Maureen Dowd, "My Head’s Exploding": Dowd's Air-Headed Obsession with a Ghost of the Past

Notwithstanding the fact that we are five and a half years into the Obama presidency, Maureen Dowd still never misses an opportunity to savage 73-year-old Dick Cheney, an obsolete vestige of a disastrous George W. Bush presidency. In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "My Head’s Exploding" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/opinion/maureen-dowd-is-that-the-iraq-drumbeat-from-cheney-co-again.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), subtitled "Is That the Iraq Drumbeat From Cheney & Co. Again?," Dowd writes:

"Who would have thought that Iraq imploding would give the mountebanks who tricked us into war a chance to rear their heads and seek rehabilitation — somehow grabbing onto the hellish spiral as proof that they were right in their original wrongness?

. . . .

The creepy comeback scenario is playing out with the Cheneys, Paul Wolfowitz (who absurdly rejects the moniker of 'architect,') Bill Kristol, Paul Bremer, Robert Kagan (who prefers the term 'liberal interventionist' to 'neocon') and Elliott Abrams (who actually had the chutzpah to write a Politico Magazine piece about Obama titled 'The Man Who Broke the Middle East')."

Don't get me wrong: I opposed the Second Gulf War and was never fond of Cheney. Today, I also oppose American boots on the ground in the Middle East, and that includes the 300 American military advisers recently sent by Obama to Iraq, who cannot change the course of events there, but can be taken hostage. On the other hand, I am concerned by the rise of ISIS (also referred to as ISIL), which threatens the stability of Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Mention of the regional threat posed by ISIS in the empty-headed Dowd opinion piece, dedicated to attacking Cheney? Not a chance.

Mention of the origins of ISIS, i.e. Obama's neo-isolationism and its disastrous consequences in Syria (9 million refugees out of a total population of 22 million), in the Dowd opinion piece? Not a chance.

Mention of the possibility of an independent Kurdistan for the Middle East's 30 million stateless and oppressed Kurds, i.e. this storm's one silver lining, in Dowd's opinion piece? (Obama opposes independence for the Kurds.) Not a chance.

After all, it's all about Dowd's obsession with a ghost of the past.

Maureen Dowd, "Twisted Sister, and Brothers": Did You Prefer "Dynasty" or "M*A*S*H"?

Describing the North American antics of the Cheney, Ford and Bush families in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Twisted Sister, and Brothers" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/opinion/dowd-twisted-sister-and-brothers.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=0), Maureen ultimately focuses her wrath on Dick and Liz Cheney. Dowd writes:

"The Cheney feud is the most stomach-turning, with Liz Cheney grubbing for a Senate seat as a carpetbagger against an incumbent Republican. What on earth makes her qualified to be a senator? And why didn’t she simply run in her real home state of Virginia?"

Dowd's conclusion:

"The Cheneys have caused enough damage to this country. They should exit, stage right."

I agree, and they should take with them the Clintons. (Yes, I know: Hillary and Bill are not siblings and perhaps do not belong in this opinion piece, yet, on the other hand, it is not clear what they are.) It was not enough that Bill autographed Monica's dress. Now Hillary, without an achievement under the belt of her pants suit as secretary of state, believes she should be president.

The problem, however, is not Hillary. A recent NBC News poll found that 66 percent of Democrats in the survey said they would back her in the 2016 presidential primaries (see: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/23/top-quotes-from-hillary-clintons-benghazi-hearings). For what reason? Because she is a woman? There are many more women, both Democrats and Republicans, who are better qualified to lead the US than Hillary. I know that she is leaving politics, but what a pity Olympia Snowe's name never arises in this regard.

Are Americans, who revolted from England, now so enamored with dynasties? I suppose it's no surprise that American soap opera "Dynasty" ran for nine seasons and 220 episodes (I was fortunate to miss them all).

I did, on the other hand, occasionally watch the television comedy show "M*A*S*H," premised upon the 1970 hit movie by the same name. You will recall that "Suicide Is Painless" was the theme song for both the movie and the later television series.

Did you prefer "Dynasty" or "M*A*S*H"? What difference at this point does it make? Well, America's fascination with enfeebling political dynasties could prove suicidal, but hardly painless.

Maureen Dowd, "A Dynasty to Duck": Frankly, My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn

“And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it.  No one will be able to take that away from you.  It hasn’t happened yet.  It won’t happen in the future.”

– President Obama, Portland, April 1, 2010, after Affordable Care Act was signed into law      

First, let's get the ground rules straight:

• I oppose dynastic rule in the US, and I don't care if this involves the Bush Family, the Cheney Family or the Clinton Family.
• I favor universal health care.
• I opposed the Second Gulf War.
• I am no fan of Dick Cheney.

