February 12, 2003
DOES ANYONE EDIT THE TIMES (part googleplex +1):
Pass the Duct Tape (MAUREEN DOWD, 2/12/03, NY Times)To get Saddam, the Bush administration is even willing to remind the American public that it failed to get bin Laden. Its fixation on Saddam seems to have blinded it to the possibility that Osama might be perversely encouraging America in this war.The administration and Al Qaeda both have a purpose for invading Iraq, and both want a regime change.
Both talk about "liberating" the Arab people, but Osama's vision is apocalyptic. He wants the Middle East--Israel and the Arab monarchies--to go up in flames. By Zionizing our battle with Iraq and promising an anti-American theocracy, he hopes to radicalize recruits for a jihad against an American occupation of Arab land.
Osama's own fanaticism was forged by foreign occupations--the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and American forces stationed in Saudi Arabia.
Wow! We're not big fans of Ms Dowd, but this seems like a bit much for even her. "Zionizing"? Does she really wish to associate herself with conspiracy nuts, like Osama, and portray us as fighting primarily at the bidding of Jews? And, maybe more astonishing, is there any way to read that last bit so that it doesn't equate our defense of Saudi Arabia in 1991 the moral equivalent of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Can even a Times' columnist truly hate America this much? Posted by Orrin Judd at February 12, 2003 11:34 AM
The left's decay is astonishing to watch. It's now descending into incoherence.
Posted by: pj at February 12, 2003 11:48 AMI believe that Ms. Dowd is trying to say that Osama
is the one "Zionizing" the war. A bit of editing surely would have helped get this idea across better. Regardless, the bit about "occupation" of Saudi Arabia is ridiculous.
Even though she's ridiculous, I think it's pretty clear she's saying Osama is "zionizing" the battle.
Posted by: Matt at February 12, 2003 12:25 PMShe's incoherent in more ways than one:
(1) She says al Qaeda wants to invade Iraq. What evidence is there for this?
(2) She says the stationing of American forces in Saudi Arabia at the request of the government is a "foreign occupation."
(3) She presumes to be able to get into Osama bin Laden's mind and speak for his motives. How can she possibly know what "forged his fanaticism," or that his "vision" is for the Middle East to go up in flames (rather than for America to go up in flames or for Islamofascism to conquer the world)?
(4) How can she know that Osama views a post-war Iraq occupied by American troops, and the West Bank "occupied" by Israel (even with the Palestinian Authority in charge), as identical?
Similarly, if you look at the rest of her article, it's full of non sequiturs and of assertions whose truth she can't possibly know.
Greg/Matt:
But the war has been Zionized?
Isn't it obvious by now? Ms. Dowd is Osama Bin Laden.
Posted by: at February 12, 2003 2:30 PMYou would think the NY Times could do better than Dowd. Of all the opionion writers at NYT, I generally only read Freidman.
Posted by: brad at February 12, 2003 2:51 PMI tell you, the woman is so damned mad that Bush doesn't allow her to indulge in her Hollywood pop culture fantasies by having celebs running around the White House a la Clinton that smoke it pouring from her ears and lightning is shooting from her eyes. If he goes ahead and invites the Tampa Bay Bucaneers to the White House any time in the near future before allowing someone like Babs, Michael, Rob or Martin to show up and brighten her dreary and increasingly frustrating D.C. experience, the woman may go postal...
Posted by: John at February 12, 2003 2:51 PMI thought Dowd was basically the Times' version of Bridget Jones: funny during the Clinton era (think of Clinton as the Hugh Grant character in "BJ's Diary") but completely our of her depth in today's serious era
Posted by: teplukhin at February 12, 2003 3:14 PMuh...forget about editing the times. The real question is whether judd can read.
Others have covered Judd's "zionizing" stupidity.
And yes, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that OBL equates soviet troops in Afghanistan and American troops in Saudi Arabia. I would be surprised to see that Ms. Doud equates the two, and your quote sure provides no evidence of that.
Amazing!
"Osama's own fanaticism was forged by foreign occupations--the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and American forces stationed in Saudi Arabia."
"occupations"?
My God! What a ridiculous lack of reading comprehension. Politics on the internet is destroying this country.
Posted by: moron at February 13, 2003 3:36 AMMoDo has completed an amazing transformation. MoDo meet Pat Buchanon.
Considering her quite personal and withering attack upon Buchanon years back, post-amen corner, its quite comical to see aging process her into one and the same. Er, without the same quantity of grey cells and still caroming off the left field corners of Fenway Park.
moron:
We'd be delighted if you could educate us unwashed. What's the alternate reading of the sentence: "Osama's own fanaticism was forged by foreign occupations--the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and American forces stationed in Saudi Arabia." ?