Because the liberal politicians are too scared to call a spade a spade. Maureen Dowd isn't. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/15/opinion/15DOWD.html W.'s Conflicts of Interest By MAUREEN DOWD WASHINGTON When George W. Bush ran for president, he mocked Bill Clinton's addiction to pollsters and promised to tear down the cynical White House trellis of politics and policy. As it turned out, Mr. Bush didn't need the permanent campaign. He has something far more potent: the permanent war. Karl Rove and W. have designed a mirror-image presidency. They take everything Poppy did that conservatives regard as a mistake and reverse it. The right thought that the father's war was too short? O.K., the son's war will be too long. The right thought that the father's war should have ended with Saddam's disappearance? O.K., the son's war will start with Saddam's disappearance and build its rationale around that blessed event. Like his dad, Mr. Bush is not keen on delving into tricky domestic issues like Social Security, health care and pension protection. It is hard for a Bush to envision the need for a safety net. When the Bushes get into the bunker, democracy operates the way they like. It is not messy and cacophonous. It is orderly and symphonic. There are sheriffs and outlaws, patriots and madmen, good and evil, Churchills and Hitlers. The Bushes love doing things in secret and without a lot of meddling from know-nothings in Congress and smart alecks in the press. In peacetime, such macho behavior comes across as highhanded, but in wartime, it looks like strong leadership. Critics of a warrior president risk seeming unpatriotic. The Democrats are shackled; a majority voted against the Persian Gulf war in 1991. After it went off with the detachment of a video game, they were pilloried. Now they fear that if they approach Desert Storm 2 the same way, raising objections about motives, casualties, costs or the postwar strategy, they will be portrayed as McGovernite wimps. The Republicans, fighting dictator malfeasance, can't trifle with Democratic charges about G.O.P. donors' corporate malfeasance. In war, the polls are always jingoistically celestial. Thus spake Karl Rove, who has advised Republicans that they can gain control of Congress by exploiting the war on terrorism. The wartime press is respectful, producing gauzy TV interviews and square-jawed photo spreads, rectifying mangled presidential syntax and mindlessly repeating Minister of Information Ari Fleischer's celebration of the president as "resolute." Mr. Bush gave a splendid speech at the U.N. He is right that Saddam is a scum with Scuds. But there was no compelling new evidence. Mr. Bush offered only an unusually comprehensive version of the usual laundry list. Saddam is violating the sanctions, he tried to assassinate Poppy, he's late on his mortgage payments, he tips 10 percent, he has an unjustifiable fondness for "My Way," he gassed his own people, he doesn't turn down the front brim of his hat. There was no more attempt to tie Saddam to Osama. The hawks don't know if Osama is dead or alive, but they know that Saddam is alive and they can make him dead. The warriors gave a raspberry to the U.N., making it obvious that Mr. Bush was just going through the multilateral motions by revealing that Gen. Tommy Franks is moving the U.S. Central Command from Tampa to Qatar to get ready for a war against Iraq. The Bush principle of pre-emption is already being adored and exploited by other world leaders who have their own devious uses for it. Pakistan is worried that India will pounce in the Bush manner. And Mr. Bush's soulmate, Vladimir Putin, just warned the U.N. that he might pre-empt rebels in Georgia. At lunch with New York Times reporters on Friday, Tom Daschle was muted in his criticism of the president and conceded that Mr. Bush's transformation to a wartime leader would make him a formidable candidate. Yet the senator worried that Mr. Bush's preference for pre-emption could wreak havoc with global stability, and he wondered whether attacking Iraq would damage relationships with Indonesia, Pakistan and Middle East allies necessary to root out terrorists. "Is this now more important than the war on terror?" he asked. Does America have conflicts of interest? Are we fighting one war in two places, or are the two wars tripping each other up?
