Earth to Dowd: You're Nuts!

Maureen Dowd's Wednesday columns are always a highlight for me. It's so enjoyable to have something so entertaining and laughable to mark Hump Day.

Dowd never lets me down. Today, she offers another fun column for me to pick apart.

Here she goes again:


G.O.P. to W.: You're Nuts!


It's enough to make you nostalgic for those gnarly union stevedores in "On the Waterfront," the ones who hung up rats on hooks and took away Marlon Brando's chance to be a contend-ah.



Maureenie sounds like she never saw the movie.

Who was responsible for Terry [Brando] not being a contender?

I guess if you watch it through a lib lens it's the union thugs or his brother Charley. If you bring a conservative perspective to the film, it was Terry himself that made a bad decision. The scene is key to the movie because it indicates an important first step in Terry's personal growth, as well as playing into his eventual refusal to take anymore dives.


Maybe it's corporate racial profiling, but I don't want foreign companies, particularly ones with links to 9/11, running American ports.

All this sudden concern about ports by the libs is disingenuous.

Dowd whines about the secrecy of the Bush Administration and its attempt to erode the civil liberties of Americans.

She's been on a crusade against the Vice President. Dowd demonizes Dick every chance she gets.

What kind of empire are we if we have to outsource our coastline to a group of sheiks who don't recognize Israel, in a country where money was laundered for the 9/11 attacks? And that let A. Q. Kahn, the Pakistani nuclear scientist, smuggle nuclear components through its port to Libya, North Korea and Iran?

What kind of empire are we if we allow terrorists access to our court system?

It's mind-boggling that President Bush ever agreed to let an alliance of seven emirs be in charge of six of our ports. Although, as usual, Incurious George didn't even know about it until after the fact. (Neither did Rummy, even though he heads one of the agencies that green-lighted the deal.)

It's mind-boggling that Dowd has made a career in journalism. I think her talents are better suited to the pulp fiction racks.

Same old pattern: a stupid and counterproductive national security decision is made in secret, blowing off checks and balances, and the president's out of the loop.

If you're looking for a pattern of secrecy, stupid and counterproductive national security decisions, blowing off checks and balances, and, well,...blowing off, look no further than the Clinton Administration's record.

Was W. too busy not calling Dick Cheney to find out why he shot a guy to not be involved in a critical decision about U.S. security? What is he waiting for — a presidential daily brief warning, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. Ports?"

It's documented that the White House press corps was too busy having a tantrum about not being immediately notified about Cheney's hunting accident to get on top of the port deal story.

Dowd was performing on Meet the Press last Sunday, trying to be seductive as she spoke about the evil assassin wannabe Cheney.

Yes, as Mary Matalin dubbed Dowd, "the diva of the smart set" wasn't talking about U.S. security.

She was spewing:

I think that the reason this story has evoked such fascination is because the vice president is like the phantom. You know, we hear the creak of the door as he passes, but we don’t really know what he’s up to. We don’t know his schedule. We don’t always know where he is.

While she went ON AND ON about Cheney, what was she waiting for? Why didn't she start screaming about the ports?

Our ports are already nearly naked in terms of security. Only about 5 percent of the containers coming into the country are checked. And when the White House assures us that the Homeland Security Department will oversee security at the ports, is that supposed to make us sleep better? Not after the chuckleheaded Chertoff-and-Brownie show on Capitol Hill.

I agree whole-heartedly that the security of our borders and our ports is woefully inadequate.

However, I don't sleep better knowing that there's a far radical Left obsessing over birdshot and offering NO CONCRETE PLANS WHATSOEVER to rectify the security situation.

"Our borders are wide open," said Jan Gadiel of 9/11 Families for a Secure America. "We don't know who's in our country right now, not a clue. And now they're giving away our ports." The "trust us" routine of W. and Dick Cheney is threadbare.

And why is it that don't we know who's in our country?

