New York Times on the Web Forums
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a
nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a
"Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed
considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense
initiatives more successful? Can such an application of
science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable,
necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a new
Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published
(16204 previous messages)
- 03:36pm Nov 2, 2003 EST (#
16205 of 16228)
Sorry for the length, but this shows the lying Dowd for who
MaDo Distortions Department (Continued) (Belgravia
Another offensively inaccurate piece from MaDo today. Leave
aside the gratuitous insult about Sports Illustrated being the
on-board read on Air Force I rather than TNR.
Leave aside how Dowd depicts Bush in a harsher ethical
light than the Jayson Blairs, Stephen Glass' and Janet Cooke's
of the world.
That's all pretty predictable fare coming from Maureen
But check out this factually inaccurate (surprise!)
"Now we're in the postwar war, and President Bush is still
manipulating reality. He wants to obscure the intensity and
nature of the opposition, choosing to lump anyone who resists
the American occupation in the category of terrorist."
This bothered me for a couple reasons.
For one, as I'll detail below, it's flat out false.
For another, I myself had criticized Bush in the past for
having a tendency to describe too much of the resistance in
Iraq as terrorist in nature (via a piece I had up contra
But here's the point. Bush, for a good while now--including
back during his September speech to the United Nations--has
increasingly made reference, not only to terrorists opposing
the U.S. in Iraq, but also regime "holdouts."
Put differently, he's been more frank about the somewhat
variegated nature of the opposition in Iraq recently.
So my concerns at least, as someone who has followed the
issue pretty closely, have been allayed somewhat recently.
But then MaDo comes in and ignores all the evidence to the
contrary to facilitate her slanted, anti-Bush op-ed writing
I mean, take a look at what Bush has actually said over the
For instance, check out the reference to "Saddam holdouts"
in this speech.
And in a key national address, Bush said as follows:
"Some of the attackers are members of the old Saddam
regime, who fled the battlefield and now fight in the shadows.
Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists, who have come to
Iraq to pursue their war on America and other free nations. We
cannot be certain to what extent these groups work together.
We do know they have a common goal -- reclaiming Iraq for
tyranny." [emphasis added]
Put simply, Bush has been careful to say that resistance in
Iraq is stemming from both terrorists and Saddam
loyalists/holdouts (with very few exceptions, where he doesn't
make such a distinction, such as this one).
Most recently, Bush made the distinction just yesterday in
his weekly radio address (see graf 4).
Veteran journalists like Mike Isikoff, in an article
critical of Bush suggesting that Saddam is organizing some of
the attacks, writes:
"THE OFFICIAL BUSH administration position is that the
attacks on coalition forces inside Iraq are the work of
isolated gangs of Saddam loyalists and Baathist die-hards who,
in some instances, have teamed up with an assortment of
“foreign fighters,” Islamic radicals and even common criminals
for individual strikes on U.S. troops. But an alternative view
is gaining acceptance within the U.S. intelligence community
about the origins of the campaign. Scraps of evidence-most not
publicly acknowledged by the administration—suggest that
Saddam and some of his top Baath Party lieutenants began
detailed logistical planning and purchasing for possible
guerilla fighting in the months before the war, officials
say." [emphasis added]
Leave aside any role Saddam may have in the increasingly
sophisticated (and deadly) attacks.
The point here is that, if Mike Isikoff can see that the
"official Bush administration position" (re: the source of the
continuing attacks in Iraq) is that said attacks stem from a
mixture of Saddam holdouts, Baathist die-hards, criminals and
terrorists--why can't Dowd see it?
Perhaps, one might conclude, because she purposefully
- 03:38pm Nov 2, 2003 EST (#
16206 of 16228)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has
to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong
As a heavenly body - INSULATION - is Dowd revolving on the
near or far side of Mars (blue's favourite pit stop)
Now what did Dowd have to say about missiles ....
- 03:40pm Nov 2, 2003 EST (#
16207 of 16228)
Dowd's Lies, con't.:
Because acknowledging the Administration's more complex
description of the nature of the Iraqi resistance might not be
convenient vis-a-vis her thesis that Bush "lumps" all those
opposing the U.S. occupation in Iraq as terrorists?
So, just like that, she chooses to simply ignore all the
speeches and Administration statements to the contrary.
Listen, like Camille Paglia, I don't think the blogosphere
should simply be relegated to the preserve of "political or
media junkies preoccupied with pedestrian minutiae and a
sophomoric 'gotcha' mentality."
Yeah, like Paglia says, I agree that such monomaniacal
focus can get a bit "depressing and claustrophobic."
The problem is, however, Dowd's not writing in an obscure
regional paper but rather splashing her (factually incorrect)
musings in the opinion pages of the Sunday New York
Times--surely the most influential single page of commentary
in the entire spectrum of American print media.
Her misrepresentations therefore have a significant impact
on perceptions of the honesty of the President, the
credibility of the Administration's foreign policy worldview,
So I'll risk coming off as a sophomoric gotcha type--as I
think the stakes are well worth it. If the pattern of her
seemingly willfull carelessness continues to be exposed here
in the blogosphere, perhaps we might someday get results in
terms of better monitoring of MaDo over at W. 43rd St.
I wouldn't ever have held my breath for Howell Raines to
reel her in. But perhaps Bill Keller will take it more
The factually incorrect (and perhaps purposeful)
misrepresentations are just coming too often.
(21 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums