Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

David Brooks apologizes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 03:50 PM
Original message
David Brooks apologizes
Thanks to both the Daily Howler and Media Whores Online, the NYT was deluged with complaints about David Brooks's column arguing that criticism of neocons is antisemitic.

The public editor of the NYT responded to my own email with this response from Brooks. I don't know of it will be published, I definitely think it should be, we'll see...

"For what its worth, that neo being short for Jewish was meant as a joke. Nothing more. Most of the people who get labeled as Neocons are Jewish, so I was just sort of playing off that.
" As for me accusing anybody who accuses neocons of being anti-Semitic, there are a few issues here. First, I wasn't saying anything about people who criticize neocons' ideas. The column wasn't about that at all. It was about people who imagine there is a shadowy conspiracy behind Bush policy. Second, I explicitly say that only a subset of the people who talk about the shadow conspiracy find Jewishness a handy explanation for everything. I have no idea how large a subset that is, but judging from my e-mail it is out there.
"So I was careful not to say that Bush or neocon critics are anti-Semitic. I was careful not to say that all conspiracy theorists are anti-Semitic.
"I am still on the learning curve here, and I do realize that mixture of a crack with a serious accusation was incredibly stupid on my part. Please do pass along to readers that I'm aware of how foolish I was to write the column in the way I did." --David Brooks



Anyway, it's bullshit, it was no mistake, all the neocons have been pushing that antisemitic thing for a long time. Bill Kristol, Perle, etc. I've heard it many times.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Would I believe the "sincerely regretful apology" of a Bushevik?
Of course. EXACTLY as I would believe an apology given by a Bolshevik, so very similar are the two groups save for their particular rational for the Tyranny they use to enslave the unwary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Oh Horse fucking shit....
How about his blatant lie about the Cheney human hunt? Was that a learning curve as well? This guy's a pure lying scumbag who got creamed by the powers of the "Honest" Liberal Internet. The Power that we have on the net is enourmous and I'm very proud of us all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. I think you missed the tone and content of my post
I said I would accept his apology, just as I would except Stalin's apology for printing untruths in Soviet Pravda.

Which is to say that I wouldn;t accept it at all. Both Stalin and Brooks knew EXACTLY what they were doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. Tom...
do you think that I was referring my post to one of my favorite posters here at DU//LOL... I wasn't.... I was cursing scumbag Brooks and his half ass apology...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptainClark23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. An admission?
Yes, I would agree that mixing crack with anything IS incredibly stupid.

At least we now have an explanation for Brooks.....


good job in taking it to him, btw. all I did was curse audibly on the subway and get funny looks after reading it. Was too disgusted for much else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. one of "them" might have heard you
"they" are all over the place, especially in Neo York City. :-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. Ahh, the old "It was a joke" excuse
Coward...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lazarus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
5. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
LEARNING CURVE?????


LEARNING CURVE!?!?!?!?!?!



HE WRITES FOR THE FREAKING NEW YORK TIMES, PEOPLE!!!! HOW DO YOU GET TO THAT POSITION AND STILL BE ON A FREAKING LEARNING CURVE?


I'd like to thank Skittles for the inspiration for the previous rant style. Gods how that sort of thing pisses me off.

LEARNING CURVE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I consider Brooks a master propagandist
I don't think I could come up with a more disciplined pusher of talking points out there. He's not on no learning curve.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. I would imagine there is a learning curve
going from weekly standard propogandist... to attempting to be a legitimate columnist in a legitimate newspaper. His new readers actually critically read what he has to say rather than nodding blindly at the buzzwords propoganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Loonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Was he hired by Howell Raines?
That might explain it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
6. David Brooks you are a Whore
Why apologize? You are a little slut for the GOP. You are karl rove's little whore boy. Your apology puts you in the gutter. You huff and puff nonsense as you are instructed to do, then you apologize? Not only are you an ignorant bastard on national issues, you have no spine. Thanks MWO and Bob Somerby. Stay tuned for future apologies from cowards like Brooks (unless they get tired of kneeling for the white house!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faygo Kid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
10. Some apology. Not.
It's OK, though, if you aren't accused of being an anti-semite for opposing the neocon dream of world conquest, you will be accused of treason in this election year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adriennel Donating Member (776 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
11. not much of an apology
and I just emailed the NYT to let them know. I didn't like listening to Brooks on PBS and I don't like reading his columns. His biased agenda has always been pretty clear, and if the NYT wants to hire an honest, reality-based conservative columnist, I'd support them. Brooks is bringing the NYT down, in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
14. Whaaa?
"Most of the people who get labeled as Neocons are Jewish, so I was just sort of playing off that."

