<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Saturday, October 18, 2003

Brooks: why your column is wrong 

speakingcorpse offers an open letter to David Brooks:

Dear Brooks,

In a better world, I'd write a letter trying to persuade you that your
opinions are wrong
. But I'm not stupid. I know what you are. You're
paid to be the moderate conservative voice on the Times op/ed page.
You're paid to develop opinions that fit into that pre-made mold. You
don't think. You simply must develop certain sorts of criticism of
the Democrats. Truth has nothing to do with your arguments. So,
before explaining why your column is wrong, I will first say: you are
a worthless fuck.

Now, I'll explain, briefly, why your column is wrong. The Democrats
who opposed the Iraq appropriation are, like the Democrats who opposed
the war resolution, not in principle opposed to helping Iraq by any
means that would actually help Iraq. They are not, that is, opposed in
principle to violence or to an American presence in Iraq. But they know
that Bush is too corrupt and incompetent to help Iraq. You seem to
recognize that this is the root of their opposition, but dismiss it out
of hand. Anyone who would simply oppose anything Bush does is
"partisan," etc. But that's not true. Opposition to Bush has nothing
to do with opposition to Republicans or supporting Democrats. It has
everything to do with saving the rule of law. You can't deny--even if
you say you can--that Bush has lied about every aspect of the war. You
can't deny that Bush had no idea what he was getting into, because,
horrifyingly, he believed his own lies. (EVEN THOUGH HE KNEW THEY WERE
LIES--THE HEIGHT OF CRIMINAL DEMENTIA.) You can't deny that Bush
thought war would be fun, and not a terrible challenge. (You saw him in
his space suit--donned despite the fact that he was criminally AWOL 30
years ago--and you know that such a complacent fool could not possibly
have any idea of what state-sanctioned violence entails.) You've heard
this man insist, before the very friends and family members of those who
have been blown up by road-side bombs, that things are going well. You
know what he is. Don't tell me you don't. Stop telling yourself that
you don't.

Such a man cannot be trusted to do anything right. As long as he is
"president," it makes perfect sense to oppose all his policies, just
because they are his. Giving him money to "fix" Iraq will only result
in still larger unforeseen catastrophes. The late Lars Erik Nelson, a
brilliant and non-affiliated political reporter who wrote for the New
York Review of Books
, said in November of 2000, during the election
catastrophe, that opposing Bush had nothing to do with partisan politics
(something that he had, again, scrupulously avoided for his entire
life). Opposing Bush was opposing, Nelson said, opposing "bullshit."
That was one of the few times he ever went on record in support or
opposition of a particular candidate. Nelson died that fall.

Anyway, you haven't read this whole message. You have your
own "message" to broadcast. Your debts are being called in. So you
probably won't mind, or notice, if I say, in conclusion: eat shit.

Sincerely,
speakingcorpse


Google
WWW AmCop

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