He wants to write Bush’s name on his t-shirt right about now
David Brooks loves the President Bush:
Two years from now, no one will remember the spending or the ostrich-skin cowboy boots. But Bush’s speech, which is being derided for its vagueness and its supposed detachment from the concrete realities, will still be practical and present in the world, yielding consequences every day.
With that speech, President Bush’s foreign policy doctrine transcended the war on terror. He laid down a standard against which everything he and his successors do will be judged.
We read that passage a few times, and the stupidity of it only gets better with every reading. By Brooks’ standards, the mere fact that Bush read some fancy words written for him will allow him (well, really, them) to attribute any and all good news to Bush. [It’s an especially great contrast to our friend Kevin’s blaming Clinton for abortion rates or teen pregnancy.] Anything and everything bad that happened during the period 1992-2000 (and beyond, see 11, September) can be blamed on Clinton. Anything and everything good that happened after that is thanks to Bush.
Nice day out today? Bush did that. Your DVD player is broken? Clinton!
When he goes to China, he will not be able to ignore the political prisoners there, because he called them the future leaders of their free nation. When he meets with dictators around the world, as in this flawed world he must, he will not be able to have warm relations with them, because he said no relations with tyrants can be successful.
So what is he going to do about the prisoners in China, Captain Democracy? As for dictators, you might want to take a look at the coalition of the willing one more time. Brooks manages to state the obvious about past US policy (“the U.S. government […] support[ed] strongmen to rule over them because they happened to be our strongmen) but upon hearing Bush being the latest president to say the US loves all things freedom and democracy, Brooks just can’t help breaking into a rendition of This Time I Know It’s For Real.
It may be comforting to Brooks to think that the US was “forced” to do many unpleasant things by the Cold War, but the plain to anyone with an IQ above room temperature reason we (the West) put up with/support/cajole/sell weapons to or admire the soul of tyrants/despots/brutal dictators/chemical weapons users is that we need their oil/cheap imports/support in some random struggle with someone even worse/access to their pipeline. Everyday low prices, anyone?
Bush’s speech isn’t going to change any of that. It’s obviously managed to make Brooks feel a lot better about himself (and his country,) which, granted, is something. As for the rest? Sadly, No!
Brooks is such a boob; he inspires me to inadequate performance, just as my immediate boss seems to make as much sense as chimpy.
Hoo boy, I gotta go do something productive!
I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really can’t understand how the editors over at the NYT can look themselves in the mirror after this hire and not flinch their asses off. I mean, come the fuck on. Has Brooks written anything better than twaddle? I’m not even asking in a partisan sense of “do I agree with what he’s saying” but in the sense of “does this dimwit’s words make logical sense? are they likely to hold water?” S,N! He’s easier to mock than the crepuscular tit Saffire who’s wheezed out more unsubstantiated paranoid speculation and predictions off the mark than the whole editorial staff of The Weekly World News on a huffing bender.
Somehow, I think Bush’s version of Freedom(?) is more akin to Janis Joplin’s “Nothing left to lose.” than freedom as we know it.
When the electricity goes out in Pyongyang the people all say, “Damn Americans.” Clinton gets the same treatment from our own domestic little North Korea.
sadly, from Brook’s track record it’s clear that he was lying- he has no intent whatsofucking ever to judge Bush by this “standard against which everything he and his successors do will be judged”. None. Nada.
That is, unless Brookie continues to mistake words for actions… Four years from now: “Just as he promised, Bush made freedom the agenda of his second term. Why, barely a press conference went by with him mentioning it at least twice!”
“When he goes to China, he will not be able to ignore the political prisoners there, because he called them the future leaders of their free nation. When he meets with dictators around the world, as in this flawed world he must, he will not be able to have warm relations with them, because he said no relations with tyrants can be successful.”
This has to be satire. It has to. There’s absolutely no way to type those words without irony. It’s mathematically impossible.
I love the taste of Bush semen.
If Brooks really thinks that the whole “spreading freedom” think is really true, he has bigger problems than being an incoherent, illogical penis wrinkle of a man.
Shorter Brooks: Bush43 = Reagan. How so? Reagan busted the heck out of fiscally responsibility but his minions say all is well because the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. So tear up those government bonds as they are merely IOUs.