Old lady has opinion

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on March 5th, 2018 at 01:44 pm

Maureen Dowd on George W. Bush:

His humanitarianism will remain inhumane as long as he fails to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.

First point: US servicemen and women killed in Iraq aren’t children. Second point: if MoDo regards the moral authority of parents whose “children” are killed in Iraq as “absolute”, let’s see her seek out parents who lost a son or daughter but still support the war. Their moral authority must alsobe absolute, Dowd. Talk to them.

UPDATE. Citizen Grim has further thoughts on MoDo’s latest.

Posted by Tim B. on 08/10/2005 at 11:30 AM
    1. “the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute”

      That’s a grand assertion.  Don’t suppose she offers an argument for it, and I’m not prepared to register to find out.

      Posted by rexie on 2005 08 10 at 12:59 PM • permalink


    1. MoDo offer an argument?  She states her opinions as facts…..she doan need no steenkin’ logic!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 08 10 at 01:23 PM • permalink


    1. Modo’s sanity will remain insane as long as she fails to understand that her readers’ capacity for absorbing BS is not absolute.

      I think the old girl is about ready for a nice long rest, at one of those discreet places in the country, where she’ll be able to smell fresh air, eat simple, but wholesome, food, and feed the little birds through the bars on her window.

      Posted by paco on 2005 08 10 at 01:42 PM • permalink


    1. I’m sorry – was MoDo talking about Kurdish and mothers burying children killed by poison gas attacks?

      Or perhaps she meant the Iraqi mothers who found their policeman sons either shot or beheaded, by noble “insurgents” and left by the side of the road?

      Oh – – I KNOW. She means the mothers who found bits and pieces of their children scattered over the street after the suicide bomber drove an explosives laden vehicle into their midst while they were receiving candy from evil US servicemen occupying their country and doing nefarious things like building schools, utilities, and shooting bad guys with bombs strapped to their cars and waists…

      I have an idea – why don’t we ship Cindy Sheehan over to Iraq and let her sit in a ditch near Falluja to plead her case with the mothers over there? We can send MoDo over to cover her – from her all too pristine picture it looks she could use a little field work to give her “opinions” some credibility.

      Posted by dc981924 on 2005 08 10 at 02:06 PM • permalink


    1. . . .

      It really depresses me to think that, somewhere, some time, some college must have produced–and then even granted a degree to–a person capable of making a statement as baldly stupid as that. I can only hope that it’s indicative not of how stupid MoDo herself is, but merely of how stupid she hopes her readers are. (It’s also possible that she’s become so vacantly obsessed with ‘clever’ sounding turns of phrase and cute little pop culture references that by now she’s really incapable of thinking any thought through to its logical conclusion–to the extent she even thinks at all.) “Absolute”? I can conceive of no experience, no matter how horrible and unthinkable, which could automatically confer on any human being the sort of “absolute” moral authority to make or break moral laws at will (both for themselves and for others) which few philosophers or theologists even grant to God Himself.

      At any rate, whether or not MoDo really believes this crap–that is, as a general principle of ethics which would apply OUTSIDE Bush’s term of office:

      This kind of “thinking” has nothing to do with morality or ethics at all, but is rather a kind of cowardice which sees the pain of others purely selfishly–as a threat to one’s own beliefs, whatever they may be. This way of looking at another person in pain may not be quite so cruel as defensively accusing him or her of having deserved to suffer, but it is no less selfish, has no more to do with real decency, and is no less purely and selfishly concerned with neutralizing the threat that person poses to oneself. Submitting to a suffering person’s every whim (however irrational or immoral it may be) is simply another cowardly trick by which you try to avoid having that person pull rank on you and blame you or what you believe in for their pain. It is a way of placing your own peculiar fears and concerns higher than the universal demands of ethics–it is unethical.

      A suffering person does not, in fact, eo ipso have ANY greater “moral authority” than any other person. (Indeed, the idea of “moral authority” resting in any other single human being by default, rather than in the right ACTIONS of ANY person because those actions are right and not because they are carried out by one or another person, is pretty damn screwy.)

      Suffering people deserve compassion, yes–and THIS may be called a moral imperative. But, if anything, a person in pain is conceivably one of the LEAST moral there is: suffering people frequently–if anything more frequently than people who have never personally known pain–do horrible and morally reprehensible things, inflicting pain on others to dull their own. We are perhaps called to be more understanding of the immoral things they do than we otherwise would be, but the contortions, crimes, cruelties they in their pain become guilty of are in themselves no less fundamentally immoral for being committed by a person crazed with grief. And we are hardly called upon to fulfill all the demands of any and every suffering person, whatever these demands may be, as unquestioningly as Abraham obeyed God’s command to sacrifice his own son.

