About David Fucking Brooks.
From yesterday's "Conversation" in the New York Times:
Many Clinton opponents went around the bend.
Many Bush opponents entertained loopy war-for-oil and neocon conspiracy theories.
...
Something about politics these days untethers many people from reality. It makes them feel heroic if the person they are opposing is uniquely evil and alien. Then in their little information cocoons these bizarre misconceptions get internalized.
The next time you run into Pinch Sulzberger at the Krogers or Piggly Wiggly, you are hereby authorized to play keep-away with his carry-out apricot-and-cinnamon-kulfi-on-a-stick until he cries and gets the hiccups and finally reveals why the fuck he keeps this waste of skin on the payroll.
As I have said before, Bobo, what you have is not an intellectual position. What you have is a craven, Neoconservative, untethered-from-reality mutation of a disorder called "Asymmetriphobia": a horror of asymmetrical things.
Seek help.
9 comments:
The next time you run into Pinch Sulzberger at the Krogers or Piggly Wiggly, you are hereby authorized to play keep-away with his carry-out apricot-and-cinnamon-kulfi-on-a-stick until he cries and gets the hiccups and finally reveals us why the fuck he keeps this waste of skin on the payroll.
LOL!!
Another Drifty-swish.
So is he actually trying to tell us that "Operation Iraqi Liberation--oops, er, we mean Freedom," the whole complicated "the-US-loots-Iraqi-oil-revenues-to-pay-itself-for-invading-Iraq" and "let's not guard anything from looting except the Ministry of Oil" stuff never happened? And that PNAC doesn't actually exist? And/or that parsimony doesn't exist in his world either?
That's damn near as big a revision of history as Ari Fleischer's outburst about "How dare you say 9/11 happened on our watch!"
The first pullquote, a false equivalence/argumentum ad populum twofer dropped smoother than an Ex-lax and chipotle float...and he threatens to turn it into a full column on Friday, the beast.
;>)
If you have nothing else, work on the old equivalence argument. Never mind that "war for oil" was the only sensible argument in the playbook to begin with, its only problem being that it was pure fascism in action. Mr. Brooks is a toady. He gets a little cookie for each one of these "arguments" he gets in print.
See there? Why even try writing a fucking blog - the blogging/writing/graphic design is oh so much better, if humbling, over here.
So he is arguing that American policy in the Middle east is not about oil and Israel? That's what it is all about and always has been. Does he think that if Iraq had no oil, and that Israel did not want Saddam gone there would still be an invasion? Really?
I suspect Israel is about Oil, for the US. If no oil in the MidEast, we probably wouldn't support Israel with such blind pig-headedness.
I recall my incredulity when the neocons promised Our Invasion of Iraq would be paid for by Iraq Oil. $#&! Wingnut brother explained that we were NOT invading Iraq, we were liberating them from Hussein. He said that with a straight face.
Dear Driftglass,
I thought you would enjoy this:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec10/shieldsbrooks_09-17.html
Why do seemingly important adults take David Brook seriously?
Best Regards,
Esteev
Um, I think Charlie Rose has a crush on David Fucking Brooks>.
I tried to watch one but couldn't get more than five minutes into the first video.
I'm beginning to notice the weed I smoke is making me a bit slow so I don't want to speed up to process by trying to figure out what the fuck David Fucking Brooks is saying.
Post a Comment