Back To The Past

Yesterday, Maureen Dowd tried her hand at alternative history; today, William Safire delivers a rebuttal piece.

For pure comedy, MoDo is superior, delivering such howlers as this:

And, of course, he caught Osama back in '01. He threw 100,000 troops into Afghanistan on 9/11 and sealed the borders. Our Special Forces trapped the evildoer and his top lieutenants at Tora Bora.

Only 100,000 troops?  Gee, since we have solved all of the logistics problems associated with moving and supplying our army in land-locked Afghanistan, why not go with 200,000?

And yes, there was some talk at the time that one advantage of the small US deployment was that local Afghans saw us as allies, rather than occupiers.  But so what?

And yes, there were reports that Osama departed Tora Bora for safe haven in Pakistan as our forces closed in.  Is there any evidence that Osama would have waited patiently for the US to deploy 100,000 soldiers?  Oh, why ask.

Has MoDo refined John Kerry's many attacks on our military effort at Tora Bora into its purest, most inane cocktail party chit-chat?  With the holiday party season in full swing, I will redouble my efforts to attend as many as possible to discern the truth.

UPDATE:  Now David Brooks goes to the movies; Orrin Judd takes a restrained victory lap.

Comments

[Neo]

These sorts of columns always seem to beg the question would killing Hitler have stopped World War II ?

[Appalled Moderate]

I think that you will find at these parties, there is no actual truth, as facts are mere social constructs imposed by oppressive elites. Personally, I think it is most amusing that that the science of deconstruction (and reconstruction of reality into something more appealing if somewhat non-existant) has been siezed from the left and adopted by our President. I am sure M. Derrida is rolling in his grave, annoyed that the social/rligious/biogical construct known as death is not allowing him to protest.

[Spear Shaker]

This revisionism on Tora Bora sounds familiar. . .

[Dr. Sanity]

MoDo definitely deserved a higher ranking on the Top 20 Most Annoying Liberal list. I have decided to dedicate a song to her at the end of 2004 for her unrelenting idiocy: "Come Back When You Grow Up, Girl"

[ed]

Hmmm.

And the answer would always be: No. It wouldn't have stopped WWII.

After there were still the highly militaristic Japanese and the expansionist Soviets. The former would have embroiled America in Pacific war and the latter would have started the European war.

[AST]

Neo,

Maybe not, but then the left would have to come up with some other bete noir to compare G. W. Bush to.

On the main post, it really seems as though a lot of people in the media not only get the facts wrong, but get them fixed in their minds that way because it makes their skewed views seem more coherent.

[Bruce Rheinstein]

"The U.N. resolves it is seized with concern."

Safire at his best!

[TM]

... at these parties, there is no actual truth, as facts are mere social constructs...

Ahh, but after a few drinks you can get behind the phony social contructs and get to the real social constructs.

[beetroot]

I wonder how many drinks Rummy had downed when he declared that Iraq was the place to start bombing, while the dust was still hanging over Ground Zero? Or how many Wolfie had bubbling in him when he scoffed at the possibility of an extended occupation in Iraq? Or how many Tenet had lined up on the bar when he called the WMD-in-Iraq theory a "slam dunk"?

MoDo may be full of chit-chat, but she ain't making national policy, is she? The biggest elites are the ones with the most power. Worry about their war, not her columns, you sillies.

[slabodkin]

wow, beetroot; you are *soooo* right! i can't believe i've stumbled through my nearly 4 decades of life so blind until your rapier-like wit and understanding pulled back the heavy drape from my eyes.

after all, it's modo's highly nuanced, sophisticated critique of administration policy throughout the ages that makes her such a worthy read; i just know she'd run circles around anyone in the administration given his or her job!

just *what* is the president waiting for, i wonder?

[mark]

What if Howell Raines had picked talented people to work for the NYT and they were deemed credible by a majority of Americans? What if John Kerry was a war hero? What if Clinton had addressed Terrorism head on? ..Michael Moore campaigned for Republicans?

[Alex Bensky]

Yet again I have to point out that you have all been taken in by a practical joke the editorial staff of the New York Times plays on its readers.

The only logical conclusion is that "Maureen Dowd" is a caricature of the woman writer--ditzy, cutsey-poo nicknames for world leaders, obligatory pop culture references to show she's hip, and an inability to handle any abstract ideas, needing to personalize everything.

Come on now, it may not be what it once was but it's the New York Times. "MoDo," as we fans like to call the construct, is just a parody of the type of writer all too familiar in the press but that the New York Times would never actually hire.

They do have an actress who plays the role on talk shows and she does very well, but frankly, I'm a bit tired of the joke.

[M. Simon]

What if the drinks weren't watered in a vain effort to keep MoDo from making a bigger fool of herself?

[Tim]

100k sounds about right.

Otherwise, we might have had to fight the Taliban instead of the fighting the Russians like we did to take over Afghanistan.

[RogerA]

MoDo is a f***ing idiot who delights in inaccurate, plagiarized or made up comments--who really gives a damn what she thinks or writes--oops, what she writes, since she clearly doesnt think.

[beetroot]

MoDo is a professional provacateur who delights in making readers mad.

But before you consign her editorials to history's dustbin, remember how she treated Clinton. Merciless. She may be offensive to some, but she's not a pure partisan. And in this day and age, there's something to be said for that.

(And as for you, slabodkin, I'm glad to be of assistance! I find it tragic that so many people get wrapped up in rhetorical debates about rhetoric while people are fighting and dying. The only meaningful debates concern the use of power, don't you agree?)

[slarrow]

Bah, I can write a better alternative history than either of those. (At least I think so. I don't know, though; on second glance, Safire's pretty succinct.)