Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

His Magnificent Obsession (Dowd Alert)
New York Times ^ | 9/05/01 | MAUREEN DOWD

Posted on 09/04/2001 10:01:59 PM PDT by kattracks

WASHINGTON

It is hard to fathom most obsessions from the outside.

Why did Proust's Swann swoon over the sharp-featured Odette, when he knew he was wasting years of his life longing for a woman "who didn't even appeal to me"?

What made Aschenbach follow a blond boy in "Death in Venice" in such a state of distraction that "he could no longer think of anything except this ceaseless pursuit of the object that so inflamed him"?

Why did Humbert Humbert devour himself over the sulky "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul"?

Why did the otherwise cool Oscar Wilde wreck his life over the callow Lord Alfred Douglas so that, as he wrote in "De Profundis," "I became the spendthrift of my own genius"?

Why did the whale engender a "special lunacy" in Ahab that "stormed his general sanity, and carried it and turned all its concentrated cannon upon its own mad mark"?

And why can George W. Bush think of nothing but a missile shield? Our president is caught in the grip of an obsession worthy of literature.

W. seemed like a simple man, who did not get ardently aroused over anything except Little League, clearing Texas brush and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

But it turns out that he is darker and more complex than we thought. He is seized by a desire that defies the laws of politics and physics, a hunger that fills him with elation and despair, a thirst for an attainment that seems so close and yet so far.

While we may not understand W.'s urgent, self-destructive craving for his ineffectual missile shield any better than we understand Scarlett's urgent, self-destructive craving for her ineffectual Ashley, we must stand in awe before the purity and grandeur of his obsession. He would rather risk the world being destroyed than slow his race to build something to protect it.

Consider the hurricane of global emotions that W. has whipped up to construct The Defense That Doesn't Work against The Threat That Doesn't Exist.

The White House has signaled China that it's O.K. to build up its nuclear arsenal if it makes China feel better about W.'s Junior Star Wars. And if this leads to China's improving its nuclear warheads and to a renewal of nuclear testing, well, the obsession can justify that. And if this leads to India's and Pakistan's accelerating an arms race, well, the obsession can justify that, too. And if American kids have to go back to duck-and-cover drills, well, same deal. And if W. squanders $60 billion that could have been spent on education on technology that doesn't work — because our sophisticated antimissile interceptors can't stop primitive, wobbly missiles from rogue nations, much less germ warfare from terrorists — ditto.

W. is now at a "Blue Angel" Lola Lola level of obsession, but instead of his blood running fast for Marlene Dietrich, it's running fast for a missile doily.

He has made the Europeans angry and alarmed. He has made Vladimir Putin and Jiang Zemin much closer, and Russia is once more playing the China card. He has driven Russia and Germany closer, a pairing that caused, as his father would say, "a splash" of trouble in the past. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are furious that W. wants to downsize the services and use that money for his missile shield. Colin Powell, who is in no rush to throw weapons into space, has been sidelined in favor of Rummy and Condi and others who feed W.'s ecstatic fantasy.

Because W. has restructured the entire international security system — reviving scary alliances and threats that had faded — we may end up needing a larger military, not a smaller one.

The last time a president became infatuated with Star Wars, the obsession was easier to understand. Ronald Reagan was by temperament a utopian. He believed that the unattainable was attainable. He confused real life with the movies.

But W. — whence his magnificent obsession?

I can only speculate that it's filial, stemming from his fear of repeating his father's fatal mistake of alienating the right wing.

As much as it is reassuring to see the usually disengaged president become so deeply engaged in an issue, the world might be a safer place if W. stuck with his other obsession: demanding that the White House mess offer up three kinds of jelly with its pb&j's.




TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Well Maureen, at least he's not obsesssed with some movie star.
1 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Oh brother.....
2 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by pubmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pubmom
I think Maureen has truly lost it.
3 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This woman is such a pathetic nit wit. Maybe she'd prefer a Chinese missile stuck up her a$$ and detonated.
4 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by garyhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Has anyone ever read a Maoreen Dowd column and come away feeling better informed about anything?

I didn't think so.

5 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by Octar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
It would appear that is the case.
6 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by pubmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Dowd is a socialist liberal piece of garbage. And she needs to realize that we don't care what the Europeans think of us, we are no longer going to suck up to nation's who have weapon's of mass destruction aimed at us.
7 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Hey, I want my missile shield too! Am I obsessed? Absolutely. I don't want to get hit with any nuclear missiles if there can be a way to stop them.
8 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garyhope
This woman is such a pathetic nit wit. Maybe she'd prefer a Chinese missile stuck up her a$$ and detonated.

