the 25-second mark, the Toledo TV reporterette says, “Phillip J. Berg tells me that since filing this federal lawsuit against Obama in late August, there has been a motion to dismiss the case and a protective order to keep Obama’s records private.”
So ….. who besides Team Obama or DNC/other lawyers acting on his behalf would have filed the motion to dismiss and the request for the protective order? The tooth fairy?
Seriously, Tony, even without the proof I found in one YouTube search, when someone files a suit against you, you have to either fight, capitulate, or negotiate. OF COURSE Obama has been fighting it, because the other two options are presumably untenable.
In a way, this is no different than Bush-Cheney having to fight off a suit in 2000 that claimed both of them were Texas residents (Prez and VP can’t be from the same state). They successfully defended their contention that Cheney was a Wyoming resident. We don’t know yet whether Obama will be able to successfully defend himself against the charge that he isn’t a natural-born citizen. I believe he’ll probably prevail; I just hope it’s because he has successfully proven his citizenship, and not because the courts say, “Never mind we don’t need to see anything, even though you haven’t proven anything” or “you peons don’t have any standing to sue.”
Now that your burden has been lifted, I await an “I was wrong. I am sorry.”
Comment by TBlumer — January 17, 2009 @ 12:18 am
I don’t believe a word Mr. Berg says, let alone words that Mr. Berg is purported to have said. Here’s Michelle Malkin on birth certificates and Berg (bonus! possible picture of Dscott at the top of her post!):
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/05/truthers-to-the-left-of-me-truthers-to-the-right/
Every lawsuit of which I was aware was filed against either a Secretary of State or a Governor, not Obama himself. Frivolous lawsuits against other parties don’t require Obama to refuse to do anything, let alone fight “all the way to the SCOTUS.” And as far as I know, the Supreme Court has never heard any of these cases.
Comment by Tony B. — January 17, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
#28, D**n, I know Michelle is very skeptical and so am I. I’ve read her post.
I hold out the possibility that Berg and others may have an actionable point. I don’t think they do, and I mostly hope they don’t, but it remains a possibility.
Michelle herself says:
Who do you think is defending these or at least observing them, Tony, the tooth fairy? No, people representing the DNC, Obama, et al have to be there or to otherwise ensure their interests are represented to defend themselves, perhaps even to file responses ahead of the proceedings and the like.
You act as if they can just sit at home and know that the courts will take care of them. They’re not that stupid. They have to be there, or to consult with SOS’s or other state officials to make sure they will be appropriately defended. If there is a motion to compel evidence and they’re not there to refuse, they could get a nasty surprise. They can’t afford that.
That’s why I don’t understand why you’re holding out over something so obvious as the need for someone to defend themselves, even against frivolity, and to refuse to provide evidence requested by the other side when such requests have been made.
Comment by TBlumer — January 17, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Tony, I just love your sophistry, first you say Obama wasn’t defending himself against any lawsuit when in fact he was. Here’s the actual lawsuit naming Obama and others like the DNC: http://www.scribd.com/doc/5199728/OBAMA-Complaint-usdc-Eastern-District-Penn
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/28/lawsuit-questions-obamas-eligibility-for-office/ Newspaper carrying the report of the lawsuit, of course you can google to get more reports from various news outlets, but this demonstrates it wasn’t just bloggers and websites engaging in a tinfoil rant. It’s called Berg vs Obama for a reason otherwise it would have been Berg vs the State of so and so. That knocks down your denial Obama wasn’t fighting a lawsuit. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083
Next denial that the case didn’t go to the SCOTUS: http://www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=102&num=181824
Well, that part is a technicality false since because Judge Surrick (United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)) dismissed the case. If Judge Surrick ruled he had standing then it would have gone to the SCOTUS, so there you have me since it was headed to the SCOTUS but didn’t make it. He ruled that Philip Berg, the plaintiff, had no standing as a US voting citizen to bring the suit. The judge never looked at any birth certificate, he just parsed the law by saying Philip Berg couldn’t bring the suite even as a voter.
Here is the dismissal, obviously you can’t have a dismissal IF there was no case in the first place: http://mobiusinformer.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/court_order_and_memo_dismissing_berg_v_obama.pdf
So here we stand Tony, you still haven’t answered the question why Obama would fight showing his vault copy of the birth certificate. You are an intellectual coward Tony, plain and simple coward because only a coward would run away on a technicality. And you call me a tinfoil and truther???? I tell you what, you admit you’re a coward and I’ll accept your cowardly judgement that I’m a tinfoil truther.
Comment by dscott — January 17, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
Dscott, you’ve debunked yourself twice now, and I do appreciate that. I’ll acknowledge that I didn’t realize the Berg lawsuit named Obama. Will you acknowledge that Berg is a kook and unworthy of our attention? I you want to call me a coward, go for it. Turns out I’m actually afraid that a tinfoil hat wearing truther like yourself might one day figure out where I live! But lets try to get along, anyway. Its what Mr. Obama wants, and I did once run a race with Tom Blumer.
And Tom with your sixteen lawsuits – How many named Obama, and how fast were they all kicked to the curb? WorldNutDaily tracked them for awhile, and it wasn’t pretty. It seems whacky Mr. Berg is a mental giant compared to most of the other plaintiffs.
Comment by Tony B. — January 17, 2009 @ 11:58 pm
And Tom with your sixteen lawsuits – How many named Obama, and how fast were they all kicked to the curb?
I don’t know Tony, and that wasn’t my point. They aren’t “mine” in the first place. Regardless of how nutty most of them might be, Obama has to defend himself if it affects him, or make sure the defense is done appropriately on his behalf.
Comment by TBlumer — January 18, 2009 @ 8:04 am
31, more sophistry Tony? I admitted my mistake based on the facts, however, that didn’t change the material issue: WHY DID BARACK OBAMA FIGHT TO PREVENT HIS VAULT COPY OF HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE FROM BEING MADE PUBLIC???????? All he had to do was show it and dispel the issue with ZERO dollars.
Berg’s 911 trutherism on one subject does not invalidate his getting it correct on another subject or have even a reasonable point worth considering. Are you saying all the cases he prosecuted for the State of PA are invalid because he got the 911 trutherism wrong???? So are you saying because I believe AGW is a hoax that anything I have to say is similarly not worth considering? Sorry not falling for your sophistry.
So once again Tony answer the question or you are an intellectual coward. I think it’s obvious you have to dismiss the question because to honestly address it would unravel your cultic belief in Barack Obama. That’s the difference between a cult like belief system and a person who uses critical thinking, he/she is willing to change their mind based on the facts not blindly cling to an agenda.
Comment by dscott — January 18, 2009 @ 9:42 am
MORE CAPS AND ?????????? DSCOTT? You make sophistry look, well, so sophisticated.
I don’t believe that Obama needed to “fight” because the lawsuits were judged to be frivolous and quickly dismissed. If you have evidence that Obama fought the release of the “vault copy” of his birth certificate, please post it here and now. Please note that the mere existence of frivolous lawsuits does not constitute proof.
Beyond that, I’m not sure that I could show my “vault copy,” could you, Dscott? When I requested my birth certificate for my security clearance application, I received something that looked essentially similar to the document Obama released. When I requested another many years later for my passport application, I received a somewhat different form. Neither would likely satisfy you truthers, but both satisfied the U.S. government. Could I force the state to release something else? I don’t know. Does anything else even still exist? I don’t know. Why don’t you test it, Dscott. Obtain and post the “vault copy” of your birth certificate. Merely anecdotal, I realize, but it might be a start.
Comment by Tony B. — January 19, 2009 @ 12:07 am
#34, what about this …..
….. don’t you understand?
Don’t you dare b*tch about it being from WND.
Why you’re so intent on defending the indefensible is a mystery. You’re sole remaining fig leaf is that the Supremes haven’t “fully heard” the cases, though they have obviously “considered” them. I’d say if they’re “considered,” they’ve “reached,” i.e., made it “all the way to SCOTUS.”
Again, I think they are all long-shots. But they exist, and they are being defended against, as they must be, by Obama, his surrogates, or those acting in his interest.
Comment by TBlumer — January 19, 2009 @ 1:20 am
I just love this Tom, it’s absolutely hilarious and fascinating to see the denial of the obvious. This is how double think (1984 term) is performed.
btw-Tony, I have a notarized copy of my vault birth certificate, have had since I was a kid. All you need do is ask for it in person at the appropriate government office of birth and death statistics. The link I gave you in #13 shows the typical format of what one looks like. If I can present mine, so can Obama IF it was issued in this country.
The CAPS are to bring you back to the central question which you have been so desperately avoiding. Answer the question Tony or stop wasting your time because as long as you post in this thread I’m going to keep asking you the question until you answer it honestly.
Comment by dscott — January 19, 2009 @ 11:48 am
Dscott, when you provide evidence that Obama actually refused to show something, you will have an actual question for us to ponder. Until then, you’re just talking tinfoil.
Tom, this secondhand recitation of the plaintiff’s case doesn’t strike me as particularly compelling evidence of Obama’s actions. At times, you tend towards tinfoil, too.
Comment by Tony B. — January 21, 2009 @ 9:27 pm