home

Dishonest David Brooks Once Again

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:27:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

David Brooks tomorrow:

The continuing U.S. mistake is an unwillingness to see Iraqi reality sociologically, from the ground up.

David Brooks in April 2003:

I think you've begun to see a couple things. One, you've begun to see Iraqis who are jubilant and happy in the cities where they do know they're liberated. If you've read the last few days of the New York Times, you've really seen some exultant crowds, including one who had to me, the slogan of the war, a happy Iraqi fellow who went up to the troops and screamed out, democracy, whiskey and sexy . . .

Democracy, whiskey and sexy . . . David Brooks' reality based view of Iraq. What a dishonest man.

< Political Consequences For Dems On Iraq | Scooter Libby Sentencing Preview >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dishonest David Brooks Once Again | 54 comments (54 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    i read the linked article jarober (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:35:50 AM EST
    what's it got to do with the fact that brooks, like his fellows, was braying about how "easy" the iraq war was going to be, and has now suddenly discovered that, well, it isn't? hmmmmmmmmmmm, nothing.

    this might be acceptable, had it not been for the fact that smarter, more learned people than he had predicted this very outcome, 4 years ago. he, again along with his fellows, chose to ignore them.

    What's worse is (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:51:18 AM EST
    dumber, less learned people than Brooks predicted this same outcome too.

    Parent
    This is interesting, as I recall reading a (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:11:52 PM EST
    comparison of Frank Rich's previous writings over the years with his present position on the U.S. military going into Iraq.  Still, I enjoy reading Rich, although I never for a moment forget that he was previously the theatre critic.  

    but that is his reality! (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:31:07 PM EST
    it just doesn't happen to coincide with the reality of the rest of us. geez, picky, picky, picky! if it's good enough for bush, why are you giving brooks a hard time? lol

    but serially, brooks is an idiot, living in his own little version of gop utopia. why even waste time on him?

    I hate him, I really do (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:32:58 PM EST
    How he could be hired away from the Weekly Standard to the Times is a mystery to me.

    Unrelated FYI: Craid Thomas died tonight.

    Meanwhile... (none / 0) (#3)
    by jarober on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:07:22 AM EST
    Meanwhile, you might learn a few things here.

    Have you learned anything the past 4 years? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:20:38 AM EST
    No.

    Parent
    Dishonest BTD (none / 0) (#4)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:11:35 AM EST
    Get real, BTD. It was April 2003 and they really were yelling "Democracy, Whiskey, Sex." That's no lie from Brooks. That the situation has changed, and he notes the change, isn't dishonest either.

    We get it. You don't like David Brooks.

    What a crock (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:20:03 AM EST
    The reality was ENTIRELY predictable and PREDICTED Gabe.

    What a dishonest comment from you. Brooks says it is time NOW to deal with the reality when he spent 4 years NOT dealing with it as you continue to deny the reality that what is happening nwo was predicted by anyone whop dealt with the reality that WAS, is and WILL BE Iraq.

    Dishonest or ignorant Gabe. Which is it?

    Parent

    What a joke. (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 01:27:01 AM EST
    If you can't make an argument, just call your adversaries evil or ignorant. Well done, BTD. You're a helluva thinker.

    Parent
    What a joke Gabe (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:44:08 AM EST
    Some of uis knew about the reality of Iraq in 2002 and 2003 when you and Brooks were celebrating. We knew what was to come.

    The argument need not be articulated one more time does it? Do you deny that this was predicted because of the REALITY of Iraq, one that you and Brooks and all the GOP blithely ignored?

    Stop being a dishonest commenter Gabe. you are better than this.

    Be better than Brooks, admit you were wrong.
     

    Parent

    Hindsight bias. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:21:40 AM EST
    The I-knew-it-all-along effect is more repulsive than what usually passes for analysis from you, BTD.

    But set that aside and what do we find? David Brooks has come around to your point of view. And you still call him a liar and rip him up constantly. It doesn't actually matter that he agrees with you now, you cannot forgive the fact that he didn't just fall into line the moment you started wailing.

    What should I admit, BTD? I made no claims about an "easy war." In fact, I said something along the lines of "our commitment in Iraq will not be brief, nor will it be easy" long before someone else said it.

    That's what really separates us. BTD, you were against the war even if it was going to be an easy war. I was for the war even if it was going to be a hard one. It was necessary.