The "let's defeat the Patriot Act" and the "let's undermine counterterrorism programs at every turn" routine of Dowd and the libs is threadbare.

The more W. warned that he would veto legislation stopping this deal, the more lawmakers held press conferences to oppose it — even conservatives who had loyally supported W. on Iraq, the Patriot Act, torture and warrantless snooping.

Those Republican lawmakers wanted to temporarily put the brakes on the deal until it could be examined by Congress. They also wanted to prevent opportunistic Dems from posing as if they are tough on terror, when in reality they are weak.

See how Dowd complains about the Patriot Act and falsely represents the NSA's surveillance program? Then she moans about a lack of security.

Mr. Bush is hoist on his own petard. For four years, the White House has accused anyone in Congress or the press who defended civil liberties or questioned anything about the Iraq war of being soft on terrorism. Now, as Congress and the press turn that accusation back on the White House, Mr. Bush acts mystified by the orgy of xenophobia.

Lawmakers, many up for re-election, have learned well from Karl Rove. Playing the terror card works.

"Playing the terror card works"?

Is that why she's using the terror card in her column?

A bristly Bush said yesterday that scotching the deal would send "a terrible signal" to a worthy ally. He equated the "Great British" with the U.A.E. Well, maybe Britain in the 12th century.

Besides, the American people can be forgiven if they're confused about what it means in the Arab world to be a U.S. ally. Is it a nation that helps us sometimes but also addicts us to oil and then jacks up the price, refuses to recognize Israel, denies women basic rights, tolerates radical anti-American clerics, looks the other way when its citizens burn down embassies and consulates over cartoons, and often turns a blind eye when it comes to hunting down terrorists in its midst?

Dowd should keep her mouth shut when it comes to talking about U.S. allies. She is on record as belittling the service and sacrifices of our coalition partners in Iraq.

A question for Dowd:

Does France behave like an ally of the U.S.?

Think about it. Our relationships with other nations aren't as black and white as Dowd would like you to believe.

The woman is confused -- about SO many things.

In our past wars, America had specific countries to demonize. But now in the "global war on terror" — GWOT, as they call it — the enemy is a faceless commodity that the administration uses whenever it wants to win a political battle. When something like this happens, it's no wonder the public does its own face transplant.

Dowd is obviously still having problems grasping the fact that we are at war with an ideology. This war is different from past wars.

She really needs to work on that nuance.

One of the real problems here is that this administration has run up such huge trade and tax-cut-and-spend budget deficits that we're in hock to the Arabs and the Chinese to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. If they just converted their bonds into cash, they would own our ports and not have to merely rent them.

Just because the wealthy foreigners who own our debt can blackmail us with their economic leverage, does that mean we should expose our security assets to them as well?

Again, she doesn't understand the complexities.

Moreover, Dowd is the queen of exposure, and it's not pretty.

If she cares so much about our "security assets," why doesn't she support efforts to fight terrorism? Why does she hack away at America?

Why doesn't she support efforts that have been shown to be successful in strengthening our economy?

Maureeine? Can you spell T-A-X C-U-T-S?

As part of the lunatic White House defense, Dan Bartlett argued that "people are trying to drive wedges and make this to be a political issue." But as the New Republic editor Peter Beinart pointed out in a recent column, W. has made the war on terror "one vast wedge issue" to divide the country.

Sorry, Dowd and Beinart.

The loons on the Left have made the War on Terror a wedge issue. Rather than joining most Americans and putting their energy into defeating the enemies intent on destroying us, they want to destroy Bush, Cheney, Rove, DeLay, etc.

Now, however, the president has pulled us together. We all pretty much agree: mitts off our ports.

Dowd is wrong again.

Although many have legitimate questions about our ports and security, this port deal hasn't pulled us together.

Dems are still as weak on terror as they've ever been. They can't be trusted.

What we do all pretty much agree on is that DOWD is nuts.