There are a few reasons for this, that seem transparent, and perhaps, others, more veiled.  We don’t know.

First, as documented frequently, this website is not a fan of the one time Pulitzer prize winning and now seemingly vacuous, vague, stereotpying, false balancing Dowd. Nor is this rather well researched, and written site here (by a former college roommate of Tommy Lee Jones, Eric Siegel, and Al Gore).  Although that is a decidedly liberal site, whereas Donkasaurus Post is decidedly neutral (with due note that in today’s world’s, the facts themselves, are decidedly not) a snapshot look as to the reasons why that site is also not a fan of Dowd’s, is illuminating.

And we know — or at least it seems — that Dowd’s site carefully monitors to protect her from overly critical assessments of her work.

And third, we imagine that despite the inanity, and borderline sexual indulgence of some of Dowd’s columns, the Times does not want to encourage links to what it must surely (and somewhat ironically), view as puerile meanderings.

Today, Dowd wrote yet another somewhat inane, fanciful column.  In it, she tried to make the point about extreme Cheney was. At the same time, she also played into some of Cheney’s arguments, and seemed to make the questionable assertion that Cheney had no right to criticize Obama’s approach to our “counter terrorism” efforts. (We refuse to use the idiotic “war on terror,” “war” “enemy combatants” or “battlefield,” all of which play right into these psychotic terrorist criminals recruitment and proselytizing efforts as something other than the simple, lowly, depraved common murderers that they are, and which they absolutely do not want to think of themselves as, or be perceived as.  Newt Gingrich doesn’t get this point either.)  And of course she played into the pure spin argument, while seemingly trying (ineffectively) to mock it, that Obama is “weak” on terrorism because he does not use five time military deferrer Cheney’s constant drumbeat of war rhetoric.

Thus, it was, that in response, the following comment was of course blocked from all fair readers potential considerations.  As submitted in comment form to the Dowd’s column today, unedited, unabridged, and unaltered from it’s original puerile fulsomeness:

Well, you hit a lot of stereotypes Maureen, and played into a lot of misleading framing, but did so in a ‘balanced’ way.

But were you just afraid it was going too far?

Or was there some other reason that you left out that in addition to being weak — and afraid to use the manly words “war” and “enemy combatants” even though this plays right into our lowly, common murderous psychotic enemy criminals’ hands (and recruitment) that they are in some sort of grander “war” and are instead the more noble “combatants” in a war — how in addition to being weak, Obama is also prejudiced?

How’d you miss this clearly also relevant nugget. Weak and prejudiced. What kind of leader is that?

If Obama won’t frequently and constantly use “architect against terrorism” Dick Cheney’s manly war words and make our enemies all goose bumply thereby, couldn’t he at least cease from being prejudiced against homosexual fish, also?

It seems fair to ask.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSrtMPIqoaY&feature=related

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/15/obama-calls-kanye-west-jackass/

http://donkasauruspost.com/2009/09/15/beck-half-correct-president-obama-is-prejudiced-after-all-hates-gay-fish/

Dick could have pointed that out too, in the above fireside chat, don’t you think?

I’m just askin.’

What a pity that the Times readers could not revel in the sophomoric-ness and juvenile-ness of it all, while reading about how Obama is “weak” on terrorism because he relies less upon grandiose sweeping battlefield phrasing, and how Obama should tell Cheney to be quiet because THAT emboldens our enemy. (When it seems to us that both are likely wrong. The only thing that emboldens our enemy is their irrational hatred of the U.S., and culturally psychotic approach to visualizing it, along with our turning them into something they are not. That is, combatants, rather than lowly murderous criminals, and playing up to them publicly in some big game of rhetoric, rather than quietly and powerfully framing the effort so as to lessen recruitment appeal, and finding, minimizing, and where applicable, wiping them out.)

And on that weapon, was an inscription with an obvious reference to the Koran.

While we know our enemies themselves are far more religiously fervent than perhaps on balance we are, and we might expect it, that still wouldn’t go over too well, would it?

It would give ammunition, so to speak, for those who counter-productively argue that we are in some sort of war that is religious based (which is the best thing we can do for our enemies to help broaden their case, de radicalize what is radical, and help with recruitment).

But much worse than that — since we are trying to combat what is an extremist, radical fringe Islam element, not the religion itself — would be if our enemies were given reason to believe that on the other side of the equation, we were acting under our God specifically in terms of our efforts against them and thus possibly against their religion, and in our God’s honor or with his blessing in our effort against them.

Sure, an inscription on a rifle does not necessarily support this. But it’s not a rational world.  The argument will be made, and the perception taken, just like it would be here in America were the situation to be reversed.

That’s why we would never do anything as foolish as putting such religious inscriptions on our own rifles, right?

Apparently not.