    Parent

    What is disgusting Gabe (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:31:05 AM EST
    is your shilling for Brooks' dishonesty.

    He pretends that the "reality" of Iraq is only NOW becoming apparent after he attacked those of us who saw the reality long before.

    As for the differences between us, I think it is obvious that on thisa issue there is a big one - I am honest and you are not.

    Now if you are saying you predicted this Debacle and were FOR IT anyway, then you are simply an idiot. I personally think you are not an idiot, just dishonest.

    Parent

    "It was necessary"..... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:02:41 PM EST
    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Eating is necessary, bowel movements are necessary.  Invading and occupying Iraq?  Certainly not necessary.

    Parent

    You're full of it (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Dadler on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:08:30 PM EST
    You were too lazy to do your homework back then, when people who cared about their freedom knew the war was already a murderous joke.  Your opinion of this war is that of a spoiled child who is perfectly willing to let others die for something he deems necessary, when he himself is perfectly able (but unwilling) to go fight himself.  You are the worst kind of hypocrite on this issue.  Go help my brother, Gabriel, join the Marines and prove to us you are sincere.  And yes, any able bodied person of military age who praises this war, and says it's so vital, any person like this who DOESN'T go and fight is so full of sh*t it's a wonder they can draw a breath.  Your warmongering without risk, your fearful (and rightfully so) refusal to put your ass where your mouth is just makes me ill.  

    Sorry, bro, I'm sure you're a decent person, I'm sure you love your family, but on this issue you are off the charts irrational, ignorant and hypocritial.  

    Suit up and fight, boy.  Suit up.  You open yourself up for this every time.  And you deserve this criticism.  If you thought this battle really that necessary, really that important, if you really believed your own dangerously green rhetoric...then logic dictates you go fight.

    But you don't.  Why?  Because you're just too busy with your studies?  Of course not.  Because you are too afraid and realize, deep down, it is not worth sacrificing your life for.  You cannot in any way argue your way out of that reality.  That is the bed you have made for yourself rhetorically.  Sleep in it, enjoy it.

    I look forward to your reports from the front.

    Parent

    Dadler (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:36:52 PM EST
    Go help my brother, Gabriel, join the Marines and prove to us you are sincere.  And yes, any able bodied person of military age who praises this war, and says it's so vital, any person like this who DOESN'T go and fight is so full of sh*t it's a wonder they can draw a breath.  

    Why don't you go help your brother? You certainly use him enough.

    Now, shall we also demand that anyone who opposes the war join the military? Why not? If taking a position requires participation, then both sides must be served.

    Shall we also demand no discussions on education unless you are a board certified educator??

    And if you don't have your Mr. Goodwrench certficate then please refrain from talking about alternative fuels.. You obviously don't even have the basic qualifications...

    Made my point? I think so, but let me remind you that we are a Constitutional Republic that functions because once we have elections, the governing process moves on. When one group decides to act outside that process and make false claims, the system is threatened.

    Patience, Dadler. 2008 is near and we will get to see what the people think. If they elect a Demo, you may get what you want. Just remember the definition of success and happiness.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#52)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 03:40:50 PM EST
    Now, shall we also demand that anyone who opposes the war join the military? Why not?
    Because it's just plain stupid to require someone do something they don't believe in, as opposed to hypocritical & cowardly for someone to not do what they believe in.

    Parent
    Brooks hasn't 'come around' (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:33:28 AM EST
    to anything that he hasn't known for four years.

    And he sure as hell hasn't 'come around' to an acknowledgement that he's spent those four years carrying water for Bush and doing everything he could do within his profession to deceive the public.

    Nor have you.

    Parent

    This is the point (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:37:03 AM EST
    And he sure as hell hasn't 'come around' to an acknowledgement that he's spent those four years carrying water for Bush and doing everything he could do within his profession to deceive the public.

    But Gabe decided to attack me instead of dealing with the point.

    This is the worst I have ever seen of Gabe, who usually is smart and relatively fair.

    He knows what my point is and does not like it. Fine. But to then call me dishonest when clearly the point you describe is TRUE is the height of dishonesty.

    Bad Gabe.

    Parent

    He's knee jerking (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:39:59 AM EST


    Parent
    Brooks ALSO hasn't 'come around' (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:51:53 AM EST
    to anything that Gabe, and the rest of Bush sycophants, haven't known for four years.

