New York Times op-ed writer and frequent commentator on PBS and NPR, David Brooks, needs to be sent to pasture. Cashiered out. His comparison of Bush's invasion of Iraq to Exodus and Martin Luther King's marches was, well, embarrassing. Brooks is almost always embarrassing. But on this occasion, the Times printed nine irritated responses from its readers.
What's most telling is not that there is a David Brooks out there writing, for the most part, tripe, but that the Times hired him. I guess he's meant to be a gentle apologist for the right, but he just sounds silly and second-rate. Doesn't do the Times' shattered reputation any good.
Somewhere on the Times' editorial board is someone, thank goodness, who is trying to speak truth to power and redeem the paper's reputation. Today's editorial on Bush-as-leaker has this one-two punch:
And this president has never shown the slightest interest in disclosure, except when it suits his political purposes. He has run one of the most secretive administrations in American history, consistently withholding information and vital documents not just from the public, but also from Congress. Just the other day, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the House Judiciary Committee that the names of the lawyers who reviewed Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program were a state secret.
Gonzales is another one of those rightwingers whose logic shows such an absence of coherence and character (like Brooks) that one gasps even at reminders of it in the Times. Today's Times editorial echoes the fatigue we all feel with the endlessly audacious attempts at justification for the Administration's con-jobs, whether in the National Review or among rightwingers who are showing signs of disillusionment. Still, they cling to the notions that if NSA wiretapping had nailed an Osama or if Rumsfeld had planned a little better, the wars this Administration has been fighting against democracy at home and against international law would have been wholly justifiable.
You want another example of the ongoing attempt to make the Administration look good? Read David Brooks' op-ed piece in today's paper. He defends Rumsfeld, a fellow Princetonian, and writes admiringly about the ambitious, discredited Secretary of Defense, featuring Rumsfeld's desire to change the Pentagon. "Athletic, heroic, he never met an organization he didn't try to upend." Collateral damage to human lives and a carefully crafted Constitution is negligible to these overblown egos, Brooks' included.
