Thursday, January 29, 2004
Maureen Dowd's Clever Tripe
Op-Ed Columnist: Dump Cheney Now!
The think that makes me both admire and hate her column are her attempts at cleverness. Sometimes they're great, like her article last year titled "Dances with Wolfowitz", a title that brought several laughs.
What kills me, though, is how she can say so little, and what she does say is mostly incomplete or incorrect (see a KTS writup of a major misquote), and veil it with her smooth-flowing writing. Throwing a few metaphors and literary references in there, and bam, the column appears to have substance.
But, it doesn't. It's clear she really likes demeaning the President. I mean, comparing his mental state to a brutal killer of thousands really seems like an accurate statement, doesn't it? (Yes, I know that people have died in the military endeavors that he has ordered. However, any person who likens that to the mass murder Saddam has ordered is loony.) But she continues, describing Iraqi Freedom as an effort to put a better ending to Gulf War I. No matter the end of oppression and the chance at democracy Iraq now has. It's better to make a reference to novels and seem witty.
It is true that our intelligence community, as well as England and Europe's, before the war believed that Saddam had WMD, if not nukes than at least chem and bio. It is also true that we haven't found any, so there is an increasing probability that he had small or no quantities of said weapons. However, one must concede the difficulties of penetrating a dictatorship and gaining accurate intelligence about weapons. She doesn't even discuss anythingi about the intelligence gathering process, or suggest what we should do besides fire those in charge. Even if that was done, she doesn't suggest who should be in their place, or what their policies should be beyond 'fix things'.
Yes, the CIA is not doing its job. Yes, we need people who can penetrate countries like Iraq to gain human intel (so, that would mean hiring arab-looking spies who speak arabic and know the culture, if not natives themselves. Take not, CIA, you haven't hired many yet).
However, Ms. Dowd, you must realize that while criticizing Bush in a mildly entertaining but misleading and derogatory way may sell some papers, it isn't going to change any minds, all it's going to do is split your readers to their partisan wing of choice. And, no one in the administration will listen to you if you choose such a rhetorical style for presenting your views.
Write a column that actually tries to inform and improve the state of the country. Make it seem like you care, because right now you just seem to be having fun at the mistakes of others and the suffering of a nation. You've got a high enough soap box to do better than this, and such a position demands that you do so. The old cliche is right: with power comes responsibility.
The think that makes me both admire and hate her column are her attempts at cleverness. Sometimes they're great, like her article last year titled "Dances with Wolfowitz", a title that brought several laughs.
What kills me, though, is how she can say so little, and what she does say is mostly incomplete or incorrect (see a KTS writup of a major misquote), and veil it with her smooth-flowing writing. Throwing a few metaphors and literary references in there, and bam, the column appears to have substance.
But, it doesn't. It's clear she really likes demeaning the President. I mean, comparing his mental state to a brutal killer of thousands really seems like an accurate statement, doesn't it? (Yes, I know that people have died in the military endeavors that he has ordered. However, any person who likens that to the mass murder Saddam has ordered is loony.) But she continues, describing Iraqi Freedom as an effort to put a better ending to Gulf War I. No matter the end of oppression and the chance at democracy Iraq now has. It's better to make a reference to novels and seem witty.
It is true that our intelligence community, as well as England and Europe's, before the war believed that Saddam had WMD, if not nukes than at least chem and bio. It is also true that we haven't found any, so there is an increasing probability that he had small or no quantities of said weapons. However, one must concede the difficulties of penetrating a dictatorship and gaining accurate intelligence about weapons. She doesn't even discuss anythingi about the intelligence gathering process, or suggest what we should do besides fire those in charge. Even if that was done, she doesn't suggest who should be in their place, or what their policies should be beyond 'fix things'.
Yes, the CIA is not doing its job. Yes, we need people who can penetrate countries like Iraq to gain human intel (so, that would mean hiring arab-looking spies who speak arabic and know the culture, if not natives themselves. Take not, CIA, you haven't hired many yet).
However, Ms. Dowd, you must realize that while criticizing Bush in a mildly entertaining but misleading and derogatory way may sell some papers, it isn't going to change any minds, all it's going to do is split your readers to their partisan wing of choice. And, no one in the administration will listen to you if you choose such a rhetorical style for presenting your views.
Write a column that actually tries to inform and improve the state of the country. Make it seem like you care, because right now you just seem to be having fun at the mistakes of others and the suffering of a nation. You've got a high enough soap box to do better than this, and such a position demands that you do so. The old cliche is right: with power comes responsibility.
Comments:
Post a Comment