    Brooks wants to now acknowledge that everyone else was right without acknowledging that he did everything he could do to keep everyone in the dark.

    He wants to pretend at being reality based all along without taking responsibility for what he's been doing.

    Parent

    He wants redemption. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:57:06 AM EST
    But he wants it free.

    Parent
    BTW (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:45:57 AM EST
    It is dishonest of Brooks, and now you, to pretend the current state of Iraq was NOT predicted by those who opposed the war.

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 09:30:00 AM EST
    I am curious.

    Let's assume that you are correct.

    Why should you really care beyond the level of telling everyone "See! I was right!"

    Your buds will pat you on the back and agree that you are great. For awhile. Even they will tire of it sooner or later.

    Your enemies will just be made angry and more intractable.

    And those in the middle will wonder why such things are of any importance to you.

    Brooks is an entertainer. When he ceases to entertain X number of people, he will be gone. Your attacks on him do not harm him, they help him.

    Brooks is an entertainer (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:16:26 AM EST
    If he is perceived as such, then I will certainly cease to discuss him.

    It is my aim to expose him as an "entertainer."

    From 2003 to 2006, however, too many wonky lieral blogs treated the man seriously as an honest conservative. He is not. He never has been.

    The David Brooks beat is one I take seriously because he has a high perch in punditry.

    I believe him to be the most dishonest "serious" columnist in a America. When he is viewed as a Limbaugh-like entertainer as you describe, you will see me not discuss him. How many times do I write about Rush? Never.

    Parent

    BTD - Makes no difference... (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:10:30 PM EST
    If he is honest, dishonest, dumb, smart, well informed or uninformed or anything between makes no difference.

    Everyone who appears on TV, or writes for publication, or who is on the radio is an entertainer. They can be an actor entertainer, a baseball player entertainer, a talk show host entertainer or a political pundit entertainer.

    The vast majority of people do not read, listen to or watch people that do not entertain them. I am astounded that you do not understand this rather basic fact.

    BTW - I define "entertainment" as something that meets some need that an individual has, and that individual is willing to expend time, labor and/or money to obtain.

    In that light I suggest Brooks is entertainment for you.

    Does that mean we shall read no more about him??

    Somehow I think not.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#32)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:10:15 PM EST
    Have you been watching that episode again where James T. Kirk uses his ingenious logic to baffle the computer and save the day?

    Parent
    Gee Alien that's real clever stuff. (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:12:52 PM EST
    So. How about pointing out your disagreement.

    Do you disagree that all these people are entertainers?

    Or do you believe that people spend time/money, etc., for something they don't like???

    Now remember. I spec'd that:

    If he is honest, dishonest, dumb, smart, well informed or uninformed or anything between makes no difference.



    Parent
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:09:00 PM EST
    How about pointing out your disagreement.

    There are things one can agree or disagree with. And then there's the things that are not even wrong.

    Parent

    Has anyone studied why Wiki includes such (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:15:16 PM EST
    topics?  An article looking for a home, perhaps?  I'm curious.  

    Parent
    Wikipedia (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:27:55 PM EST
    is the Library of Babel that will one day subsume the entire universe.

    I think it should lead more directly to the Wolfgang Pauli entry.

    Parent

    All these advanced concepts (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:40:27 PM EST
    could be harmful to some of the more conservative minded guests here, Al. ;-)

    Parent
    Too late (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:48:17 PM EST
    I think for most of them.

    Parent
    I guess.... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:59:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Let me explain (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 08:32:56 AM EST
    Link

    Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
      The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
    Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
      The frumious Bandersnatch

    - Lewis Carrol



    Parent
    Further OT; Alan Ayckbourn's (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:41:44 PM EST
    wonderful "Intimate Exhanges" is being performed soon in Manhattan with every single permutation.  Surely do wish I could see it.  

    Parent
    What ifs (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:51:42 PM EST
    Imagine what the world would be like if we'd taken the other path of the Great Bifurcation of 2000...

    Parent
    A startling, attractive proposition. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:56:03 PM EST
    Al Gore wouldn't have to take a position on U.S. military in Iraq because we wouldn't be there.

    Parent
    Alien (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 08:13:40 AM EST
    Had no idea you were a rocket scientist..

    But then Alien Abductee.... ;-)

    Parent

    You are dogged (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:29:05 PM EST
    Jim, I'll give you that.

    Not much else than dogged though.