How observant, David. Wouldn't this make you a 'player' at anti-Semitism?


:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DinahMoeHum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
15. "Learning curve" my arse. F**k him and his smirk.
n/t

:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
16. They don't call the neocons
the Likudnik War Party for nothing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creativelcro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
17. Why is it worse to be anti-semitic than pro-semitic ?
I can see Brooks using the anti-semitic accusation card...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. That gives me a question.
If you're an atheist or agnostic, does it make you anti-semitic? Because being Jew is a religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creativelcro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. The anti-semitic accusation has to be used
sparingly... Otherwise it backfires, when it become obvious that it is used in a manipulative way....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I think it's going to backfire now
What Brooks did was utterly dispicable. I mean to take their logic, anyone who is not a Jew or doesn't do what Israel wants could be labeled as anti-semitic.

When it's not ordinary Jews that are the problem but their leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrBB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
22. Nowhere NEAR good enough. Let's parse, shall we?
Edited on Thu Jan-08-04 05:48 PM by DrBB
It was about people who imagine there is a shadowy conspiracy behind Bush policy.

Okay, then name some. You didn't name any in your article, other than Clark (who was the real target, as I have argued elsewhere). In fact, "people who imagine there is a shadowy conspiracy" translates as "anyone who mentions the PNAC."

Second, I explicitly say that only a subset of the people who talk about the shadow conspiracy find Jewishness a handy explanation for everything.

Again, fine: let's see some quotations. Show me a single example by a reputable person. I've seen people who have pointed out that Perle was a paid political consultant to the Likkud in the last major elections (a fact), and that he may be identifying US interests and Israel's too closely, but I think we are still allowed to discuss the distinction between Israel's interests and ours without being accused of anti-semitism. It is certainly VERY different from "find{ing} Jewishnes a handy explanation for everything."

I have no idea how large a subset that is, but judging from my e-mail it is out there.

You got some nutcase emails? So what? Most commentators do. I invite you to ask your colleague Mr Krugman about that. He gets a few from quite another side of the political fence. As in death threats. And he's Jewish. But I don't see him calling his reputable critics anti-semitic. We're not talking about nutcases, we're talking about reputable opinion makers. Got any emails from them to share? No? So this is just more of the same: some unknown number of nutcase emails impugns anyone who talks seriously about the PNAC as an intellectual influence on Bush policy.

This kind of argument--or "apology" if you like--has a name: it's called intellectual dishonesty.

Or maybe we should drop the "intellectual" part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. It's Brooks who imagines a "shadowy conspiracy"
The rest of us are just reading the news every day.

God I love seeing them on the defensive!

Great post, DrBB!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Printer70 Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
23. NeoConservative is not the apt word...
If neoconservative means they were once left-wing or held/hold liberal views on domestic issues- who cares? The important thing is that they are MILITARISTS on foreign policy. They invade countries based on bizarre theories and assumed threats. I propose we call them militarists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
24. What a non-apology that is for the vicious pack of lies he wrote
What about apologizing for the deceptions that comprise the entire piece?

+++
It was about people who imagine there is a shadowy conspiracy behind Bush policy. Second, I explicitly say that only a subset of the people who talk about the shadow conspiracy find Jewishness a handy explanation for everything. I have no idea how large a subset that is, but judging from my e-mail it is out there.

"So I was careful not to say that Bush or neocon critics are anti-Semitic. I was careful not to say that all conspiracy theorists are anti-Semitic.

+++

The TERM "conspiracy theorists" applied in this case is derogatory and false. His APOLOGY includes more insults!

The FACT is that the neo-cons' agenda is guiding this disastrous administration, and the NAME neo-conservative comes from THE NEO-CONS THEMSELVES.

+++
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0028740211.01._PE_PIdp-schmoo2,TopRight,7,-26_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg
+++

Brooks, is the SPOKESMODEL for the neo-cons. William Kristol was his BOSS. Who thinks he's not still working for him? I'm livid that the Times hired him. The op-ed piece was nothing but slick deceptions:

+++
...all these articles began appearing...
+++

He doesn't source any of them. He fails to note that the PAPER HE IS WRITING FOR has published many of the leading articles about the neo-cons, their background, and their influence in the Cheney/Bush administration. Here are a FEW of the articles Brooks won't name:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=990526&mesg_id=990526


+++
Theories about the tightly knit neocon cabal came in waves. One day you read that neocons were pushing plans to finish off Iraq and move into Syria.
+++

Calling plans for follow-up invasions "theories" is truly deceptive, when the plans were promoted by the neo-cons themselves. This is not theory, this is fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former CIA Director James Woolsey said Wednesday the United States is engaged in World War IV, and that it could continue for years.

