The Xanax Cowboy (Bush hating Maureen Dowd alert)

The New York Times ^ | 03/09/03 | Maureen Dowd

[Pokey78]

WASHINGTON — You might sum up the president's call to war Thursday night as "Message: I scare."

As he rolls up to America's first pre-emptive invasion, bouncing from motive to motive, Mr. Bush is trying to sound rational, not rash. Determined not to be petulant, he seemed tranquilized.

But the Xanax cowboy made it clear that Saddam is going to pay for 9/11. Even if the fiendish Iraqi dictator was not involved with Al Qaeda, he has supported "Al Qaeda-type organizations," as the president fudged, or "Al Qaeda types" or "a terrorist network like Al Qaeda."

We are scared of the world now, and the world is scared of us. (It's really scary to think we are even scaring Russia and China.)

Bush officials believe that making the world more scared of us is the best way to make us safer and less scared. So they want a spectacular show of American invincibility to make the wicked and the wayward think twice before crossing us.

Of course, our plan to sack Saddam has not cowed the North Koreans and Iranians, who are scrambling to get nukes to cow us.

It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of vicious slimeballs, we're about to bomb one that didn't attack us on 9/11 (like Osama); that isn't intercepting our planes (like North Korea); that isn't financing Al Qaeda (like Saudi Arabia); that isn't home to Osama and his lieutenants (like Pakistan); that isn't a host body for terrorists (like Iran, Lebanon and Syria).

I think the president is genuinely obsessed with protecting Americans and believes that smoking Saddam will reduce the chances of Islamic terrorists' snatching catastrophic weapons. That is why no cost — shattering the U.N., NATO, the European alliance, Tony Blair's career and the U.S. budget — is too high.

Even straining for serenity, Mr. Bush sounded rattled at moments: "My job is to protect America, and that is exactly what I'm going to do. . . . I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; that's what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath, and that's exactly what I am going to do."

But citing 9/11 eight times in his news conference was exploitative, given that the administration concedes there is no evidence tying Iraq to the 9/11 plot. By stressing that totem, Mr. Bush tried to alchemize American anger at Al Qaeda into support for smashing Saddam.

William Greider writes in The Nation, "As a bogus rallying cry, `Remember 9/11' ranks with `Remember the Maine' of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964. . . ." A culture more besotted with inane "reality" TV than scary reality is easily misled. Mr. Greider pointed out that in a Times/CBS News survey, 42 percent believe Saddam was personally responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and in an ABC News poll, 55 percent believe he gives direct support to Al Qaeda.

The case for war has been incoherent due to overlapping reasons conservatives want to get Saddam.

The president wants to avenge his father, and please his base by changing the historical ellipsis on the Persian Gulf war to a period. Donald Rumsfeld wants to exorcise the post-Vietnam focus on American imperfections and limitations. Dick Cheney wants to establish America's primacy as the sole superpower. Richard Perle wants to liberate Iraq and remove a mortal threat to Israel. After Desert Storm, Paul Wolfowitz posited that containment is a relic, and that America must aggressively pre-empt nuclear threats.

And in 1997, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Fox News, and other conservatives, published a "statement of principles," signed by Jeb Bush and future Bush officials — Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams. Rejecting 41's realpolitik and shaping what would become 43's pre-emption strategy, they exhorted a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity," with America extending its domain by challenging "regimes hostile to our interests and values."

Saddam would be the squealing guinea pig proving America could impose its will on the world.

With W., conservatives got a Bush who wanted to be Reagan. With 9/11, they found a new tragedy to breathe life into their old dreams.

[Pokey78]

2003 Oscar nominations: Best Supporting Actress

Kathy Bates: "About Schmidt"
Julianne Moore:"The Hours"
Queen Latifah: "Chicago"
Meryl Streep: "Adaptation"
Catherine Zeta-Jones: "Chicago."

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!

[MEG33]

I have sworn off Dowd since Monicagate.

[Arkie2]

No doubt Dowd will claim we planted the evidence when we uncover Saddam's WMD after the war is over ( about thirty minutes after it begins ). Her opinions are worse than useless and I can't imagine why she even gets a hearing on this board.

[jwfiv]

Dowd is easy to diagnose...she's insane, and thinks the earth is flat, xlinton truthful and herself desirable.

Insane.

[jammer]

Actually, I thought she made some good points. The continued 9/11 nexus that was implied just gave Bush's critics ammo. [Fair notice: I support our Iraq war now that, I suppose, it has started, and I support America. I have argued long and strong against the Iraq invasion however. Since it's inevitable--no more].