This was the most pandering, one-sided, simplistic thing I have ever read. It's disgusting, and occasionally inaccurate. If it were any worse I'd call it yellow journalism. Now that I'm feeling a little better... It was disgusting when Bush politicized the Iraq issue in the manner he did...this is equally as disgusting. Batman...you are WAY too smart to have fallen for this. This is just simplistic. Actually too stupid to even comment on. Sounds really good. But the problem is that companies don't even give pensions anymore. The FASB bulletin of a decade ago made sure of that. It simply became too expensive from an accounting standpoint to offer pensions...so they don't do it. Enter the 401(k)...a horrible replacement. The President has NO power over FASB...so Bush or any other President can't do anything to solve that problem. Really? Is that so? I have heard no tag levied upon Musharaf or Sharon or Schroeder...and so on...and so on. It seems that there ARE ahdes of gray. This was such a simplistic statement that it prays upon ignorance and borders on lunacy. Quick...which President issued the most Executive Orders in US history (short circuiting Congress in the process)? Answer: Bill Clinton. But the author conveniently leaves that out. If you think those same companies don't give to the Dems...think again. Two of the largest recipients of Enron money have been Ken Bentsen and Shiela Jackson-Lee. And I posted a link in another thread weeks ago that Enron's largest contribution EVER went to none other than Bill Clinton. Yet the Dems act as though these contributions don't count...only the ones to Republicans do. Please. If I only had a nickel for every time a "journalist" went to this card. Kind of reminds me of when Al Franken went to the fat card on Rush Limbaugh. It's just base and really weakens your argument. Cute...not particularly productive, but cute nonetheless. Let me get this straight...she lambasts Bush for wanting to get rid of Saddam because he is devious with his weapons and then she turns around and wants to have other world leaders stopped because they are devious? Which is it lady???!!! No. If Iraq is giving money to terrorists (which he is by all accounts) then it is part of the war on terror under its very terms. In sum...this author is either an idiot or a blind ideologue who is preying upon the ignorance ofothers. either way it's a disgusting piece.
Refman, read Azim da Dream's Chilling Retrospective post. We do not corner the market on suffering unjust attacks. In fact, more often than suffering them, we perpetrate them. You don't have to like the Dowd editorial. I posted it, as I said, because I am so disappointed in my party's failure to stand up for themselves, even when they believe themselves to be right. You accused the Dem leaders recently of playing politics with Iraq. You got it backwards. They ARE playing politics. They're playing politics by being too wimpy to say what an editorial writer needn't fear saying. And it's not straight reporting, so it can't be yellow journalism. It's an op-ed piece. And I agree with it 100%. p.s. Making fun of Bush's intellect is nothing like making fun of Limbaugh's weight. We don't ask our presidents to be thin. We ask them to be thoughtful. I have no problem with Limbaugh's weight and it would never occur to me to raise that issue. There's too much better stuff to call him on. A weak intellect is fair game in criticizing a president. But there's plenty to call Bush on, other than his plain dumbness. There's his policies. I mean, we all know he doesn't come up with them himself (How could he?), but he's still responsible. The syntax mangling was one small bit of the editorial. You took issue with the parts which were easily deflected by party line rhetoric, but you ignored the main points. If you're still looking for work, you might call the White House. They place a high premium on that exact skill.
You totally ignored where I used fact to refute her attacks. Enron contribs, her own inconsistency regarding devious world leaders, pension protection fallacy, Executive Orders as cutting out Congress. Those were not party line fodder. those were actual refutations of her claims. I'm disappointed Batman. I really expected you to at least acknowledge that I made some salient points rather than accuse me of merely regurgitating the party line. That's just unfortunate.
Refman, I bypassed many of those points because Dowd wasn't arguing for Democrats or saying they were superior. It wasn't a pro-Dem editorial -- it was an anti-Bush one. And you responded with the usual Bush arguments. Yes, Dems took Enron money too. But they tried to pass corporate responsibility legislation. It was nixed by Republicans. Et cetera, et cetera. It's hard to take your good arguments seriously when you tell me I'm too smart to "fall for" an editorial which accurately reflects my personal opinions. And vomit on it. And call it "disgusting." Whatever. Don't play superior. I posted the article sans personal embellishment. You puked on it and asked why I didn't like the taste of your puke. It was puke. If there were valuable chunks of wisdom mixed up in the puke, please forgive me for not fishing them out.
Actually I responded with the arguments that I believe in. Call them typical if you'd like. The laws are already on the books. There are laws on the books which would put away everybody from Ken Lay to Martha Stewart. New laws aren't necessary...enforcement of the existing ones...that's a different story. You don't like Bush...I know that. If I intended to puke on YOU for it I would have long ago. I puked on her article because it presented half the story (if that much). She brings out the part you agree with...fine. The article was presented as an analysis of the facts and it was FAR from that. That is what I puke on...and I don't take that back. If you viewed it as puking on you or your beliefs then know that wasn't my intent. Superior to you...no. Superior to her "analysis" of the facts to arrive at an opinion...everyday. You agree with her conclusions...but you have stated why on numerous occasions. You have been willing to recognize that other facts exist...you analyze them...and you arrive at your opinion. We disagree. I respect the manner in which you arrive at that opinion. That is what the puked upon article in question clearly lacks.
Tilting at windmills. Good gracious. Thou dost protest too much. Pundits usually reveal more about their themselves than their targets. We reserve our harshest rebukes for our own most poignant shame. What a peculiar picture of her mind working.
It certainly was an anti-Bush editorial but it sure didn't use any facts - just her opinions misguided by her hatred toward the president. You know, the Dems kept complaining that the Republicans were "out to get" Clinton and really complained about "partisan" politics. This just goes to show you they are no better (and in many cases much worse). Bush is in a no-win situation right now. You always are when you are pro-active about something this serious. If he doesn't do anything, he's taking a chance that Hussein will hurt a lot of people or adversely affect the world's oil supply. If he goes in preemptively he gets criticized for being a bully. Look back to the Gulf War. If Bush, Sr. didn't do anything when Iraq invaded Kuwait (thereby threatening the world's oil supply) and Iraq had moved into Saudi Arabia he would have been lambasted as a "do nothing" or criticized for not defending Kuwaiti human rights (as they were being beaten, raped and plundered by the Iraqi army - did you know that toward the end of the war, Iraqis were eating zoo animals? Where were the animal-rights activists when you need them?). If Bush goes into the Middle East and kicks Saddam out, the liberals criticize him for being a bully and just being there to help his oil buddies (as if the world’s oil supply, therefore everyone’s way of life wasn’t enough to fight for! You can argue that we shouldn’t be too dependent on foreign oil or that we shouldn’t be dependant on oil in general but letting a dictator take over the supply is not the way to wean the world of its dependency). Liberals criticize the president for not consulting or going along with the "world community" but when Bush, Sr. decides not to invade Iraq because the world community doesn't want to, does he get praised for being a team player? No! He gets lambasted for being too wimpy. Actually, Clinton should have rallied the world into going back into Iraq when they kicked the inspectors out back in ‘98. If you do something good preemptively you have NO WAY of knowing what would have happened if you didn't do anything. So, your enemies can throw mud at you saying you shouldn't have done anything in the first place - all you wanted was war, or to support your business buddies, etc... But going in before something major occurs is the best and safest way to do it. Imagine if the world had stopped Hitler immediately after he violated the Treaty of Versailles in 1935 by introducing conscription or when he invaded the Rhineland. Politics is sickening...
This is typical of Dowd's style and folks, she is no pandering liberal. Many of the things she wrote (and continues to write)about the Clintons is just as, if not more critical. I beleive Dowd was considered a major headache for the Clinton White House.
Why does people have to say "liberals" or "dems", why can't they just say democrats. And again with "evil" liberals all against Bush. Liberals this and liberals that. *Sigh*. As for Clinton rallying the world against Iraq, the House wasn't about to let that happen. Clinton barely got the okay to send those missiles against Osama bin Laden's camps, and got criticized when he did so, pretty much the way Bush is getting criticized down. This isn't about "dem"/"liberals" vs Republicans, this is about lazy politicians plain and simple. People are in such a hurry to jump on the Democrats when something negative is said about Bush, but that woman could care less about Republicans or Democrats.
