MoDo and W

In the NY Times today, Maureen Dowd asks George W Bush to speak out on the Ground Zero mosque in order to provide moral guidance to the country. That has to be the most bizarre column she has ever written, and that is saying a lot. MoDo, as Dodd is known, first castigates Obama for his on again off again support or non-support for the mosque project. She points out also that Bill Clinton does not have any moral authority to sway the American people. Such authority and indeed such duty belongs to George W. Bush. Since MoDo is on of the most vicious of Bush haters, it is comical to see her call on Bush to use his moral authority in this instance. MoDo's chosen one, Obama, has failed her; he has not continued to blast away at those who quite properly oppose the mosque and speak out about it. Obama, instead, has fled from the field after taking back everything he had said. So while Obama looks like a child fleeing from his responsibilities, MoDo thinks that Bush has an obligation to speak out.

My guess, however, is that were Bush to speak out he would say something like this: There is no question that the developers of this mosque have every right to build at their site near ground zero provided that they comply with local laws and ordinances. The fact that the site was actually hit by parts of the plane on 9-11 does not change this. But that is not the main inquiry here. there is also a question of propriety and decency. The developers say that they are trying to bring folks together through this project. I ask that they bring folks together before begining construction. The developers should sit down with the representatives of the 9-11 families and discuss this matter. These are folks who have the right to speak just as the developers do. Their loss and pain is what makes this site so important. If it would lessen that pain to move the project, then the government should do what it can to assist in that endeavor. I am sure that reasonable people speaking to each other can work this all out.

MoDo would hate this. After all, it does not recognize the Muslims as victims, and it puts the 9-11 families into the category of victims as well. In other words, it is contrary to everything that she stands for. That is why her column is so bizarre.