That said, you might want to have a quick look at Maureen Dowd's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Dynasty to Duck" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/opinion/dowd-a-dynasty-to-duck.html?_r=0), in which she takes aim at Dick Cheney's efforts to install his daughter, Liz, as a senator from Wyoming instead of Mike Enzi. Dowd writes:

"Dick Cheney’s chutzpah extends to charging the Obama administration with 'incompetence' in the Middle East and saying that the president has done 'enormous damage' to America’s standing around the world.

When Bill O’Reilly asked Cheney on Fox News what 'we get out of' the Iraq war, given that 'we spent $1 trillion on this with a lot of pain and suffering on the American military,' Cheney repeated his delusion about Saddam’s W.M.D. — the imaginary ones — falling into the hands of terrorists: 'We eliminated Iraq as a potential source of that.'

And, of course, he disdains Obamacare, telling Rush Limbaugh that it’s 'devastating' — begrudging less well-off and well-connected Americans the lifesaving and costly health care he got on us when he was in the White House."

Cheney charging the Obama administration with incompetence in the Middle East? Indeed, this rings of "the pot calling the kettle black," given how Cheney foolishly destroyed the equilibrium between Iraq and Iran by prosecuting the Second Gulf War. But is Obama administration policy in the Middle East "incompetent"? You bet, and if you have any doubt about it, I suggest you talk with America's traditional allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf States, which all believe that Obama has thrown them under the bus in order to avoid any threat of a confrontation with Iran. It is no wonder that Obama's cheerleaders on the editorial board of the New York Times today felt compelled to write an editorial entitled "Allies in Revolt" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/30/opinion/allies-in-revolt.html), which concludes:

"In addressing the United Nations last month, Mr. Obama reinforced his intention to narrow his regional diplomatic focus to the Iranian nuclear deal and an Israeli-Palestinian peace. Some have read this as weakness and retreat, rather than pragmatism. We wish he had put more emphasis on Egypt and Iraq. But his priorities make sense. His task now is to reassure the allies that the United States remains committed to their security."

Reassure allies that the US remains committed to their security? I suppose that's the reason that US Secretary of State John Kerry, who referred to Syria's Assad as his "dear friend," declared on Monday in an obvious reference to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, that the US would not "succumb to fear tactics" of those who oppose diplomacy (see: http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Kerry-US-wont-succumb-to-fear-tactics-of-those-who-oppose-Iran-diplomacy-330047). Kerry added that it would be "the height of irresponsibility" for Washington not to test Iran's readiness to negotiate an end to its efforts to build an atomic bomb.

Peculiar. And here I thought the prolonged meandering efforts of the P5+1, led by that horse's ass Catherine Ashton, were an effort to test Iran's diplomatic readiness. But never mind. Insulting Netanyahu is certain to calm Israel's fears, notwithstanding Iran's persistent threats to annihilate Israel . . . not.

By opposing Obamacare, Cheney is depriving Americans of lifesaving health care? Dowd would do well to read today's lead Washington Post online story entitled "Obama accused of breaking promise to consumers as health plans cancel policies" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-accused-of-breaking-promise-to-consumers-as-health-plans-cancel-policies/2013/10/29/860bed32-40bf-11e3-a751-f032898f2dbc_story.html?hpid=z1) by Lena H. Sun and Sandhya Somashekhar, which states:

"A new controversy over the president’s health-care law is threatening to overshadow the messy launch of its Web site: Notices are going out to hundreds of thousands of Americans informing them that their health insurance polices are being canceled as of Dec. 31.

The notices appear to contradict President Obama’s promise that despite the changes resulting from the law, Americans can keep their health insurance if they like it.

. . . .

Florida Blue Cross Blue Shield chief executive Patrick J. Geraghty said Sunday that the company is dropping about 300,000 policies. Customers are being informed that they can’t keep their current plans but that their new options might be better because of new benefits and government subsidies available to low- and middle-income people. Highmark Blue Shield of Pennsylvania sent notices in August to about 40,000 customers who are in a special plan for the hardest to insure, saying that their plans were being discontinued and that they might qualify for subsidies if they buy insurance on the federal exchange, spokeswoman Kristin Ash said.

In the Washington region, CareFirst, the region’s dominant carrier, has sent about 76,000 notices to consumers in Maryland, Virginia and the District in the past several months, informing them that as of Jan. 1, CareFirst 'cannot sell or renew plans that do not comply with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act,' spokesman Michael Sullivan said.

In Maryland, nine carriers have informed regulators that they plan to send notices to about 73,000 consumers about plans they no longer intend to offer."

Yes, Obamacare is a disaster and is in fact depriving many Americans of their health care.

I'm no fan of Dick Cheney, but he is yesterday's news. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is proving every bit as incompetent and despicable as that of George W. Bush.

