An outside view of "THE BUSHWORLD"

Copied from the Saturday OP_ED edition of the New York Times. This is SO right!

OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Orwellian Olsens
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: April 25, 2004


WASHINGTON

It's their reality. We just live and die in it.

In Bushworld, our troops go to war and get killed, but you never see the bodies coming home.

In Bushworld, flag-draped remains of the fallen are important to revere and show the nation, but only in political ads hawking the president's leadership against terror.

Advertisement


In Bushworld, we can create an exciting Iraqi democracy as long as it doesn't control its own military, pass any laws or have any power.

In Bushworld, we can win over Falluja by bulldozing it.

In Bushworld, it was worth going to war so Iraqis can express their feelings ("Down With America!") without having their tongues cut out, although we cannot yet allow them to express intemperate feelings in newspapers ("Down With America!") without shutting them down.

In Bushworld, it's fine to take $700 million that Congress provided for the war in Afghanistan and 9/11 recovery and divert it to the war in Iraq that you're insisting you're not planning.

In Bushworld, you don't consult your father, the expert in being president during a war with Iraq, but you do talk to your Higher Father, who can't talk back to warn you to get an exit strategy or chide you for using Him for political purposes.

In Bushworld, it's O.K. to run for re-election as the avenger of 9/11, even as you make secret deals with the Arab kingdom where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.

In Bushworld, you get to strut around like a tough military guy and paint your rival as a chicken hawk, even though he's the one who won medals in combat and was praised by his superior officers for fulfilling all his obligations.

In Bushworld, it makes sense to press for transparency in Mr. and Mrs. Rival while cultivating your own opacity.

In Bushworld, you can reign as the antiterror president even after hearing an intelligence report about Al Qaeda's plans to attack America and then stepping outside to clear brush.

In Bushworld, those who dissemble about the troops and money it will take to get Iraq on its feet are patriots, while those who are honest are patronizingly marginalized.

In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq, even as they increasingly merge the two in America.

In Bushworld, you can claim to be the environmental president on Earth Day while being the industry president every other day.

In Bushworld, you brag about how well Afghanistan is going, even though soldiers like Pat Tillman are still dying and the Taliban are running freely around the border areas, hiding Osama and delaying elections.

In Bushworld, imperfect intelligence is good enough to knock over Iraq. But even better evidence that North Korea is building the weapons that Saddam could only dream about is hidden away.

In Bushworld, the C.I.A. says it can't find out whether there are W.M.D. in Iraq unless we invade on the grounds that there are W.M.D.

In Bushworld, there's no irony that so many who did so much to avoid the Vietnam draft have now strained the military so much that lawmakers are talking about bringing back the draft.

In Bushworld, we're making progress in the war on terror by fighting a war that creates terrorists.

In Bushworld, you don't need to bother asking your vice president and top Defense Department officials whether you should go to war in Iraq, because they've already maneuvered you into going to war.

In Bushworld, it's perfectly natural for the president and vice president to appear before the 9/11 commission like the Olsen twins.

In Bushworld, you expound on remaking the Middle East and spreading pro-American sentiments even as you expand anti-American sentiments by ineptly occupying Iraq and unstintingly backing Ariel Sharon on West Bank settlements.

In Bushworld, we went to war to give Iraq a democratic process, yet we disdain the democratic process that causes allies to pull out troops.

In Bushworld, you pride yourself on the fact that your administration does not leak to the press, while you flood the best-known journalist in Washington with inside information.

In Bushworld, you list Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" as recommended reading on your campaign Web site, even though it makes you seem divorced from reality. That is, unless you live in Bushworld.


E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com

[Krash]

[bfp]

MAUREEN DOWD

Indeed - MAUREEN DOWD - a font of objectivity and reason

How much authority would anyone grant an article written by Ann Coulter blasting John Kerry for his testimony before congress condemning the soldiers in Viet Nam for committing atrocities?

Oh, wait - he did that.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by bfp

Considering that you've quoted the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, I find it pretty ridiculous that you would criticize any commentary for not being credible. Not that your statement was criticism, but rather, your typical nonsensical inflammatory retort.

[MysteryMeat]

What I don't understand is why people completely discredit reporters based on their past works, rather than looking at the truth presented in the report in question.

Propagandist though it is, I don't see any untrue statements in there. I could completely understand if this were opinions and conjecture, but its not.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
What I don't understand is why people completely discredit reporters based on their past works, rather than looking at the truth presented in the report in question.

Because their past work puts their current work into context. A person is the sum of their actions, past and present. This is true regardless of whether we're talking about reporters, friends, coworkers, or family. As Christian intoned, an article like this from the other side of the fence would be met with as much derision as this one has.

Would you trust an article written today by Phillip Glass or Jayson Blair, even though they've been caught fabricating stories in the past?

(This isn't a perfect analogy, but I think you see the larger point I'm attempting to make.)

btw Thomas, it is an opinion. That's why it's an 'OP-ED' piece.

[JoshM]

Originally posted by Dionysos
Because their past work puts their current work into context. A person is the sum of their actions, past and present. This is true regardless of whether we're talking about reporters, friends, coworkers, or family. As Christian intoned, an article like this from the other side of the fence would be met with as much derision as this one has.

That and following the money is always a factor. Lots of reporters belong to specific organizations and get paid by specific people. Knowing where that comes from can tell you a lot of why they put the spin on things.

Originally posted by JoshM
That and following the money is always a factor. Lots of reporters belong to specific organizations and get paid by specific people. Knowing where that comes from can tell you a lot of why they put the spin on things.

Often it doesn't work quite like that - but not unlike that. Hmmm.

Reporters often get spoon fed stories with spin from the "news" source.

It's symbiotic. The source gets information out in a manner they wish and the reporter gets the "inside" scoop.

So, rather than getting paid outright - they get "paid" by having the inside track to a story - exclusivity.