Monday, May 18, 2009


Dowd in Her Own Words

The elderly schoolgirl of the New York Times has had nothing but bad to say about the former vice president Dick Cheney lately; she has even had to use other writer's words to voice her contempt. I am only a few years younger than she is, so I can recall the zeitgeist of the late 60s and early 70s very, very well. Because of those memories, what really bugs me about the lefts' repeated use of the chickenhawk smear is that it implicitly rewrites history, like Winston Smith did. Here is what the Dowder wrote last week:

Cheney, who had five deferments himself to get out of going to Vietnam, would rather follow a blowhard entertainer who has had three divorces and a drug problem (who also avoided Vietnam) than a four-star general who spent his life serving his country.
Here is what the comely Maureen, sadly given lately to plagiarism, would have said in the 60s about Cheney and Limbaugh avoiding military service during the Viet Nam war--Right on, man!

Here is what she and her ilk would have said at the time had Cheney or Limbaugh volunteered for service in our armed forces during the Viet Nam War--What did you do that for, man? What are you, stupid?

So why is the logo-kleptomaniacal Dowd now mentioning that neither Cheney or Limbaugh served in the military? I mean other than because she suffers from the worst sort of rank hypocrisy.

Some questions answer themselves, do they not?
And why chide Rush for his failed marriages? It is better to have loved and lost... The slouching towards spinsterhood Dowd has never sealed the deal. No doubt her awesome talent scares off the type of man she is attracted to.

Her equation with torture, in her more recent article, of the enhanced interrogation techniques, including virtual drowning, is an important tell tale. Those who oppose anything that even approaches torture don't usually stop at that. They often repeat the counter intuitive notion that torture doesn't work. Their repetition of that non-fact is, on one level, proof of their doubt that our methods after 9/11 were even morally bad (they certainly were not criminal). If our techniques indeed were torture, why do they have to say, 'and it doesn't even work, either'? If it's torture; we shouldn't do it whether it works or not. It does work and that is why we have to avoid the Siren song of quickest intelligence and stay on the legal and moral side of the line while vigorously defending ourselves against a rather monstrous enemy.

The al Qaeda types are illegal combatants not protected by any treaty or international law. Any fool knows that and to prove it, Attorney General Holder has said just that. As soon as the captured terrorists have spilled their guts with the slow, gentle but effective interrogation methods the lefties assure us exist and are effective, we should promptly execute them, the terrorists, not the lefties. Gitmo problem solved.
UPDATE: Her newest effor regarding Darth Cheney is simply unreadable. She actually gets paid for this dreck?


I wonder if Dowd ever came in defense of President Clinton over his evasion of service in the military?
I'd have to look, but I can assure you that the lefty outlook during the latter 2/3 of the Viet Nam Ward was not of support for the war or the soldiers etc. fighting it. Avoiding the draft, legally or otherwise, was the greatest good.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?