    Parent

    Whan you "assume" something, it makes... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:17:34 AM EST
    Let's assume that you are correct.

    Is that like "assuming" that the sun comes up in the east, and the Tuesday follows Monday?

    Why should you really care beyond the level of telling everyone "See! I was right!"

    Because some moronic people have insisted for years that the sun comes up in the west and that Tuesday comes before Monday, and those people have been controlling the national dialog with these falsehoods, while using that control to ruin our country.

    Why SHOULDN'T we care about the ruin of our country?

    Your buds will pat you on the back and agree that you are great. For awhile. Even they will tire of it sooner or later.

    It does get tiresome hearing out that the sun REALLY DOES comes up in the east.

    Your enemies will just be made angry and more intractable.

    Why should we care what the enemies of America think about us?  We "assume" they are wrong, and that's why they are "the enemy."

    And those in the middle will wonder why such things are of any importance to you.

    What is the "middle" ground between America and its enemies?

    Brooks is an entertainer. When he ceases to entertain X number of people, he will be gone. Your attacks on him do not harm him, they help him.

    A contradiction.  If he has ceased to entertain people and someone points that out, how does it "help" him that he has lost part of his audience?

    Parent

    RePack (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:15:00 PM EST
    Is that like "assuming" that the sun comes up in the east,

    No that is like saying, to get on to another point we won't argue about it.

    Sorry that is to complicated for you.

    Parent

    also sorry I left off one o in my too (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:22:00 PM EST


    Parent
    "Entertainer" (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:25:55 AM EST
    George Carlin and Sigfried and Roy are entertainers; and none of them have ever written Op-Eds in the NYT.

    Funny, how as soon as any wing-nut journalist, talk show host etc is proven to be demonstrably, irretrievably, f.o.s, i.e.,Brooks or, mentally deranged, i.e., Coulter, they become "just entertainers".

    How much longer before you guys give Bush an honorary cabaret license?

    Parent

    Of course, (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:28:00 AM EST
    to a chicken hawk, war is the greatest show on earth.

    Parent
    Jondee (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:21:03 PM EST
    For years I have posited that Limbaugh, King, Coulter, Franken, etc...... are entertainers.

    The vast majority of people do not spend time, labor and/or money to see, hear or read something/someone that is not entertaining. See my defenition..

    You however, based purely on my observations of your comments in this blog seem to be entertained when you are unhappy..

    Just tell the lady with the whip.... "Beat me! Beat me!"

    ;-)

    Parent

    Definitions (none / 0) (#31)
    by killer on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:00:44 PM EST
    BTW - I define "entertainment" as something that meets some need that an individual has, and that individual is willing to expend time, labor and/or money to obtain.

    With a definition this broad, shelter is entertainment. But really, I think the general idea is that you don't take an "entertainer" as seriously. So given the earlier idea that everyone that goes on TV is an entertainer, who do we take seriously?

    Parent

    killer (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:49:01 PM EST
    Actually, when you consider the time, money, labor, etc., people spend on their homes you can easily see that they find it "entertaining."

    I see your point, but don't you find reading a good column entertaining? I enjoy bios and historical non-fiction... should I not consider that entertainment?

    I guess I would say, that being defined as an entertainer should not be negative.

    Parent

    By your definition (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:41:49 PM EST
    picking your nose or taking a dump is entertainment. You have very low standards of what you find entertaining, jim.

    Parent
    Nope WT (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 08:25:31 AM EST
    I'd say that since you brought the subject up, it is your standards you are speaking of.....

    Why am I not surprised????

    Typical snarky comment by a Lefty who can't have a discussion without attacking.

    Gee, that's a cliche...

    BTW - The subject was entertainers, and things that they do that the mass public finds entertaining..

    How much do you pay to watch someone pick their nose, or watch someone take a dump??

    Takes performance art to a whole new level..

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC (none / 0) (#49)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 09:04:21 AM EST
    The subject was entertainers
    No, the subject is the dishonesty of david brooks. Try to focus.

    Parent
    Careful jim (none / 0) (#50)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 09:40:01 AM EST
    your social liberalism is showing with all that 'typical Lefty' talk.

    Parent
    So whats (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 04:42:34 PM EST
    your problem with entertainer Eric Alterman,Jim? He didnt tie you up well enough?

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#54)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 05:47:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Dishonest David Brooks Once Again | 54 comments (54 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment