What an intellectual weakling David Brooks seems to be. I'd expect something far more reasonable from him...some clue to show me he's not a victim of dependent thought.
I find it intellectually dishonest for Brooks to claim that there is an anti-Israeal component to any American's complaint about the troubling influence the PNAC has had with the Bush administration.
Brooks moans:
"..the people labeled neocons (con is short for "conservative" and neo is short for "Jewish") travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another."
So who died and left David Brooks the judge and jury of who's an anti-Semite, already?
I am a liberal American who wants to see American support, fairness and safety for the people of Israel...and a solution to the two-state plan... and I realize it should NOT involve negotiating with terrorists. Now, how do we define terror?
Ariel Sharon was personally responsible for the slitting of the throats of many Palestinian villagers (see: Sabra and Chatila/Kibya/Commando Unit 101). Like Arafat, he's no stranger to terror. What if Bush had once ordered (and participated in) the slitting of throats of innocent people before he ever came to power over our nation? It would be like trusting Col. John Chivington to strike a peace negotiation with the Native Americans after the Sand Creek Massacre. Bush may be a puppet-warrior, but when he was (s)elected in 2000, we knew he had shirked violence as a young (AWOL) man. He's a tough-talking marshmallow chickenpuff. Not so with Sharon, I'm afraid. What I really hate to see is Bush patterning his war on terror based upon any Sharon-like unilaterlist tactics. It's a recipe for hate everlasting...war everlasting. When these leaders..Sharon and Arafat.. love and respect their duties to their respective citizens more than hating one another, perhaps real negotiation can take place.
Perhaps I'm anti-terrorist or anything remotely associated; perhaps I'm not fond of the Likud party; perhaps I am not fond of the American version of Likud (the Perles/Frums) infiltrating American foreign policy. Likud is a political party, by the way...not a people.
Someone should remind David Brooks. He may be confused..ignorant..deliberate?
Here's my point: No one can ever have the right to call me anti-Semitic...not David Brooks..not G-d Himself.
I'd tell Brooks to stop his false generalising about the Jewish-American population. They aren't all Richard Perles, nor are they all supporters of Douglas Feith or avid readers of William Kristol.
Sorry, David Brooks..those aren't requirements in G-d's pro-Semite playbook...only in the cheapshot partisan's playbook.
I find Brooks' apparent effort to divide us by his racist talk to be factionalising, condescending and ignorant. It's typical of the pop-schlock Conservative writer of today..abandoning honest intellectualism for factionalizing generalisation. It's no wonder we are so politically polarized in America. How shall we ever be able to help the people of Israel when we have these N.Y. Times pundits creating false suspicion and creating further divide between Americans? How can we look with any judgement toward people in foreign lands when our own house is so filled with partisan hatred?
Bush is worried about re-election..has the taint of the PNAC on him...can David Brooks help remove the scent of a Neo-Con? Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum...I smell the stench of Perle and Frum
Brooks also sounds absolutely daft in trying to portray the NeoCon philosophy as something that was never welcomed into the White House or their policies. Richard Perle and Douglas Feith are just two examples of people employed by the Bush administration to assist in consulting (and forming) U.S. foreign policy.
I'm highly suspicious of a new political trend here..perhaps a Bush re-election tactic.. in light of the fact that, on the Today show this morning, I heard there were going to be guests who "had the ear of the Bush administration, but now are criticizing their foreign policy". I thought to myself.."Hmmm....you mean NBC is actually going to put someone on the air who openly rips away at the Bush foreign policy? Whoa..I'm going to have to tune in....". So I waited. Guess who came on? Richard Perle and David Frum. What a joke! They stopped just short of saying we'd be warring with these nations in order to effect a regime change. Diplomacy was absolutely not in the cards with their way of thinking. All they wanted to do was to criticize the State Department (so Bush doesn't have to) and make way for filling Colin Powell's spot in 2004 (should Bush be re-elected) with a NeoCon-friendly hack who will submit to a regime change policy (ie:WAR) in Iran, Syria, and who knows where else?
Ready for the draft, American citizens?
American parents: Are you ready for your boys and girls to go to war?
Yes, yes..I know they're only teenagers now. But in another four years with George Bush, we'll need them
NOT in college classrooms (there won't be jobs for them or money for tuition)...Bush and Richard Perle will need them
to participate in the violent spreading of their co-opted and prostitutionalized version of democracyand freedom.
Keep reading David Brooks. If you believe his theory about reasonable people being "full-mooners", you'd best start preparing your children for an endless, unjust, and dirty, violent war that people like David Brooks (through his race-baiting conspiracy-theory-conspiracy-theory) consciously choose not to put the brakes on.
I'd like to tell Brooks to take his outright accusation of Americans like me being anti-Semitic and shove it. I'm absolutely appalled. He's way out of line. It's high time we start calling these people on such unfair commentary.
Here's a corker from Brooks:
"It's true that both Bush and the people labeled neocons agree that Saddam Hussein represented a unique threat to world peace. But correlation does not mean causation. All evidence suggests that Bush formed his conclusions independently."
To this, I say, most unequivocally, bullshit.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Read Karen Kwiatkowski's take on this issue.
She knows what's happening. She worked amidst it all.
".....The Frumster and Richer Perle have produced a book that finally reveals "their blueprint for what could become the Bush administration’s agenda in the war on terrorism." My dear, dear boys! Are you saying that in a fit of electoral excitement, young Dubya has already begun to diverge from your neo-Jacobin empire mongering? Is he beginning to exhibit a certain lack of concentration on cementing the White House-Likud Alliance? I mean, who could have predicted that in an election year?" ;)
~~~~~~~~~~~
Victory of the Loud Little Handful
by Mark Twain
The loud little handful - as usual - will shout for the war. The pulpit will - warily and cautiously - object... at first. The great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it."
Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded, but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the antiwar audiences will thin out and lose popularity.
Before long, you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men...
Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.
Mark Twain, "The Mysterious Stranger" (1910)