I almost cannot believe what I just read in today's New York Times Opinion piece by David Brooks. Sheer craziness. Apparently, says Brooks, the media is going out of its way not to report on matters that would cast the President in a good light:
Bush is not blind to the realities in Iraq. After all, he lives through the events we’re not supposed to report on: the trips to Walter Reed, the hours and hours spent weeping with or being rebuffed by the families of the dead.
If I understand correctly, we're supposed to believe that George Bush is making lots of trips to Walter Reed to visit wounded soldiers, and spending hours and hours of his precious time weeping with families of dead soldiers, and the White House (or someone else) just doesn't want this to be reported because...it would show...I don't know, that Bush actually cares? That would be so bad for his image.
Come on.
Then again, Brooks is clearly prone to delusions. He ends the column envisioning an epic philosophical confrontation between our wise George and the great Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy over the proper interpretation of history and the forces that shape it. Who knew that George Bush was so profound?
7 comments:
I honestly cannot fathom how Brooks manages this bizarre tap dance. Does he really believe the things he says? Bush is a smart and compelling presence in person? Has Brooks overdosed on the administration's Kool-Aid?
Brooks concludes with a textbook example of the black and white fallacy: Either Bush is correct and his strong leadership will prevail in Iraq or Tolstoy is correct and the masses will determine their own future in spite of the gallent efforts of strong leaders.
I suppose the "right" security plan and the "right" political compromise could lead to safety and stability. But they would only be considered "right" if they succeeded. Unfortunately though deceit, bad intentions and massive incompetence on our part, the mess that is Iraq today may be beyond redemption.
Some people, including Brooks, can somehow still see greatness in our intentions and actions, but history will not be so kind to us or easily self deluded.
David Brooks's position as Republican Party mouthpiece puts him in a pretty tenuous position in terms of logic. It's got to get difficult trying to convince people that a stoat is actually a fine Appaloosian horse.
With Bush's job approval rating at about 66& among Republicans, and about 15% with the rest of the country, Bush and Rove have clearly decided to pander and appeal unabashedly to Republicans' partisan instincts to stanch further hemorrhaging of support. Bush signaled this tactic by choosing to use the Fox News patented phrase "fair and balanced" to characterize his commutation of Libby's sentence. I have to assume that David Brooks' and Fred Hiatt's recent jaw-dropping op-eds in the New York Times and the Washington Post indicate that they have been co-opted in this effort.
I suppose that if one subscribes to the "Great Man" theory of history, it follows easily that anyone with the power to make history is a great man.
It's thoroughly and essentially anti-democratic, but what the hell, eh?
This is great blog found here.Really nice information given about bush. Thanks for sharing this information ...
I enjoyeed reading this
important link click reference sites here are the findings Recommended Reading his response
Post a Comment