There is something about a war that provides a real clarity and fresh perspective- bullets have a tendency to do that. That is why Maureen Dowd seems dumber and even more irrelevant than ever:
The president and his war council did not expect so much heavy guerrilla resistance in Iraq. And they really did not expect so much heavy guerrilla resistance at home.
??? The NY Times has been waging a guerrilla war against this administration since the election. OF course they expected it- they just didn’t think that anyone would really pay attention to the prognostication of Howell Raines and Gail Collins and a few retired Generals with political agendas.
So it should not be a surprise that the troubled opening phase of the war has exacerbated territorial and ideological fissures in the administration and the Republican Party.
Anyone else tickled that the day Dowd discusses the ‘troubled opening phase’, we smashed through the Republican Guard, destroying them, and we are now on the outskirts of Baghdad?
Is there really any point reading the NY Times op-ed page anymore?
Terry
No reason to continue at all. In fact, after three decades plus of reading it, I stopped early this year.
With respect to Dowd, I think her day has clearly entered the sunset phase, as evidenced by the growing number of lefties criticizing her for her hollow, low content and downright silly columns.
MommaBear
MB has long wondered why you keep torturing yourself wading through the daily merde?!
Brian
No.
Mike the Analyst
I think its ironic that Dowd points out “exacerbated territorial and ideological fissures” in the GOP, when its the Democratic Party that is coming apart at the seams. You have
(1) the Pro War Democrats who support Bush because they know Iraq is a threat
(2) Pro War Dems who “support the troops” but hate the fact that its a GOP President persecuring the war
(3) Reluctant hawks and Anti War Dems who wanted the UN to work, but now that bombs are dropping, want the US to do well
(4) Anti War Dems who despise Bush and are worried that the war become a miserable failure, but are happy if it doesn’t.
(5) Anti War Dems who want the war to be a total failure, who thinks our troops purposefully fire on innocent civilians, and want Bush to be totally discredited, regardless of the cost to the US since it’ll be “his fault”
These camps are sniping at each other too, and if (4) and (5) get together, might get Howard Dean nominated in 2004, to the chagrin of (1, 2 & 3).
Emily
Oh, come on. There’s great comedic value in the NYT op-eds, even if it’s unintended.
Tiger Lily
I dunno Cole, I’m left of center and I rarely if ever find Dowd all that interesting. In this case her article is ho-hum and untimely. There was a two or three day window to assault the oversights of the civilian comman element–now that mass and armor have arrived, our troops will quickly pull the military planning back into shape. I’m still cringing at the thought of block to block UW in Baghdad proper, but that was bound to happen no matter what kind of plan they put together.
Aaron's Rantblog
Rush Limbaugh trashed Dowd as reported on Drudge a while back.
It’s a riot and well worth reading and forwarding.
Dowd was dumped by Michael Douglass for Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Aaron's Rantblog
papillonsartpalace.com/limbauDgh.htm is the link.