      Or in other words–MY GOD, MAUREEN DOWD’S A FUCKING IDIOT.

      Posted by alyosha on 2005 08 10 at 02:39 PM • permalink


    1. From one old lady to another:  ignorant bitch.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2005 08 10 at 02:55 PM • permalink


    1. Dowd is talking about the absolute moral authority of soap opera.

      As she indulges in it.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2005 08 10 at 03:10 PM • permalink


    1. In my estimation, Maureen Dowd lost her credibility and professionalism when she intentionally changed a quote by President Bush.  And Gail Collins lost hers when she refused to confront Dowd on it other than accept her assertion that she made good on the mistake in some unstated way.

      Anything she said from that point on always elicited in me the concern that she can’t be trusted to state the truth.

      Posted by wronwright on 2005 08 10 at 04:38 PM • permalink


    1. Maureen Dowd on Roosevelt:

      His humanitarianism will remain inhumane as long as he fails to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in France is absolute.

      Posted by Rob Read on 2005 08 10 at 06:37 PM • permalink


    1. Dear Mr. Wrigley Stadium,


      Posted by guinsPen on 2005 08 10 at 07:39 PM • permalink


    1. If the parents’ moral authority is absolute, then what happens to the moral authority of the fallen troops themselves?  Does it trump that of the parents’, or does it die with them?

      The views of the fallen themselves are never mentioned.

      Posted by dorkafork on 2005 08 10 at 09:26 PM • permalink


    1. Shades of Iowahawk’s Why I am A Democrat:

      “I am a Democrat because I fear the power of giant unrestrained monopolies, such as Microsoft, Nike, Parker Brothers, Univac and the Erie Canal Company. The government must wage an unrelenting, all-out war to crush these scary monopolies to a pulp before they get too powerful.

      I am a Democrat because I believe in a strong military. Strong, yes, but caring and thoughtful too, and ready to face new challenges. A military that enjoys long strolls on the beach, cuddling in front of a warm fire, unafraid to show its vulnerable side. Must be NS/DDF.”

      And lots more!

      Posted by blogstrop on 2005 08 10 at 09:27 PM • permalink


    1. Further, parents who supported the war at the outset shouldn’t change their position because their child is killed.

      Posted by Big Johnny on 2005 08 11 at 12:03 AM • permalink


    1. Maybe MoDo is restricting this just to parents of American military killed in Iraq.  Okay, that means she has no standing at all, since she is a chicken-jihad.  No dog in the hunt as it were.

      Maybe she would like to put it to a vote of the parents of troops killed in action?  No, I thought not.  That pretty much happened in Nov 2004.

      Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2005 08 11 at 01:17 AM • permalink


    1. BBC news last night had a predictable piece on how American relatives of soldiers in Iraq are turning aginst the war.  I e-mailed them to ask why they didn’t bother speaking to the many relatives who take some pride in the fact that their husbands/sons/brothers died by helping to make Iraq into a better place, and whose anger is rightly directed against the terrorists (insurgents in BBC speak).  Wankers

      Posted by gg on 2005 08 11 at 04:31 AM • permalink


    1. From Wikipedia:

      Dowd’s critics, especially James Taranto, have often accused her of editing quotes and adding ellipses so as to change the quotes’ intended meanings; the word dowdify has been coined to describe this habit. The word has become common parlance among journalists and bloggers, regardless of political persuasion, to describe any wilful misinterpretation of a quote. Conservative pundit Isaiah Z. Sterrett has compared her to Norma Desmond.

      Posted by egg_ on 2005 08 11 at 05:41 AM • permalink


    1. Does she have any kids to bury, or does she just bury the hooded bishop?

      Posted by egg_ on 2005 08 11 at 05:49 AM • permalink


    1. egg_…

      That was frigging hilarious. Would that be considered MoDo “Dowdifying” herself?

      Posted by dc981924 on 2005 08 11 at 12:43 PM • permalink


    1. Three great new words created by the political blogosphere in honor of self-important journalistic frauds:

      “fisk” “dowdify” and “pilgery”

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 08 11 at 12:56 PM • permalink


  1. Hey Rexie, there’s no need to register to read articles.  Try this

    Posted by DwayneMH on 2005 08 12 at 11:17 AM • permalink