Deconstructing the Truth
The Elite Media’s Baghdad Robertas
May 6, 2003
It’s bad enough that Maureen Dowd is forever gaffing her ham-fisted attempts to mirror Ann Coulter’s polemic style but does she also have to be so arrogantly clueless? In another attempt to dish up some dogmatic propaganda for the Dark Side, Dowd (pronounced Dowdy) trips through a minefield of self-created falsehoods in her op-ed “The Iceman Cometh” (NYT, 05/04/03).
Never one to waste time at flaunting her intellectual void, Dowd launches with a revelation that the President landed aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in a “fighter jet”. Unless the US Navy is involved in a vast right wing conspiracy with every aviation enthusiast in the world, the S-3 is not a “fighter” as Dowd smugly asserts. The S-3 is a subsonic tanker, surveillance, search and rescue support mission aircraft with a top speed of only 450 knots. Only a knot-head like Dowd is so unworldly that anything with two wings, two jet engines and military markings becomes a “fighter”. Hey Maureen…try dog-fighting a SU-35 Super Flanker in that “Tin Lizzy”.
Mocking the President for a crash course in water survival training because the Lincoln was “only” 30 miles off shore is another cue that Dowd’s familiarity with the world stops at the outer bounds of New York’s upper west side. If Maureen wants a reality lesson, I will board her at the mouth of the Hudson and sail her “only” 30 miles southeast for a swimming lesson. Sorry Ms. Dowd…this ain’t no dip off of Greenwich Point or the Hamptons.
This Dowd article, like so much of the tripe emanating from the elite media, is a deconstruction of the truth. In a world where effete liberal journalists are driven more by dogma than fact, the debate becomes a fabrication of ideological servitude. The mission is to destroy Bush and the collateral damage is the destruction of truth. So much for lofty ethics.
Dowd’s advance team was a NYT’s May 2nd editorial, “A Long Way From Victory” that christened the Presidential trip to the USS Lincoln as the “Top Gun visit”. With panties full of fresh squeezed piddle, the editors at the Times whined that, “After a dramatic landing on the compact deck—a new standard for high-risk presidential travel” had been established. FYI ladies, the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln is 4.5 acres.
But why let facts shroud a debate that has already been buried. The Times is a child’s top perpetually spinning into irrelevance. And talk about spinning…the thrust of the editorial was to remind Americans that, “If anything, securing a durable peace in Iraq will be harder than winning a military victory” because, as we all know, “From the moment Mr. Bush made his intention of invading Iraq clear, the question was never whether American troops would succeed….”. Talk about selective memory!
With a sick sack close at hand, I re-read all of the Times’ editorials from October 8, 2002 through the present. Let’s just spit up the big pieces, “the potentially costly consequences of a war against that country (Iraq)…the fact that the United States should not invade Iraq without broad international support…the U.N. itself believes disarmament is occurring and the weapons inspections can be made to work…the United States might irreparably weaken the United Nations…the Republican Guard will retreat into Baghdad for street-by street fighting and drag the conflict out long enough for world opinion to swing behind the Hussein regime…the task of beating back Iraq’s best troops and capturing Baghdad while keeping the rest of the country under control looks increasingly formidable…the climatic battles will be in Baghdad where the regime remains firmly in control…the potential for problems is there and is one reason for more gloomy assessments on the likely length of the war” and puke and barf and hurl.
Phase one of truth deconstruction was the planting of defeatist seeds in the hopes of a U.S. debacle in Iraq. Then Bush could be destroyed by a litany of “told-you-so’s”. Having failed at that, the elite literati of the Times spins 180 degrees by claiming that they never doubted victory but always knew winning the peace would be the hard part. If America is successful at stabilizing Iraq, the Times is already moving to its Fail Safe plan…the economic sky is falling in!
Hoping for a lucky catch, Dowd chastises the President that, “Every time you cut taxes and raise deficits while you're roaring ahead with a pre-emptive military policy, you're unsafe. National unemployment goes up to 6 percent and you just hammer Congress to pass your tax cut.” Poor Maureen is so distraught that not enough American soldiers died to destroy the Bush presidency. Now she is praying for an economic meltdown. People who actually pay taxes know that raising those taxes hurts their families. Sacrifices must be made in the Liberals’ war against America.
Ms. Dowd should ask any economist to define the normal rate of frictional unemployment. Hint…it is 6%. In typical truth-deconstruction dogma, Dowd casts the normal as the horrible. Fact has little role to play in this game. If fact had a role to play, Dowd might be asking why the Clinton administration allowed an economy financed by Ponzi schemes to spin out of control. The Clinton economy was a game of make-believe.
The clock is ticking towards 2004 and the economy is the last hand that Liberal deconstructionists have to play. If Bush yet again proves his genuine substance, these fabricating ideologues will be exiled to the irrelevance of their own insecurities. The only entitlement left for these elitist transparencies of journalism is a retreat into the seething of their bloated egos. And even Elba doesn’t have enough room for that much hot air.
RightPage