Yep, so I fell for the headline
Attack of the Wolfman. Yes, I have vowed never to read NY Time's editorialist, Maureen Dowd's articles. But, every now and again, she does a decent, scathing piece on the administration. I liked her "Cheney-Bot" article. I figured, 'hey, maybe she's gonna tear into Wolfowitz.'
But no. Amidst the somewhat expected Clinton bashing was this last part:
"Wolfie's never embarrassed, even as he continues to spin his version of the truth about why we went to Iraq, how we're doing there and when we'll be able to leave. The man is quite a talented propagandist -- Michael Moore without the laughs."
I'm glad I don't know where she lives.
Not that I take a personal offense to anyone who speaks critically or abusivesly about Michael Moore, but this is just unreal. For someone that seems to have somewhat of a grasp on what is going on in the world, to compare Wolfowitz to Moore and to note that the only difference is that Moore makes people laugh is truly outrageous.
And let's not even go to other parts of the article about Clinton. Regarding his emtoional reaction to the turd BBC reporter, she had this to say:
"Ranting, he said the press didn't care "a rip" that Kenneth Starr "sends a woman like Susan McDougal into a Hannibal Lecter-like cell and makes her wear a uniform worn only by murderers and child molesters," but merely about getting a juicy story. Of course, Mr. Clinton is peddling his book by telling a lot of juicy stories in interviews with the press and dishing about his personal failings, but that's different, I guess."
Where do I even begin? It's the same for Clinton to sell his book and tell his story as it is for Star to ruin people's lives for a political agenda? Yes, you dumb cock-biter, there is a difference!
And she gets a cushy job writing op/ed's full of nonsense? I mean rubbish, plain rubbish.
Ug, it's like pushing on an aching tooth, I still read it knowing there would be no substance to it, and that in all likelihood, I would be appalled. Why am I a masochist?