Maureen Dowd, "Repent, Dick Cheney": "Surrender, Dorothy"

"Surrender Dorothy"

- The Wicked Witch Skywriting, "The Wizard of Oz," 1939

Before first-time visitors send messages telling me that I am a nefarious neocon destined for the netherworld, bear in mind that I am pro-choice, in favor of gay marriage, oppose the sale of assault rifles, opposed the Second Gulf War, and oppose America's ground involvement in Afghanistan. And whereas I didn't care much for Cheney, who turned 72 in January, I also have no affection for Maureen Dowd's beloved Barry.

You see, the pendulum swung from right to left, leaving little space for those in the middle. And whereas Cheney is a distant memory, Barry is now "leading" America into an economic abyss.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Repent, Dick Cheney" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/opinion/dowd-repent-dick-cheney.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd excoriates Cheney for past indiscretions:

• "Cheney kept W. flying aimlessly in the air on 9/11 while he and Lynn left on a helicopter for a secure undisclosed location, leaving Washington in a bleak, scared silence, with no one reassuring the nation in those first terrifying hours."
• "He filled W.’s head with stories about conflicts between presidents and vice presidents sparked by the vice president’s ambition, while protesting that he himself did not want the job."
• "To make his crazy and appallingly costly detour from Osama to Saddam, and cherry-pick his fake case for invading Iraq, he played on W.’s fear of being lampooned as a wimp, as his father had been."
• "Cheney still hearts waterboarding."

All true, all deplorable. However, Dowd also writes:

• "It was too late to rein in the feverish vice president, except to tell him he couldn’t bomb a nuclear plant in the Syrian desert."

That's right, the US didn't destroy the Syrian nuclear plant, and instead, the Israelis took it out. But can you imagine what might have happened if a maniacal Bashar al-Assad, John Kerry's "dear friend," had gotten his hands on a dirty bomb, combining radioactive material with conventional explosives?  Or if the al-Qaeda faction of the Syrian rebels were to take control of this facility?

And whereas Cheney went too far to the right, we now have Obama "leading from behind" in Libya, telling Putin that he will be "more flexible," prolonging the agony in Afghanistan, avoiding any position involving the Syrian civil war, and unable to convince Iran's mullahs that he means business.

As once stated by Aristotle, "The virtue of justice consists in moderation, as regulated by wisdom." Today, moderation is a commodity very hard to come by.

But a question for Maureen: Suppose terrorists have hidden a dirty bomb in Manhattan, not far from The New York Times Building, and are threatening to detonate the bomb unless the US releases all of its Guantanamo prisoners. The bomb is timed to go off in another two hours, and there is no time to evacuate the city. Millions are expected to die slow painful deaths from radiation poisoning and cancer unless the bomb is found and defused. Then suddenly, one of the al-Qaeda conspirators is captured, but he refuses to talk. Would you waterboard him, or read him his rights and wait for his lawyer?

I know what I would do.

Meanwhile, I'm not in the business of fighting ghosts of the past or wicked witches.

Maureen Dowd, "Darth Vader Vents": Crazy Dick Cheney?

Although former vice president Dick Cheney is now 70-years-old, and his past antics are now all but forgotten by a world consumed by a devastating economic crisis, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd revives the memory of her ageing nemesis in an op-ed entitled "Darth Vader Vents" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/dowd-darth-vader-vents.html). Reviewing in her inimitable way Cheney's recently published memoir "In My Time," Dowd recounts one of the vice president's more poignant vignettes:

"Cheney says that in 2007, he told President Bush, who had already been pulled into diplomacy by Condi Rice: 'I believed that an important first step would be to destroy the reactor in the Syrian desert.'

At a session with most of the National Security Council, he made his case for a strike on the reactor. It would enhance America’s tarnished credibility in the Arab world, he argued, (not bothering to mention who tarnished it), and demonstrate the country’s 'seriousness.'

'After I finished,' he writes, 'the president asked, ‘Does anyone here agree with the vice president?’ Not a single hand went up around the room.'”

Another example of Dick Cheney's recklessness?

Before playing devil's advocate, I would first observe that I have consistently opposed America's ground involvement in Afghanistan, which has proven catastrophically costly and senseless. I also opposed the Second Gulf War, which destroyed the delicate balance of power between rival monstrous regimes in Iraq and Iran.

But let's suppose that in 1981 Israel had not destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in an operation sharply condemned by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly. Might it have been possible for Saddam Hussein, armed with nuclear weapons, to have annexed Kuwait in 1990 without meaningful opposition?

In 2007, was Israel mistaken to have destroyed the nuclear reactor under construction with North Korean assistance in the Deir ez-Zor region of Syria? Given the atrocities Assad has visited upon his own people in recent months, does anyone question the danger that nuclear weapons in the hands of this tyrant might have posed? Currently, there is no small amount of concern within Western security agencies regarding the destination of Assad's stockpiled chemical weaponry, should his regime fall.

Was Dick Cheney altogether out to lunch? You decide.