NOT BECOMING, MADAME MO :

Like it or not, and I expect most of the people reading this don't like it, the New York Times is one of the most important and influential institutions in the world. It doesn't seem to be too much to say that the editor of the Times has more power than the leaders of most nations and more than many government officials--any one of whose lives he can destroy if he so chooses. Not quite as powerful, but still players, are the columnists for the Times. When they start grinding their axes it has an undeniable effect. So the Bush national security team must have puckered a bit when they read the following from Maureen Dowd, ten days ago in an essay subtly called Dump Dem Bums :

If it were not for Coleen Rowley's courage, Mr. Mueller and other Bush officials would still be insisting they couldn't possibly have known or imagined or hindered the terrorists' grand plan. And, of course, two months ago Rummy and Ari Fleischer were insisting that Al Qaeda was crippled and on the run.

Now we know the truth: The 9/11 terrorists could have been stopped, if everyone in the F.B.I. had been as hard-working and quick-witted as Special Agent Rowley. Or if the law enforcement agencies had not been so inept, obstructionist, arrogant, antiquated, bloated and turf-conscious--and timid about racial profiling. As The Economist notes, "There is a big difference between policemen picking on speeding black drivers and spies targeting Arabs who might harbor plans to set off nuclear bombs."

So now comes John Ashcroft, saying that everything will be fine because the F.B.I. has begun Googling and dropping in unannounced at the SuicidePilots.com chat room.

You'd have to be superhuman not to be worried about having the Dowdy one--her smarty-pants manner is designed to get under peoples' skins--coming after you on her broom. It's only human to react, right?

So when the Feds, just a few days after the Times calls for their heads, catch an al Qaeda guy who's planning to detonate a dirty nuclear bomb, you kind of have to expect that they're going to trumpet their achievement don't you? Apparently not. Here's Ms Dowd's take Summer of All Fears (MAUREEN DOWD, 6/12/02, NY Times) :

John Ashcroft's announcement that the military has in custody a bona fide Al Qaeda operative who was exploring how to set off a dirty bomb in D.C. or elsewhere was designed both to make our teeth chatter and our gratitude well up. Weren't we thankful that the Bushies were finally catching somebody and protecting us?

To maximize the drama of the moment, Ashcroft aides went into the Justice Department in the pre-dawn hours to prepare the attorney general to give the news live by satellite from Moscow. [...]

It's bad enough that the terrorists are using fear as a device. Does the Bush administration have to do the same thing?

The Islamic enemy strums on our nerves to hurt our economy and get power. The American president strums on our nerves to help his popularity and retain power.

Both the bad guys and the good guys are playing with our heads and ratcheting up the fear factor.

Isn't it interesting how the fear factor is a perfectly acceptable weapon when Ms Dowd wants to use it to pillory the administration, the incompetent bunch of boobs who are letting terrorists run amok, but it's unacceptable for them to mention anything fear-inducing when they prove her wrong? She wants to whip up the lynch mob, but then expects her targets to meekly accept their fate. Maybe her editor could explain to her that "with great power comes great responsibility" and among those responsibilities are that you not fault others for actions that you provoke and that you not accuse others of stepping over the line when they use methods you employ yourself.

Then again, does anyone edit the Times anymore?

UPDATE :
Check out Oxblog for a far more elegant take on same. It's based on their 7 Immutable Laws of Dowd

1. Ashcroft never deserves credit.

2. Offering constructive solutions to problems, instead of whining endlessly about them, is a sign of weakness.

3. The People Magazine principle: all political phenomena can be explained with reference solely to caricatures of the personalities involved ("Dubya"
is stupid; "Poppy" is an aristocrat; Cheney is macho-man; etc.). Any reference to the common good or even to old-fashioned politicking is, like, so
passe.

4. It is much better to be cute than coherent. (Courtesy of VodkaPundit.)

5. Maureen knows best.

6. It is usually possible and always desirable to name-drop and name-call in the same sentence. (From, once again, the inimitable VodkaPundit.)

7. The particulars of my consumer-driven, shamefully self-involved life reveal universal truths. (From Sean Roche.)

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 13, 2002 12:00 AM