Fisking the Crazy Columnist

It may have been done on other blogs, and it may be a total waste of time, but I don't care. I'm going to fisk Maureen Dowd's latest column. Let's get started:

Riding the Crazy Train, By MAUREEN DOWD

Whoa! That was quite the steroid-infused performance.

He only mentioned steroids once, actually.

Who's the guy's political consultant — Russell Crowe?

That's an interesting thought. "My fellow Americans...at my signal, unleash hell!"

He was so in-your-face, smirking his trademark smirk, it was disturbing to think of him in charge of the military. It's a good thing he stopped drinking and started talking about God.

"In-your-face?" Uh, he was giving a speech, Mauron. What did you want him to be like?

You wonder how many votes he scared off with that testosterone festival...

I love how intimidated she is by all this. That explains why liberals are so afraid of war and guns. Apparently, anything more forceful than a castrated three-legged poodle is a "testosterone festival." I think he should've been more intimidating. He only raised his voice a couple times, and he just sounded like he was scolding people instead of telling them what he thinks.

...the taunting message...

I must've missed that part. I wonder, is taunting::refuting as censorship::criticism?

...the self-righteous geographic litany of support? The Philippines. Thailand. Italy. Spain. Poland. Denmark. Bulgaria. Ukraine. Romania. The Netherlands. Norway. El Salvador.

How exactly is it self-righteous to state that other countries are with us, anyway? I can only think of one reason. In the words of Jack Nicholson, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

Can you believe President Bush is still pushing the cockamamie claim that we went to war in Iraq with a real coalition rather than a gaggle of poodles and lackeys?

Apparently, you can't believe that they would actually support the war. In Dowdland, everybody hates the evil testosterone festival known as the Republican Party. Here's a question: Would it still be a "gaggle of lackeys" if France and Germany were with us? Of course not, because their support would automatically justify the war, even though it wouldn't change any of the reasons we went or any of the effects it had.

His State of the Union address took his swaggering sheriff routine to new heights. "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country," he vowed.

"Swaggering sheriff." Brilliant. So now the president of the most powerful country in the history of civilization can't even assert the fact that he's allowed to make decisions on his own. You know, I think every country that wants to go to war should ask US for permission first. After all, we could easily wipe them out, couldn't we? And the fact that we could wipe them out is the reason we don't need their permission.

Translation: Hey, we don't need no stinking piece of paper to bring it on in other countries. If it feels good, we'll do it, and we'll decide later why we did it. You lookin' at me?

Translation translation: "Hey, I don't need no stinkin' logic to justify my hatred of Bush! If it sounds good, I'll write it, and I'll decide later why people don't trust me!"

Sure, Howard Dean was also over the top when he uttered the squeal heard round the world. With one guttural primary primal scream, he went from Internet deity to World Wide Wacko and remix victim, with the scream mixed in on Web sites to punctuate Ozzy Osbourne's "Crazy Train."

Anyone know where I can find a recording of this? I can just imagine it: "I'm going off the campaign trail on a crazy train!!!"

Yes, Howard, you know you're in trouble when Chris Matthews says you make him look like Jim Lehrer; when David Letterman compares you to a hockey dad; when The New York Post suggests you have a "God complex." (As Alec Baldwin's twisted doctor said in "Malice": "You ask me if I have a God complex? Let me tell you something. I am God.")

The truth hurts, doesn't it Howie? I actually agree with this part of the column, but I'm sure Dowd will find a way to turn "the squeal" into some sort of righteous anger.

Once Michael Dukakis got in trouble when he failed to get angry when asked how he would react if his wife were raped and murdered.

But Dr. Dean's snarly, teeth-baring Iowa finale was so Ross-Perot-scare-off-the-women-and-horses crazy that some Democrats on Capitol Hill, already anxious about the tightly wound doctor, confessed they could not imagine that jabbing finger anywhere near The Button.

But Bush's "trademark smirk" still scares you even more, doesn't it?

But Republicans were thrilled when Mr. Bush strutted up onstage on Tuesday night to basically tell the country that if you don't vote for him in November, you're giving up in the war on terrorism.

Let's all play every liberal idiot's favorite game: "Put Words in the President's Mouth!!!" It's fun for the whole Party as you try to rationalize the undeniable fact that your entire philosophy is wrong while belittling the leader of the free world for taking that oh-so-politically incorrect action of having an opinion!

"We've not come all this way — through tragedy, and trial and war — only to falter and leave our work unfinished," he asserted, as if all those Democrats racing from Iowa to New Hampshire in the middle of the night were crying out to the voters: "Falter! Falter!"

I wonder if any of those Democrats were the ones holding protest signs that said "We support our troops when they shoot their officers."

Dr. Dean's poll numbers are diving because people freezing in New Hampshire think he's too hot.

Well, when a white guy suddenly has a red face, people tend to make that connection.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are better at looking cool. But their dissing the U.N. — that palace of permission slips...

This might be considered witty if it weren't true. The U.N. basically is a "palace of permission slips." Also, you may recall that the heroic U.N. forces usually leave the combat zone as soon as someone gets a hangnail.

...— and their doctrine of pre-emption are just as hot...

You know what would be hot without pre-emption? U.S. cities. Know why they'd be hot? Because there would be F**KING NUKES FALLING ON 'EM!!!!!!!!!!!!

...and so was Mr. Bush's cocky implicit defense of the idea that if you whack one Middle East dictator, the rest will fall in line.

So Kadaffi (that's how I'm spelling his name. I don't care if it's right.) doesn't count as a Middle East dictator, just as the countries that contributed to the war don't count as allies? Tell me, does the wind tunnel between your ears make it hard to hear soft noises?

"Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not," he said. "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America."

Maybe he's right...

"I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid."

Yeah, maybe he's right. Just maybe...

...but what about Bill Clinton's line that unless we want to occupy every country in the world, maybe our policy should also concentrate on making friends instead of targets?

Bill Clinton also said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." I don't think you should cite him as the most credible source. Oh, wait, I forgot that "credible" means "anything liberals agree with."

The president and vice president like to present a calm, experienced demeanor, but their foreign policy is right out of the let's-out-crazy-the-bad-guys style of Mel Gibson's cop in "Lethal Weapon" movies.

Let's see here...what's crazier...taking out an evil dictator who had terrorist connections and murdered his own people, or leaving him alone because he hasn't attacked us yet? Operative word being "yet," of course.

For proof of how intemperate their policy has been, compare this year's State of the Union with last year's. Last year it was all about Iraq's frightening weapons. This year the only reference was to "dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations."

And it was all the Bush administration's fault, right? All of a sudden, none of these people are credible, despite the fact that your hero, Bill Clinton, is among them?

Would Americans have supported a war to go get "program activities?" What is a program activity? Where is the White House speechwriters' ombudsman?

Basically, a "program activity" is a system of actions taken to develop something, in this case, WMD. So, this means that we still have evidence that Hussein wanted weapons, and since we've already found some old weapons that the U.N. inspectors missed (even though they weren't WMD), there's a pretty good chance he could be hiding something else.

Here's a final question: Should we have allowed Iraq to continue developing weapons, and maybe even use them, just so we would have "justification" for the war, or would the left still find an excuse to protest?

I think we all know the answer to that one.  

Posted by CD on January 23, 2004 07:13 PM
Category: