The Australians and New Zealanders had a few "issues" with Dowd's latest:
MANHATTAN SNEER HOUND
Maureen Dowd in the New York Times:
Can you believe President Bush is still pushing the cockamamie claim that we went to war in Iraq with a real coalition rather than a gaggle of poodles and lackeys?
Reader Matt F. writes: “I didn't know that poodles were eligible for service in the Australian SAS. Please clarify.” That line confused me, too, Matt. As far as I was aware, the only role for poodles in our SAS was as occasional target practice (they're cheap and speedy). Let’s see if US Army Officer Jason Van Steenwyk, currently in Iraq, can help:
I wonder how many of these soldiers she's had the privilege of looking in the eye? I've met and worked with soldiers from the UK, Australia, New Zealand (Hey, Maureen, how come you don't bother mentioning these in your list? Can it be you're stacking the deck?), Poland, the Ukraine, Romania, Azerbaijan, and Denmark.
I've also met Fijians. Those guys ride around in swivel chairs with machine gun mounts on the backs of pickup trucks guarding Iraqi Currency Exchange convoys. Their role is absolutely vital, their job dangerous as hell, and they are as tough as two-dollar steaks.
Further, Maureen, believe me -- the ANZACS are not poodles, nor lackeys. Nor do they represent a government who is.
The rest of Dowd’s column is such a mess I doubt whether the SMH or The Age, which sometimes run her pieces, will pick it up. Pity. Australian readers might then ask of Maureen and her craven NYT friends: “Why do they hate us?”
(In fact, that’s a question you can ask Daniel Okrent, recently appointed as the NYT’s reader advocate. Email him here.)
Posted by Tim Blair at January 23, 2004 10:42 AM
timblair.spleenville.com |
