Since Armando is rightfully fixated on the filibuster fight, I thought I’d take a shot at critiquing David Brooks’s latest column.
Brooksie starts out by attacking the right-wing blogosphere to establish his bona fides as a centrist voice of reason. He assures the wingnuts that, “(w)hatever might have been the cause of (Newsweek’s) mistakes, liberalism had nothing to do with it.”
Then he sets his eyes on yours truly, and all our comrades on the left:
This, too, is unhinged. Would it be illegal for more people on the left to actually be happy that a story slurring Americans may turn out to be unproven? Could there be a few more liberals willing to admit that prisoners routinely lie about their treatment? (Do we expect them to say their time in captivity wasn’t so bad?)
:::Flip:::
Oh, what a clever son of a bitch this Brooks guy is. First, he correctly diagnoses the fury with which many of us have reacted to the Newsweek story. Then he misdiagnoses why we are furious.
Do you think I am angry because of the “possibility that American interrogators might not have flushed a Koran down the toilet”?
I am angry because there is almost no question that American interrogators, military police, and national guardspeople have not only been abusing the Koran, but forcing prisoners to play naked twister, setting dogs on people, and have, by their own admission, tortured at least 26 detainees to death.
I am angry because the anonymous ‘high level Bush administration official’ never denied that he had seen ‘investigative reports’ of Koranic desecration, nor did he even suggest the possibility that it had not occurred.
Am I in a frenzy? Maybe Brooks feels like calling a couple of lawyers and interviewing them independently, and asking them if they had heard reports of Koranic desecration from their clients, is frenzied behavior.
I call it basic reporting. He should try it.
When you talk to a source, David, you can get a sense for whether they are bullshitting you. In my case, the first lawyer I called was afraid to go on the record because they felt that going on the record with reports of abuse would hurt their clients’ best interests. If anything, this whole episode has shown how dangerous it is to release detainees and allow them to talk about how they were treated. If they talk before they are released, there is little chance they’ll be released at all.
Of course some of the detainees are going to make false accusations. Some of them may have even been trained to do this. Do you think 26 of them were also trained to be beaten to death?
Would I be happy to learn that the charges of Koranic desecration were unproven? No. I’d be happy to learn that the people representing the detainees were skeptical of their client’s allegations, that they had heard some scattered allegations, but they seemed concocted…
That is NOT what I heard. I heard that these allegations were rampant, continuous, credible, and that the lawyers put a lot of credence into them. And they explained why they put credence into them, and their explanations were reasonable and rational.
I’ve written in my last two columns about why I consider this so important. So, here I will just say that the problem is not that we are taking our eye off ‘the extremists’, but that too much of what the extremists are saying about us is true. We have become what they, falsely, claimed we were all along. People with no respect for Islam. People with a myopic inability to distinguish a devout Muslim from a raving mad bomb-maker. People who have abandoned due process and human rights treaties, and invade Muslim countries under false pretexts.
I’d love to learn that Abu Ghraib never happened, or that we hadn’t killed 26 prisoners, or that the Koran was not urinated on. But wishing doesn’t make it so, David. And unless we force this administration to stop what they are doing, they are going to continue to make the ‘extremists’ case for them.
That’s the problem. That is what I’m angry about.
Bravo!
Send this in truncated form to NYT as a lte.
I object to this baseless slander against the Sophists.
Had Osama spent his entire family fortune at so-called Madison Avenue, he could not have purchased a better and more powerful global ad campaign to motivate his Jihad than that provided to him gratis by the US military.
It’s his contribution to the spin.
He’s just earning his taxpayer-funded pay check.
He’s so cute when he does that contrite thing with his mouth and wrinkled up nose.
What a keyboard stud.
Jimmy Guckert got better mileage with a Xerox machine though…
Just which part of attempting to establish if there is any validity to the story is unhinged, David, you fucking creep, the part where we say, “gee, your piece-of-shit fucking newspaper is treasonously abdicating its responsibility to the American people by not following up on the Quran flushing story,” or, that we in the left blogosphere actually bother to respond to your idiotic columns?
Sophist? Is’nt that another word for asshole? 😉
Yeah, thanks to some 23 centuries of relentless bad-mouthing started by a notorious hack named Plato. 😉 But the original Sophists, like Protagoras, were anything but, and arguably quite ahead of their time.
No disagreement there, though…
They seem to do this often, Brooks and other writers, stating a problem and then completely misreprenting the positions of those involved. There was another one recently too, some reporter talking about the Gannon/Guckert stuff from what seemed like a position of almost total ignorance. With Brooks, of course, that is his job apparently… to shill for the right, in a “moderate” and “rational” seeming way.
I used to think it was all on purpose, and no doubt quite a bit of it is, but I also read newspaper blogs sometimes, like the Dallas Morning News one and it’s discomfiting to see how ignorant of current events some of them are and how often they get just a tiny part of the story and think they have it all. In fairness, they are probably more thorough when actually writing something for the paper than when commenting on their blog, but still. They should read more blogs 😉
Great writing and laying out of the real issues… hopefully it’ll get picked up as an op/ed. We need more of this type of writing out there.
I kind of feel sorry for all the print “pundits” out there.. they realize too late that people are tired of this false “objectivity” and listen more to Keith O. or Markos simply because they care about the subject.
Yet these suit and tie slobs think they have to “spin” everything when the story itself needs no spinning whatsoever. Every reader with a brain stem knows both that murderous terrorists are bad and that being disrespectful to someone’s religion is bad.
All the rest is a temptest in a teapot while outside a real storm is blowing. Right now some 18 year old American marine is hunkered down behind a filthy rock wall while bullets whine over his head and some scared as shit Iraqi 18 year old is being pressured to pick up a gun or deliver a bomb…
Hey guess what you conservatives?? I was against the war because war always brings both sides down to the lowest level. It isn’t noble or honorable!! Put that in your pipe and smoke it.. or better yet, go pick up a gun, strap on some boots, and go fight the extremists yourself and quit imagining a single patriotic American would ever wish harm on her country.. sheesh!
Pax
I just wish the conservatives would realize that they are harming the country. Every day.
We liberals are just protesting the hooligans that have invaded our home, and broken the coffee table, pissed on our bookcase, offended our guests, and called us losers for complaining.
Surely. The conceit is stupefying.
But I also wish all meddlers of any stripe would understand that their actions are not welcome by many, albeit to varying degrees are as you have described.
Moreover, if one side does the home invasion, the other side looks forward to payback / its day in the sun to rule the roost. The conservatives often complained about being on the receiving end of the left / being ignored, no matter their protests… and now the tide has turned.
In either case, it is escalating lunacy no matter who does it?
Does he have any credibility anywhere?
The left doesn’t trust him with reason? But does the right use him? Do they go and say : “even liberal NYT says that Newsweek fucked up. see his column”?
Shouldn’t he just be ignored? Does it make any sense to try to convince him to change his opinions?
This is a serious question.
He is used by the right to give “balance” to left-wing
commentators on Public Broadcasting. He is the NYTimes
“balance” for Maureen Dowd. (although I wonder how many
right-wingers the Times needs these days.)
His stupidity should be exposed to further destroy his credibility – what little there is.
[I posted essentially this same comment last week about John Tierney, but it’s fully applicable to both him and Brooks.]
I realize I may a lone voice in the wilderness in saying this, but perhaps the “liberals” in charge of the New York Times editorial and op-ed pages know exactly what they’re doing in having provided us with twice-weekly doses of Brooks and Tierney. Since neither one is likely to write a genuinely thoughtful column even remotely capable of causing a progressive to stop and consider the potential validity of the argument, they permit most readers to come away with the impression that conservatives have nothing intelligent to offer. The reaction they engender is typically, “See, I told you those right-wingers are all a bunch of buffoons!” (The Letters to the Editor that usually follow their columns tend to bear this out.) If this is what the Times is trying to achieve, they may be succeeding brilliantly.
Yes, I would much rather be stimulated, challenged and provoked as I drink my morning coffee, but there’s also something to be said for the sense of outrage that Tierney and Brooks regularly generate. I don’t fear their words, and I doubt that anyone else does, either. Bobos in Paradise, indeed. Who’s getting the last laugh now?
And to the extent that the right does cite to folks like Brooks, I say, “Fine.” It only goes to demonstrate the complete intellectual vacuity on their side of the ledger. Of course, once the Times moves all its columnists behind a subscription wall, there will be even fewer wingnuts who will ever have an opportunity to read the random musings of the village idiots.
is about the way the White House, with the help of the rightwing media, is bullying Newsweek. It is about how the right is subverting the freedom of the press.
The beauty of the mainstream is that they don’t get it. I’d add that the mainstream left doesn’t get it any more than the right. This is exactly why the likes of Brooks will be even more marginalized in the next decade as we come to be our own chief editors, choosing our own sub editors and creating our own sections of our own newspapers. This nation is going to become more faction-alized / fractured as we evolve in that direction.
Babbling Brooks’ column which (as per usual) misstates “our” arguments to make them easier to shoot down, reminds me of Paul Newman’s line in The Verdict, when the judge intervened to in-artfully question Newman’s witness:
“If you are going to try my case, at least have the decency not to lose it.”
and neither one came out the way I wanted.
Basically, I went back to Galileo. The story is, he said the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around, and was forced before the Inquisition to retract his findings. He also supposedly said afterward, ” . . . and yet the earth moves.”
I couldn’t find any evidence that the story is true, other than in the sense that all stories are true. It rings true, though, precisely because of this event.
Whether or not Newsweek retracted the story, if it’s true, it’s true. Personally, I believe it rings true. Anyone who would perpetrate the abuses we’ve heard about would think nothing of flushing a Koran down the toilet.
My only wish is that Newsweek’s editors had had the courage of Ben Bradlee who, when the Washington Post was under attack to retract the story of the Watergate breakins, famously issued the simple statement: “We stand behind our story.”
And as for the story costing lives . . . well the administration should have thought of the cost of lives before they embarked on an illegal war that has cost many, many, many more lives than any anti-American riots this past week, and will cost many, many, many bore before it’s all over.
Excellent as always! The setting up of false arguments to then demolish them is becoming one of the mainstays of supposed journalism. The fact that anyone might actually be interested in the truth of the allegations is totally off the map! Looking into any issue in search of the truth is considered on the verge of lunacy. All this poking into dark corners and doing such outrageous things as seeking out sources must be discouraged, the truth is not good for Americans, it might cause brain cells to begin lighting up, patterns to emerge etc.
If you liked that one from Brooks, then you’ll really love Ann Coulter…
Otherwise known as Stalking Horse-face.
An actual walking and talking ameoba, you know I really think they took the worst of O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Hume, Novak and Matthews and created Ann. She is in my humble opinion the poorest excuse for a human being I have ever seen or heard. Even looking at a picture of her, makes me shiver in disgust. I have a hard time believing that their is really any humanity at all in the person and I can only hope that when this person is called before her maker, she is sent to that place reserved for those who have no humanity left.
Hey, I’m getting the impression you don’t like the man…
Seen this picture? 😉
I would tell you what I really believe but then I would be given troll status and I really really like it here. lmao
I love photoshop
Hmm, what do you think Brooksie’s reaction would be if the prisoners did say their treatment wasn’t so bad? Maybe something like “well, that’s why we’re not doing well in the WAR ON TERROR.. we have all these softies in the military… we need to flush their Korans down the toilet, that’ll teach ’em!”
The joy of being a right-wing pundit.. y’always have something to whine about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?hp&ex=1116561600&en=870173
8ac057aebe&ei=5094&partner=homepage
We just aren’t that cruel.