Bush and his Administration's talents are desperately needed at this time. That was the reason the night after the press conference I woke up wondering if the poor quality (IMO) of that speech wasn't the beginning of the implosion of his Presidency. I hope it's not; I will be called Chicken Little (and won't respond with the obvious, just as mindless rejoinder); and hope that the action is swift, decisive, and impels the Administration to further power in its ability to address domestic and foreign issues.

[Palladin]

Maureen Dowd is as lrrelevant as Liz Smith. An old hag blowhard.

[Theresawithanh]

Unfortunately, any "good points" which MoDo may make (I didn't see any!) are overshadowed by her jabs against anything W says, does or will ever say or do.

[CyberAnt]

"he seemed tranquilized"

This is the second such comment I have seen regarding Bush's laid-back demeanor during the speech.

When you rest in GOD, HE gives you "a peace which passes all understanding".

I guess that would explain it!

[tet68]

The president wants to avenge his father, and please his base by changing the historical ellipsis on the Persian Gulf war to a period. Donald Rumsfeld wants to exorcise the post-Vietnam focus on American imperfections and limitations. Dick Cheney wants to establish America's primacy as the sole superpower. Richard Perle wants to liberate Iraq and remove a mortal threat to Israel. After Desert Storm, Paul Wolfowitz posited that containment is a relic, and that America must aggressively pre-empt nuclear threats.

And what does little Mo want?
Michael Douglas, new shoes, a bigger SUV, and a smaller waist.

Neither of which she is likely to get.

Read'em and weep Mo.

[Howlin]

ROFLMAO. Your post is MUCH funnier than HER column!

[Howlin]

As he rolls up to America's first pre-emptive invasion

She ignores Bosnia, but that, of course, was her hero.

[Howlin]

With 9/11, they found a new tragedy to breathe life into their old dreams.

Despicable bitch.

[Search4Truth]

"We are scared of the world now, and the world is scared of us. (It's really scary to think we are even scaring Russia and China.)"

Poor Maureen, scared and all alone. LOL

[Chi-townChief]

I actually think that the President sounded more exasperated than anything, getting most of the same asinine questions over again as if these reporter have been asleep the last couple of years. As for Dowd, she probably wouldn't recognize leadership if it slapped her in the mouth.

[section9]

Bush was subdued. He should have been. The weight of an entire army's success is on his shoulders. Yet, like Grant or Eisenhower before him, he knows he must eventually give such an order.

What people like Dowd, and I regret to say, Thomas Friedman, don't understand is that if left alone Saddam will develop those things that Bush and Co. say he will develop. He will, in addition, add to his biowar and chemical arsenal. He must, of course, because it is in the nature of such men so to do. Like Stalin or Hitler before him, Saddam is a slave to power and the pursuit of power.

They don't just do this for oil, or other more mundane concerns. The Bush people are really convinced that Saddam will use Al Qaeda or some other outfit as a cutout to use WMD on the American homeland.

It is a reasonable belief, given Saddam's past. Bush does what he does because he chooses not to take that chance that Saddam will stay his own hand.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[MEG33]

DITTO!

[MadIvan]

In other news, unlike Maureen Dowd, Catherine Zeta Jones is heavily pregnant with Michael Douglas' baby.

Regards, Ivan

[daviddennis]

What on earth is the connection between Doud and Catherine Zeta-Jones? What are the political views, if any, of Ms Zeta-Jones? I will admit she's very ornamental, but I don't see the linkage here.

What strikes me about the left, including the 200-page(*) anti-war screed in The Nation a week or two back, is that they're not arguing the same facts we are.

Us: The UN said Iraq must disarm. Iraq hasn't disarmed. Therefore, we must attack to preserve the integrity of the UN. Saddam is a really bad person who tortures and gasses his own people.

Them: There are five billion countries in the Middle East, and none of them much like what we're doing(**). We said the same things in 1710 when we last tried something like this, and didn't deliver on them. Cuba, North Korea and other places have horrible regimes; why pick on poor hapless Iraq?

I would love to see a leftist response to the right-wing arguments. I have yet to find one; they simply divert conversation away from thoes issues. This is a shame.

How to solve the problem of Iraqi resistance? They don't tell us. They tell us inspections are working, but it's obvious even to Hans Blix that they will only work as long as we have an army of 200,000 massing on the border. When the army leaves, Iraq will return to its old ways.

So lefties, if we don't fight, what do we do?

D

(*) Okay, it wasn't 200 pages, but it was so boring that it felt about that long.

(**) Since when did countries in the Middle East like us? Other than Kuwait, which we saved from a horrible fate under Saddam, they all hate us. Fine. If we invade Iraq and succeed in establishing a decent government, we'll have another country that loves us. Seems to me that's worth trying, no?

[dighton]

[MadIvan]

Catherine Zeta-Jones as "Velma Kelly" in "Chicago"

Regards, Ivan