Because They Could (Dowd alert)

The New York Times ^ | 06/20/04 | Maureen Dowd

[Pokey78]

WASHINGTON

In his "60 Minutes" interview, Bill Clinton calls his intern idyll "a terrible moral error," illuminating "the darkest part of his inner life." Not to mention the hardest part on his back since, astonishingly, he says he spent months sleeping on the couch. (Was the Lincoln bedroom always occupied by donors?)

"I did something for the worst possible reason," he told Dan Rather about his march of folly with Monica. "Just because I could. I think that's just about the most morally indefensible reason anybody could have for doing anything."

Just because he could. What a world of meaning is packed into that simple phrase. His "could" reflects a selfish "Who's gonna stop me?" power move, stemming from a droit du seigneur attitude, as opposed to "should," signifying obligation, or "must," indicating compulsion.

The former president engaged in a relationship of choice, not necessity.

As a friend of mine explains: "It's a guy thing. We're not likely to get up off the couch if we don't have to. We might cheat with a chick who just happens to be there if we feel we could get away with it."

In his memoirs, Mr. Clinton complains about Republican droit du seigneur, writing that impeachment was driven neither by "morality" nor "the rule of law" but, as Newt Gingrich said: "Because we can."

The Clinton alpha instinct on Monica, fueled by a heady cocktail of testosterone and opportunism, was the same one that led W. into his march of folly with Iraq. After 9/11, the president, vice president and secretary of defense wanted to go to the Middle East and knock the stuffing out of somebody bad — because it would feel good, because it would put our enemies on notice, and because it would make the president look strong.

The folks at 1600 Pennsylvania didn't have Osama's address. They couldn't go after Iran or North Korea because those countries could defend themselves and retaliate, maybe with nukes. They couldn't invade Pakistan or Saudi Arabia because they're our "allies." But the Bush team knew that it wouldn't be hard to get rid of the second-rate dictator and romance novelist who posed no real threat.

They went after Saddam just because they could. Last week, the 9/11 commission debunked the White House attempt to suggest an axis of evil between Saddam and Osama.

Like Mr. Clinton, the president engaged in an enterprise of choice, not necessity. John Kerry's biggest applause line now is: "The United States should never go to war because we want to. We should only go to war because we have to."

Huffing and puffing Dick Cheney comes across as barking mad when he keeps lassoing Saddam and Al Qaeda. Tricky Dick may actually believe in his concocted connection, but he must also realize that the administration can't lose the terrorist-linkage argument for war, having already lost the W.M.D. argument.

If our leaders didn't lead us there, why did 69 percent of Americans, in a Washington Post poll last September, believe that Saddam was involved in the attacks? And a University of Maryland study last October showed that 80 percent of those who mostly watched Fox believed at least one of three misconceptions: that W.M.D. had been found; that Al Qaeda and Iraq were tied; or that the world had approved of U.S. intervention in Iraq.

Osama, suffering from what one C.I.A. shrink termed "a narcissistic explosion," also struck America because he could. It was a jihad of choice, not necessity.

Thursday's 9/11 commission report cited the dissent among Al Qaeda leaders who were worried about Pakistan's reaction or U.S. retaliation. Osama overruled the doubters, arguing that it would reap a bonanza in Al Qaeda fund-raising and recruiting.

So far, partly because of the Bush crowd's solipsistic fixation on Saddam, Osama has gotten away with his heinous power play — and reaped a bonanza in recruiting.

Mr. Clinton, though he was vilified by the right, tittered at by the world and dolled up in pink-and-black suede shoes as a toddler by his mom, is selling a zillion books.

As Republicans keep saying, with fingers crossed, W. has stayed even with John Kerry despite the litany on Iraq, terrorism and domestic affairs that has turned out quite differently than promised.

But one thing you can say for Bill Clinton: His "Who's gonna stop me?" Oval Office power surge produced a much lower body count.   

E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com

[Pokey78]

---

From Oxblog:

IMMUTABLE LAWS OF DOWD

1. Ashcroft never deserves credit.

2. Offering constructive solutions to problems, instead of whining endlessly about them, is a sign of weakness.

3. The People Magazine principle: all political phenomena can be explained with reference solely to caricatures of the personalities involved ("Dubya" is stupid; "Poppy" is an aristocrat; Cheney is macho-man; etc.). Any reference to the common good or even to old-fashioned politicking is, like, so passe.

4. It is much better to be cute than coherent.

5. Maureen knows best. Her long years as a columnist (doing basically what your great-aunt Tillie does in the nursing home bull sessions, but getting paid for it) have given her deep insight into foreign relations, politics, welfare, the Constitution, and all other topics. To disagree with Maureen in any way is not only a sign of being wrong, it's a hallmark of pure evil...or at least membership in the NRA, which is pretty much the same thing.

6. It is usually possible and always desirable to name-drop and name-call in the same sentence.

7. The particulars of my consumer-driven, shamefully self-involved life reveal universal truths.

---

Explanation of the Dowd/Douglas connection: by Miss Marple- 2/11/03

Ms. Dowd was escorted around New York and DC for many months by one Michael Douglas of Hollywood fame and fortune. She got to go to all the best parties, was photographed for the tabloids, and was picking out a gown to wear at the Oscars. Of course, Michael had become interested in her during Clinton's impeachment, when she had written some very anti-Clinton columns. After a few weeks of the Michael treatment, she began to write anti-Starr, ant-Newt columns, ignoring Clinton.

Then Clinton was acquitted by the Senate. In an amazing coincidence, Michael Douglas dropped Ms. Dowd like a hot potato, and instead picked up a hot tomato, Catherin Zeta-Jones, who subsequently bore him a son and they were married.

Ms. Dowd cannot get over her tragic loss. Her columns are increasingly anti-Bush, in the hope of impressing her lost love, Michael.

In addition, we think she has a secret crush on the President and is trying to get him to pay attention to her. Ha!

---

Moron Dowd enjoys a drink with her DemonRat Party pals
(Courtesy Free ThinkerNY)

[tet68]

Poor Maureen, those kneepads have grown on her like transplants. Here I though maybe, just maybe but NOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Try this,
As a friend of mine explains: "It's a guy thing. We're not likely to get up off the couch if we don't have to. We might cheat with a chick who just happens to be there if we feel we could get away with it."

Who was she talking to? Bill Clinton?

[atomicpossum]

As I find the world I grew up in slipping farther and farther into the past and see that cherished facts of life no longer apply, as I see the things I've counted on in my younger days changing and becoming something other than what I always thought them to be, I treasure Maureen Dowd. In a world of change and evolution, she, unchangingly, once and always, sucks.

[South40]

Dowd's got brain damage, understandably.

[tet68]

And THEN, she goes on to tie GW's foreign policy to X42's
pecadillos as coming from the same hubris and having done that she completely dismisses Clinton's actions.

GaaaaaaaaaK!

[tet68]

Ah, a picture from the upcoming events in Boston no doubt.

[Billthedrill]

Dowd's off her meds again. Even in the farthest stretches of hyperbole, it is simply impossible to suggest that Clinton got a blowjob and Bush invaded Iraq for the same reason, at least without running into a chorus of derisive laughter.

My question isn't really directed toward this ridiculous simile, it's a little more to the point - why was Dowd in the very forefront of Clinton apologists?

[Paul Atreides]

I would call her that C-word, that is supposedly a term of endearment, but I value my membership.

[Maria S]

"But one thing you can say for Bill Clinton: His "Who's gonna stop me?" Oval Office power surge produced a much lower body count."


Not exactly, Maureen. I recommend you read "Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures". Between Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, and Bosnia, no telling how many died...and Bill Clinton should have been held responsible for ignoring a lot of what was going on.

[nothingnew]

Fine writing ap. It was bringing a tear to my eye, until, alas, it was about Mo the nutball.

FMCDH(BITS)

[Paul Atreides]

They know that Bubba's only legacy is a blowjob and leaving our nation wide open for 9-11. They have to save his precious "legacy" at all costs.

[tet68]

I prefer the comingling of that word and another, both of which fit mzz dowd. SLUNT! And I say that with the most
emotional affectation possible.

[workerbee]

The Clinton alpha instinct on Monica, fueled by a heady cocktail of testosterone and opportunism, was the same one that led W. into his march of folly with Iraq. After 9/11, the president, vice president and secretary of defense wanted to go to the Middle East and knock the stuffing out of somebody bad — because it would feel good, because it would put our enemies on notice, and because it would make the president look strong.

This is obscene. Really -- beyond the pale, even for Dowd. This hosebag is actually trying to compare Bubba's adolescent inability to keep it in his pants, to steps taken for national security post-9/11? My God. She must get her koolaid thru an IV.

[Vision Thing]

Dowd writes nothing but crap. Why? Because she can.

[Paul Atreides]

Dowd's off her meds again.

And, you can bet the liquor cabinet is empty.

Worthless slut.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

As BILL CLINTON himself says in his book,
he did it because "he could" =


1) Support our Terrorist Enemy HO CHI MINH against US during the Vietnam War

2) Support the then Communist Soviet Union's heavy Military and Monetary Aid to the Communist North Vietnam that we were fighing against in South Vietnam

4) Insure that our Enemy Communist China gets our
protecting ICBM Missile, Space Satellite and Nuclear Warhead Technology to use against us in the future, sooner rather than later

5) Bomb Civilians in Kosovo to divert our attention away from his own Impeachment

6) Treat Monica Lewinsky as he does the rest of us and then brand her as a Stalker to divert attention away from his own worst misbehaviors against US.


The Enemy is now Within...
and always has been.

.

[Carolinamom]

Only NYT would pay for this sludge. Today, Susan Estridge blamed President Bush for the Paul Johnson's beheading...and she grinned when she said it. There is no depth to which these superlibs will not sink. Despicable.

[streetpreacher]

I hate that picture everytime it's posted! How could someone get that close to a rat to hit it? I'd hide behind a corner and throw something at it! Yikes!

That's one tough (and probably cruel) lady in that pic.

[Dawgreg]

Ronnie, I think you nailed it.........Aloha! *~*