Seriously. Maureen Dowd is getting even more pathetic these days. In her latest column, she tries to compare Bush and Kerry with characters in "Pride and Prejudice," among other things.
Incidentally, "Pride and Prejudice" is the worst book I ever read in my life, so just thinking about it is making me extra snarky. We'll see if that affects the fisking:
Pride and Prejudice By MAUREEN DOWDHouse Republicans haven't suggested an embargo on olives and paella yet, but it's probably just pocos minutos away.
Does she think that by pretending to know Spanish, it will magically validate her claim that we place embargoes on food from countries we disagree with? I still can't believe anyone on either side took that "Freedom Fries" thing seriously.
Maureen, tu cabeza es vacía.
By the time these guys are through, it will be unpatriotic to consume any ethnic food but fish and chips and kielbasa, washed down with a fine Bulgarian wine.
And there's the "unpatriotic" thing again! So original...
Republicans like Dennis Hastert were ranting yesterday about the Spaniards.
Remember, in Dowdland, any time a Republican speaks for any reason other than to apologize, it's a rant.
"Here's a country who stood against terrorism and had a huge terrorist act within their country," Mr. Hastert said, "and they chose to change their government to, in a sense, appease terrorists."
What's untrue about that statement? The terrorists got what they wanted, didn't they?
The Republicans prefer to paint our old ally as craven...
The craven ones weren't our allies; The old government was.
...rather than accept the Spanish people's judgment — which most had held since before the war — that the Iraq takeover had nothing to do with the war on terror.
If terrorists don't care about Iraq, why are you linking it to the terror attack, MoDo?
The Spanish were also angry at José María Aznar because they felt he had misled them about the bombings, trying to throw guilt on ETA and away from Al Qaeda.
"¡Aznar mintió! ¡Gente murieron!"
The Republicans certainly don't want anyone here to think about throwing somebody out of office because he was misleading about Al Qaeda.
"Misleading" is not grounds for throwing people out of office, even if your accusations are true.
During a photo-op with Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands on Tuesday...
Is anything he does in public not a photo-op to you people?
Mr. Bush did his "Beavis and Butthead" snigger...
Such professionalism, Mauron...
...as a Dutch reporter noted that most of his countrymen want to withdraw Dutch troops from Iraq because they think the conflict "has little to do with the war against terrorism, and may actually encourage terrorism." (Uh-oh, looks like no tulips on the Capitol grounds this spring.)
Tulips? Wow. She's almost as paranoid as the DU freaks.
"I would ask them," the president replied, "to think about the Iraqi citizens who don't want people to withdraw because they want to be free."
WHAT? I thought they LOVED Saddam! He protected them from the eeeeevil Americimperialists who were coming to bomb them and convert their ashes into ooooooooooooooiiiiiil!
Now that he hasn't found any weapons, Mr. Bush says the war was worth it so Iraqis could experience democracy. But when our allies engage in democracy, some Republicans mock them as lily-livered.
Just because they engaged in democracy doesn't mean they made the right decision. After all, you're criticizing president Bush. Should we make you stop because America engaged in democracy?
Oh, right; Bush stole the election. Silly me.
The Republicans treat John Kerry as disdainfully as they do the European allies who have disappointed the White House, painting him as a French-looking dude who went to a Swiss boarding school...
He IS as French-looking dude who went to a Swiss boarding school. We're treating him like a flip-flopping, hypocritical, backstabbing loon. And that's just when we're being nice.
...as an effete Brahmin who would rather cut intelligence and military spending than face down terrorists.
I believe Kerry's voting record says more than any rebuttal I could put here.
The election is shaping up as a contest between Pride and Prejudice.
Watch this. She's about to portray Kerry in exactly the way she says Republicans portray him. So, is it good or bad to treat him this way? Let's see:
Mr. Kerry is Pride.He has a tendency toward striped-trouser smugness that led him to stupidly boast that he was more popular with leaders abroad than President Bush — playing into the Republican strategy to depict him as one of those "cheese-eating surrender monkeys."
That's another good one. Even when Kerry makes himself look dumb, it's the Republicans' fault.
Even when he puts on that barn jacket over his expensive suit to look less lockjaw — and says things like, "Who among us doesn't like Nascar?" — he can come across like Mr. Collins, Elizabeth Bennet's pretentious cousin in "Pride and Prejudice." Mr. Collins always prattles on about how lucky people would be to be rewarded by his patron, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, with "some portion of her notice" and to receive dollops of her "condescension."Speaking to Chicago union workers last week, Mr. Kerry happily informed them that on the ride over, his wife, Teresa, had said she could live in Chicago. What affability, as Mr. Collins would say, what condescension.
Like I said, she just portrayed him the way she says Republicans do. Also, I like how she goes for his personality and completely ignores...uh...POLITICAL stuff. Very informative.
Mr. Bush is Prejudice.
That bigoted Republicanazi!!!
Like Miss Bennet, who irrationally arranged the facts to fit her initial negative assessment of Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bush irrationally arranges the facts to fit his initial assessment that 9/11 justified blowing off the U.N. and some close allies to invade Iraq.
How exactly is it irrational to take action instead of doing the same thing that's failed for 12 years? Sounds like Bush was more rational than everyone else. By the way, those "close allies?" They were also "allies" of Iraq. Interesting, isn't it?
The president and vice president seem incapable of admitting any error...
When people "irrationally arrange the facts" to make it look like Bush and Cheney were personally responsible for the intelligence failures, it's hard for them to apologize. Why don't you just tell yourself they did? It seems to work for everything else.
...especially that their experienced foreign policy team did not see through Saddam's tricks.
Shouldn't the team apologize then?
As Hans Blix told a reporter, Saddam had put up a "Beware of Dog" sign, so he didn't bother with the dog. How can they recalibrate the game plan when they won't concede that they called the wrong game plan to start?
Recalibrate? We already frickin' took Saddam out. I think the "conservative" and "progressive" labels are on the wrong sides of the spectrum.
When he challenged Mr. Kerry to put up or shut up on his claim of support from foreign leaders, Mr. Bush said, "If you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you've got to back it up with facts."
Facts? Kerry's a Democrat! All he needs to do is say whatever's on his mind, and then blame the Republican Attack Machine™ when he gets called on it.
If you're going to make an accusation in the course of a presidency, you've got to back it up with facts, too.
Remember, fact≠evidence. Fact=anything that proves Republicans wrong.
Such wonderful logic. How do they do it?
Posted by CD on March 18, 2004 10:56 PM