To the contrary, I have a friend from college who dated Ms. Dowd briefly in the 80s and said she was a frigid, boring priss, and awful in bed. Her only "obsession" was herself and he quickly tired of her.

9 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by montag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Consider the hurricane of global emotions that W. has whipped up to construct The Defense That Doesn't Work against The Threat That Doesn't Exist.

Talk about head being in the sand. If our own country has environmentalists who want to rid the land of certain human beings, why should we trust our enemies?

10 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this thing!

I used to sort of like Dowd for at least being witty, but she's even lost that. I can't imagine ANYONE of ANY political persuation reading this and thinking, "Yeah! That's exactly what I wanted to say!"

Rich Lowry is right. Ms. Dowd needs to be put out of her misery (professionaly). I'm worried about her.

11 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by sarcastro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
when the writer is this far to the left,always slamming the "right wing" and anything religious or moral.... I always imagine abortion on demand and sodomy . Now...which is an uglier picture...what President Bush stands for or what this writer stands for ?
12 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by cactusSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag
And if W. squanders $60 billion that could have been spent on education on technology that doesn't work — because our sophisticated antimissile interceptors can't stop primitive, wobbly missiles from rogue nations

I would LOVE to superimpose moronic punditry like this with the drivel from Democrats (Proxmire) in the 60's complaining about the "waste" of money spent on the Space Program. You know, that wasteful spending that resulted in development of dozens of new technologies; from "Tang" to Integrated Circuits. Makes me want to invent a new word like "Libbites" or "Ludderals". "Morons" will work for now.

13 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by L,TOWM (Liberals, The Other White Meat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Quote of the Day by kansas_flatlander
14 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by RJayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJayneJ
BUMP!
15 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by pubmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Wait, I thought he was obsessed with tax cuts for the wealthy, turning Alaska into a toxic waste dump, returning us to the days of Dred Scott, putting all of our kids in mandatory religious indoctrination camps, and arming violent child molesting felons.

I really wish Maureen's first name was Jane instead. Dan Ackroyd's old "Point/Counter-Point" retort was tailor made to be used for her.

16 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by Hugh Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: kattracks
it must be hard to come up with a newspaper column on a regular basis when you're so out of touch.
18 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by karth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks, tet68
Dreadful.

"I've read lots of brand-name books. They all remind me of Bush, who is in the grip of an obsession."

19 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
It is hard to fathom most obsessions from the outside.

Maureen you stupid JERK, that's your whole career in a nutshell! You sit alone in L.A. with a remote control, apparently thinking you get a better insight on the world from Hollywood scripts than real life. You're a watcher, not a doer. You wouldn't know "obsession" or any other real emotion if it bit you on your lonely ass.

20 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by Jhensy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag
To the contrary, I have a friend from college who dated Ms. Dowd briefly in the 80s and said she was a frigid, boring priss, and awful in bed. Her only "obsession" was herself and he quickly tired of her.

That explains why Michael Douglas dropped her. What it doesn't explain is why he took up with her in the first place. She's one of those people who believes that being pre-menstrual (constantly) is an adequate substitute for talent.

PS - my ex-girlfriend used to work in the same office as Molly Ivins. She reported to me that Ms. Ivins never bathed - or at least that is what it seemed like. I'm sure many suspected as much anyway.

Regards, Ivan

FREE BRITANNIA
21 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Why Maureen, does any newspaper put this garbage in print? I'll never know.
22 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by b4its2late
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The White House has signaled China that it's O.K. to build up its nuclear arsenal if it makes China feel better about W.'s Junior Star Wars. And if this leads to China's improving its nuclear warheads and to a renewal of nuclear testing, well, the obsession can justify that. And if this leads to India's and Pakistan's accelerating an arms race, well, the obsession can justify that, too.

I don't think China is asking our permission to build up its nuclear arsenal. I think China is just looking for the opportunity. Unfortunately (for them), we are no longer giving them nuclear secrets as a matter of unofficial policy. As for India and Pakistan, I think that is a self-motivating thing. If those two nations are bent on mutual destruction, a missle defense would be a fine thing for us to have, wouldn't it?

23 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by gridlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
According to Might Mo's logic there are no aggressive countries in the world other than the U.S and her allies. But we'll make them aggressive if we try to arm ourselves with the latest technology. That's like saying that if a kid takes boxing lessons, some other kid down the block will be obligated to fight him. The truth is that bullies WILL attack you if they know you cannot defend yourself. And there were probably a good many "experts" who thought that Japan would never attack us before Pearl Harbor. The war and the list of dead in the Pacific would have been a lot shorter if we hadn't have wasted two years preparing.
24 posted on 12/31/1969 4:00:00 PM PST by driftless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson