Sunday, October 31, 2004


David Brooks is a loathesome piece of shit

David Brooks, in his Saturday New York Times Op-Ed column (and why oh why does the Times still waste space on this specious hack?) reveals himself to be a hate-consumed, utterly incoherent concocter of backwards drivel that proves the exact opposite of what he thinks it does.

He says, of Osama Bin Laden,
Well, the Osama bin Laden we saw last night was not a problem that needs to be mitigated. He was not the leader of a movement that can be reduced to a nuisance. What we saw last night was revolting. I suspect that more than anything else, he reminded everyone of the moral indignation we all felt on and after Sept. 11. Here was this monster who killed 3,000 of our fellows showing up on our TV screens, trying to insert himself into our election, trying to lecture us on who is lying and who is telling the truth. Here was this villain traipsing through his own propaganda spiel with copycat Michael Moore rhetoric about George Bush in the schoolroom, and Jeb Bush and the 2000 Florida election. Here was this deranged killer spreading absurd theories about the American monarchy and threatening to murder more of us unless we do what he says. One felt all the old emotions. Who does he think he is, and who does he think we are? One of the crucial issues of this election is, Which candidate fundamentally gets the evil represented by this man? Which of these two guys understands it deep in his gut - not just in his brain or in his policy statements, but who feels it so deep in his soul that it consumes him? It's quite clear from the polls that most Americans fundamentally think Bush does get this. Last March, Americans preferred Bush over Kerry in fighting terrorism by 60 percent to 33 percent, according to the Gallup Poll. Now, after a furious campaign and months of criticism, that number is unchanged. Bush is untouched on this issue. Bush's response yesterday to the video was exactly right. He said we would not be intimidated. He tried to take the video out of the realm of crass politics by mentioning Kerry by name and assuring the country that he was sure Kerry agreed with him.
Mr Brooks: If Bush "gets it" - why the goddamn fuck has he not spent the past 3 years doing nothing but going after Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Why did he waste hundreds of billions of dollars going after Saddam Hussein, who had nothing whatsoever to do with Sept. 11? Why is Osama Bin Laden still out there threatening us?

Brooks goes on to defame John Kerry:
Kerry did say that we are all united in the fight against bin Laden, but he just couldn't help himself. His first instinct was to get political. On Milwaukee television, he used the video as an occasion to attack the president: "He didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He outsourced the job." Kerry continued with a little riff from his stump speech, "I am absolutely confident I have the ability to make America safer." Even in this shocking moment, this echo of Sept. 11, Kerry saw his political opportunities and he took 'em. There's such a thing as being so nakedly ambitious that you offend the people you hope to impress.
You despicable, utterly worthless piece of shit. You naked fraud, you shameless panderer for George Bush. Why don't you mention, you filthy toad, that it was actually George Bush who politicized this by refusing to permit Kerry to be briefed on the tape, even though he himself had heard it Friday morning? That the basic rules of the campaign have always been that the challenger hears about this kind of thing soon after the incumbent does? Why do you bring that up, Mr. Brooks, hmm? Why don't you bring up Kerry's second statement? Why don't you ask Bush why he wouldn't let Kerry be briefed, why he tried to sandbag his opponent in violation of every imaginable rule of fairness? Why don't you ask him why he has not pursued Osama Bin Laden with even half (if that much) of the energy and expenditure he has poured out in his vendetta with the toothless Saddam Hussein? Where's your outrage at the abominable incompetence displayed in the post-invasion occupation of Iraq, starting with the decision not to send enough troops to safeguard the sites containing the weapons that were the ostensible justification for invading?

David Brooks, of course, never asks these questions, let alone attempts to answer them. Like the failed president he pimps for, he has no answers for any of them, nor does he really give a shit. He just wants to blather on about how awful John Kerry is, never once realizing that the man who really does not care about Osama Bin Laden is George Bush.
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?