March 9, 2003
THE HARMONAIRES:
The Xanax Cowboy (MAUREEN DOWD, 3/09/03, NY Times)The case for war has been incoherent due to overlapping reasons conservatives want to get Saddam.The president wants to avenge his father, and please his base by changing the historical ellipsis on the Persian Gulf war to a period. Donald Rumsfeld wants to exorcise the post-Vietnam focus on American imperfections and limitations. Dick Cheney wants to establish America's primacy as the sole superpower. Richard Perle wants to liberate Iraq and remove a mortal threat to Israel. After Desert Storm, Paul Wolfowitz posited that containment is a relic, and that America must aggressively pre-empt nuclear threats.
And in 1997, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Fox News, and other conservatives, published a "statement of principles," signed by Jeb Bush and future Bush officials - Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams. Rejecting 41's realpolitik and shaping what would become 43's pre-emption strategy, they exhorted a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity," with America extending its domain by challenging "regimes hostile to our interests and values."
Saddam would be the squealing guinea pig proving America could impose its will on the world.
With W., conservatives got a Bush who wanted to be Reagan. With 9/11, they found a new tragedy to breathe life into their old dreams.
Hey, wait a second, if we're the Stupid Party, how come it's liberals who can't figure out that this is not dissonance but harmony?
Which of these things does she oppose:
(1) Punishing Saddam for trying to assassinate a U.S. president?(2) Ending the Gulf War?
(3) Exorcising whatever few ghosts of Vietnam remain?
(4) America as the world's sole Superpower
(5) Liberating Iraq?
(6) Removing a mortal threat to Israel?
(7) Driving a wooden stake into containment?
(8) Pre-empting nuclear threats?
(9) Moral clarity?
(10) Challenging "regimes hostile to our interests and values"?
We're thinking this war looks like Nadia Comaneci. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 9, 2003 7:05 AM
Or, more appropriately to my way of thinking, Mary Lou Retton.
Posted by: Buttercup at March 9, 2003 11:18 AMDid she ever get a 10--gymnastics is a weakness for me, both physically and mentally...
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2003 12:06 PMYep, she got a 10. I remember it like it was 23 years ago.
Posted by: NKR at March 9, 2003 12:33 PMOJ,
Thanks for covering Mo's columns occasionally. I never read them at the Times website in case someone there might be counting hits on her "OP/ED" and I wouldn't want her to have one credited from me.
However, apparently I am masochistic enough to wonder what she is saying lately. It's like picking at a scab, or zit, if you will. Anyhow, I don't understand why anyone would read her column regularly for any other reason than to inflict pain upon themselves; or perhaps for a laugh if they share her "humor." Again, thanks for giving me the opportunity to pick; "it only hurts when I laugh."
As Faith No More sang: It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it...
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2003 1:39 PM