Actually in 1998, a bi-partisan bill was passed complaining about Clinton's "do-nothing" approach to Iraq: "Iraq Liberation Act" This bill, it looks to me, gives Bush the ability to go into Iraq now. However, once again, I don't think that Bush wants to go into Iraq. I'm still convinced that this is a "good cop/bad cop" scenario and either the rest of the world will convince Saddam to accept inspectors or the rest of the world (after giving Saddam a chance to capitulate - (sigh - another one!) will go along with the U.S. As far as Clinton getting critisized over those missles, it was the timing that was suspect, plus the fact that it was a complete waste of a couple of cruise missles. They weren't designed to do anything to Osama, they were just smoke and mirrors to distract attention from his other problems (that he brought upon himself). If he really wanted to do something about Osama, he would have initiated a complete operation and not that stupid missle strike. As far as "dems or libs", personally I think that most (all?) politicians are crooks. I just link liberals and Democrats are the worst. To all those people who don't think we should use military force against Iraq, what do you think we should do? And when?
I agree w/Dowd politicaly but I seldom enjoy her columns. I think Paul Krugman does a better job of exposing the lies of the Bush Administration. When a multi-million dollar industry crops up that is focused on digging up dirt about Bush and members of his immediate family, you let me know. When Wall Street Journal editorialists implicate the President and first lady in the "murder" of a guy who committed suicide you let me know also, and then I will say that it is comparable
<blockquote><i>As it turned out, Mr. Bush didn't need the permanent campaign. He has something far more potent: the permanent war.</i></blockquote>For some reason, this part bothers me. He isn't "Mr Bush" Missy Maureen, he is President Bush, and we are at War. You wrote "Mr Bush" seven time without ever using his proper title when referring to him. You are a NY Times writer. You are not allowed to dismiss titles like that. If you do, you are being disrespectful with an agenda...little missy Maureen. I don't really even like the fact another Bush is president, but I hate journalists who have agendas more. They are egomaniacs and slant the truth. They feel like they own the truth. They are just greedy bastards looking for fame and calling themselves important to our Constitution. They all suck. Mr. Lehrer never had an agenda, missy.
Officers of the Park Police have stated in radio interviews that the gun was found 50 feet away from Vince Foster's body...do you think he shot himself in the head and threw the gun on the way to the ground?
Actually NYTimes writers often dismiss political titles like that. There is usually a first reference as "President" just to establish the person's identity. Ms. Dowd did establish identity in the first paragraph when she referred to G.W. running for president. After the first reference it is almost always "Mr." Bush from then on. You can see this in all their news articles as well. Most newspapers use the Associated Press Stylebook for standardized journalism writing rules -- those rules do call for repeated references of "President" Bush. However, the Times has always gone by their own rules (as evidenced by the use of courtesy titles Mr., Ms., etc... throughout the entire story). Ms. Dowd was simply following her paper's guidelines.
Agreed. But it's wrong...it's disrespectful. I don't like it any more than I did when Larry King referred to President Clinton as "Bill." The office of the President is one of respect...and should be treated as such. I am reminded of a story from the 1950s. President Eisenhower was being interviewed by a reporter. The reporter asked a question: "What do you think about ______, Ike?" He responded by saying: "Only my friends call me Ike." Titles are important. I'll spend time in jail should I refer to a judge as Ms. So and so...instead of Your Honor. The President is President so and so, rather than Mr. so and so. It is a sign of deference and respect. It's the same thing when a child refers to an adult by their first name instead of Ms. So and so. OK...I'm done now.
I agree Mrs. JB. Anyone referred with a title in her BBS name surely knows more than me about this. I just didn't believe she "established" his title in this article. My feeling is that she should actually use it once, especially when she abuses his title in the title of the article....(assuming BJ is repriting the correct title "W's Conflicts of Interest") I'm not a stickler for these things usually, but this is a journalist going after two presidents, and calling one "Poppy," and she seems disrespectful and somewhat reluctant to admit that he is the president. I used to hang out with some Newsweek journalists. There is this determination to define the truth. Thing is, when it comes to matters of War, the media is often wrong. Yeah, the CIA is wrong, too, but the arrogance of that article just bothers me. This is not a matter of the National Budget. There are people who devote their entire lives for moments like this (like Ritter and Rumsfeld, State Dept, Generals, Sargeants..and most importantly the President), and they don't want to get it wrong.
I hear this all the time from reporters and newsanchors. They very rarely call the president..."President (insert name here)... I thought it odd when I noticed it a few years back.. Has it been this way for long? I remember when I was a kid, the news reports ALWAYS referred to the president by title... none of this Mr. this or Mr that....It is disrespectful to the office...imo
