I can’t stand David Brooks, but normally I can ignore his bullshit. Today’s editorial, though, takes some nerve to write. Brooks suggests that those who concern themselves with whether Bush acted properly in regards to Iraq and 9/11 are nothing more than decadent parisians out of touch with the real world.
A sample:
Well, excuse me David! How inconsiderate of me to ponder whether the war was properly considered and planned! How dare one suggest that perhaps if we had spent more time answering these questions before we invaded we might not be in the current situation. And just what is our exit strategy again? Oh yeah, that’s right - the “irrelevant” United Nations.
I realize that some people here will argue that invading Iraq was the right thing to do and that Bush couldn’t have prevented 9/11. I disagree, but that isn’t my main issue with this article. Rather, I take issue with Brooks’ attempt to denigrate anyone who feels inclined to question whether we proceeded properly and with due care.
Oh, this other point you raise, Mr Brooks:
Gee, didn’t a certain General Shinseki tell us before we invaded that we would need more troops than Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz said we would? Wasn’t Shinseki forced into early retirement because of this statement? Wasn’t Shinseki right?
The problem, Mr. Brooks, is not that people want to unnecessarily ponder the past. Rather, we want people like yourself to realize that you occasionally need to listen to people other than those who share your ideological and myopic worldview.
We’ll all be greeted as liberators, Mr Cheney? That sounds great, you fuckwad.
Way to completely miss the point of my post! My point was not that I had all the answers. Rather, it’s that Brooks suggests we shouldn’t be paying attention to the past mistakes while dealing with our current troubles - but perhaps we wouldn’t be in these situations if Bush had listened to some people with different viewpoints.
It’s one thing to dwell on the past; it’s another to not even try to learn from past mistakes.