The Maureen Dowd Two Minute Mock*

Column I: Conspiracy Theories

June 23, 2003

*This column, and all that follow, are inspired by Donald Luskin’s excellent, “Krugman Truth Squad”, which appears at nationalreivew.com.

Like a cat who spends a good part of its life scratching your leg for no discernible reason, Maureen Dowd is back this week with another fantastic tale to tell.  It is our pleasure to analyze it.  Her column is called “Desert Double Feature”.

Maureen, as always, first instructs.  In the beginning we discover that the genesis of the war against Saddam had little to do with him being a dangerous dictator who gassed and tortured his own and neighboring peoples.  The entire operation was actually due to our Secretary of Defense, known as “Rummy” in Maureen’s thorazenic outpourings, wanting “to prove that the sleek, high-tech American military could be used to fight in unconventional ways.”

Our friend Maureen has, ala Oliver Stone, thought up of a new conspiracy theory with which to amaze her friends and fellow Restoration Hardware shoppers.  It seems that Saddam created the rumor that he had WMDs as a way to spring himself.

Wondering about whether we’ll soon find more evidence of Anthrax (the same Anthrax Saddam once admitted to having)?  Maureen isn’t.  We’ve been in Iraq long enough for her to pass eternal judgment. 

Justification is yet to come: “Maybe he decided that rather than hit America with biological warfare, he would use psychological warfare, discrediting the U.S. with allies by stripping the anthrax cupboards.”  It seems that Saddam is more savvy regarding Democratic electoral strategies than are the Democrats and, with the likes of Howard Dean roaming the airwaves, one might be tempted to treat her suggestion with an open mind; however, there would be no way that he could have anticipated the liberal hysteria about his WMDs as this was the same political party that spent 1998 denouncing his possession of the items they now claim he never possessed.

Maureen then makes the obligatory assault on America’s motivation: “Saddam knew how hard it would be for America to rely on trust and understanding in a part of the world that we don't understand and where no one trusts us.”  How does she know what Saddam was thinking?  Perhaps she felt a psychic vibe.  Maybe the sun was in a unique position to offer guidance.  Maybe Maureen is suggesting, with all this praise for Saddam’s omniscience, that in 2004 the Democrats should make use of his prodigious talents and offer him a post as a political advisor.  He could play Dick Morris to their candidate’s Bill Clinton. 

Then our heroine states, “Maybe Saddam has been chortling from the sidelines as his guerrillas and Islamic militants kill enough U.S. soldiers to make Americans queasy.”

Ms. Dowd forgets that the iron fist of the New York Times screams “quagmire” every time an American staff sergeant misses an afternoon delivery of MREs.  Thanks to her paper, a man like Saddam could guarantee we’d be queasy whenever a woman is denied entrance to the Augusta clubhouse, let alone when a soldier gets mowed down by a sniper.

Then she shows her extent of insider “Bushie” White House knowledge.  She hypothesizes (sic) that, “Maybe he could inflame an Iraqi rebellion over chaotic conditions, to expel the occupiers who came with no occupation plan.”  How does she know that our president had no plan?  She doesn’t but she also knows that none of the cream puffs who supervise her will question her chicanery.  I’m sure the bias is so thick among the NYT overlords they regarded Bush having “no occupation plan” as being similar in truth to the statement that “water is wet.”

We are then subjected to more attacks on Mr. Bush’s credibility when she blabs “It's funny that the Bushies didn't recognize a heist when they saw one, given that they pulled off such a clever heist of their own: They cracked the safe of American foreign policy and made off with generations of resistance to pre-emptive and unilateral attacks.”  What unilateral attack?  We never made one.  We had a great many countries supporting us but I suppose that Maureen wishes to forget about that.  A safe of America foreign policy?  Apparently not, if some Chatty Cathy at the New York Times is privy to their secret strategies. 

She states that the “The Democrats, already Fausted by their prewar fear of being pantywaists, naturally caved on open hearings.”  Here we see a familiar theme.  The Democrats are kindness personified but their goodness causes them to yield before Republican monsters.  It is helpful that Maureen or that other great sage, Barbara Streisand, occasionally put the Democrats back on the road to Mecca or, as it were, their supermajorities of the mid-1970’s. 

Then Maureen concludes that the FBI’s Director must have been trying to impress the president or increase his popularity by not calling attention to his dastardly deeds: “George Tenet might have buttered up his bosses by not objecting loud enough when the Bushies latched onto bogus or exaggerated claims, but if obsequiousness is a subject of Congressional investigation, we're in for a busy summer.” 

I just wished obsequiousness were not so much a part of the NYT editorial board as they’d flush this dishonorable cretin from their show trial pages along with all of her unsubstantiated accusations against our president and our country.  Maybe the best thing to do is let Maureen be strategist in 2004 as opposed to Saddam.  There is no better possible revenge as the Democrats will receive exactly what they deserve.

Bernard Chapin