<snip>He said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the "fascists" of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda.

"As we move toward a new Middle East," Woolsey said, "over the years and, I think, over the decades to come ... we will make a lot of people very nervous."



So to report on the neo-cons' speeches and writings is to spout conspiracy theories. HST was right: We'll just tell the truth and they'll think it's hell.

+++
The full-mooners fixated on a think tank called the Project for the New American Century, which has a staff of five and issues memos on foreign policy.
+++

The staff may number five, but the writers of and signatories to the "Reports" and "Publications" ("memos" is misleading) PNAC has produced include prominent members of the current administration including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton and others. Click on these documents - look at who signed them:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

By the way Brooks, are you going to apologize for calling informed readers "full mooners"? And WTH does that mean anyway? Are we pagans? Werewolves? And why, because we watch CNN?

This one's a gem:

+++
There have been hundreds of references, for example, to Richard Perle's insidious power over administration policy, but I've been told by senior administration officials that he has had no significant meetings with Bush or Cheney since they assumed office.
+++

Perle chaired the Defense Policy Board, until he was demoted to mere member of the Board due to his outrageous conflicts of interest (advising companies on how to profit on the imminent Iraq invasion while agitating for the invasion at the same time). The Board MEETS in the Pentagon.


If you could slip past the soldiers toting M-16s at the door, the Pentagon's 17 miles of corridors ...

So it was alarming when one secret agency's work spilled into the open recently, only to be dismissed by almost everyone involved. Meeting last month in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's private conference room, a group called the Defense Policy Board heard an outside expert... http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.22A.war.council.htm <Time Magazine>


Also, note the word "significant" - he's had meetings with Cheney/Bush, they just weren't - according to Brooks' "senior administration officials" - "significant" meetings.

+++
All evidence suggests that Bush formed his conclusions independently.
++

A whopper. The whole world knows Bush has never formed a conclusion about anything in his life aside from what time to go beddy-bye. Please provide all that "evidence."

+++
The proliferation of media outlets and the segmentation of society have meant that it's much easier for people to hive themselves off into like-minded cliques.
+++

See the above linked list of news articles about PNAC. If readers and viewers of the NY Times, Nightline, the New Yorker, the London Guardian, Le Monde and USA Today are members of a "clique" then Brooks is a vegan anarchist.

This one really takes the cake, though. Brooks tries to get away with comparing apples to oranges. Where is the NYT ombudsman?

+++
Vince Foster was murdered. The Saudis warned the Bush administration before Sept. 11.
+++

The Foster case was thoroughly investigated and determined to be a suicide. September 11th has NOT been thoroughly investigated yet, two years later, because the Bush administration refuses to cooperate and has in fact impeded the investigation every step of the way. We don't know yet whether the implication about the Saudis is true. It certainly has not been proven false. Release the 28 pages. Release the August 6 briefing. Then we might know. In the meantime Brooks' attempt to equate the two is an outrage.

There is one true statement in the piece:

+++
Partisanship has left many people unhinged.
+++

Clearly. Get a grip, David.

And to the NY Times: You can do better than this! Do we have to read blatant propaganda and disinformation in the paper of record?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Perle and David Frum were on Charlie Rose promoting their PNAC agenda this
Edited on Thu Jan-08-04 08:36 PM by oasis
week. Charlie just lured them in and they talked on and on about the "unfinished business" of the Bush administration.

It wouldn't be too far fetched to envision Bush's new immigration policy somehow being tied to a PNAC plan for use of those part time citizens to augment future armies of occupation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. That was great, Stephanie!
I think you skewered Brooks, but good. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Thanks
I'm sure I missed a few. Too bad the Times LTEs and Brooks' "apology" only addressed the anti-Semitic charge. That's just one of MANY outrages in the piece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
remfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. As always Stephanie, you are spot on
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-04 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
27. Here's another LIE in the piece
Do you ever get the sense the whole world is becoming unhinged from reality? I started feeling that way awhile ago, when I was still working for The Weekly Standard...

Is he still working for Kristol? According to his bio, he is:

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/BROOKS-BIO.html

Columnist Biography: David Brooks

David Brooks's column on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times started in September 2003. He is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard, a contributing editor at Newsweek and the Atlantic Monthly, and a commentator on "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer." He is the author of "Bobos In Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There" published by Simon & Schuster.

Mr. Brooks joined The Weekly Standard at its inception in September 1995, having worked at The Wall Street Journal for the previous nine years....




Which is it, David? Are you still on the neo-con payroll or not? And what's with the pink shirts? Trademark bow-ties were already taken?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jan 20th 2025, 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC