home

Brooks On Predictions and Obstinancy

Greg Sargent has the goods on the lying phony "civil" Republican David Brooks. David Brooks now:

Far be it from me to get in the middle of a liberal purge, but would anybody mind if I pointed out that the calls for Hillary Clinton to apologize for her support of the Iraq war are almost entirely bogus?... Today, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party believes that the world, and Hillary Clinton in particular, owes it an apology. . . .

David Brooks then:

Here's what Brooks wrote in The Weekly Standard back in 2003 after the Saddam statue fell:
I'm curious about how all the war opponents are going to react if things continue to go well. Sure, they opposed Saddam, they will say. They just didn't want to do anything about him. . . . They were tolerant. Tolerant of tyranny. They doubted, and continue to doubt America's willingness and ability to serve as a force for good in the world. That was their crucial mistake. I suspect they will not even now admit their errors. I doubt the people of Europe will say: We were wrong. . . . I doubt the Arab propagandists will say: We will never spread such distortions again. We will never again be so driven by resentment and dishonesty.

What a piece of work. A dishonest piece of work.

< On Iran: Keep Ken Baer Far Away From Democrats Please | Iran: The War Power, Clinton and the War Powers Act >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Fish in a Barrel (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:34:34 PM EST
    Come on BTD...surely you can engage in a sport more challenging than poking holes in the paper thin, hypocrisy laden drivel spewed forth by such a common and unremarkable species; Warwhoreia Brooksei*?

    *Taxonomy:
    Family; War Whore
    Species; Brooks

    conservative punditocracy only has three modes (none / 0) (#2)
    by wrisky on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:22:21 PM EST
      They only have so much to work with out there on the fight. First there is SNARK. Since most of what they do is belittle contrary opinions it is pretty much a staple for them. Keeping the SNARK company in the conservative pundits rhetorical toolbox is SMARM. Smarm is used when they want to shed a crocodile tear or two for those poor befuddled fools on the left. Properly used it allows them to maintain a bare semblance of moderation.

      There is a third tool available but it is only used by a very few practitioners, it can be termed PICAYUNE PRECISION. An example would be when the pundit takes an obscure item and manipulates into just the proper position and then expounds upon how that particular juxtaposition exemplifies whatever it is about the left that they want to rag on. Past master at this is W. Safire formerly of the NYT and the leading current practitioner would be George Will of the WaPo.

      Try to be understanding of these unfortunate scriveners, they enter the fray underarmed.