David Brooks Again

Do you think David Brooks writes these editorials with a straight face, or is he laughing at his own lies all the way through?

A couple of comments on this:

1. Brooks says "Which candidate fundamentally gets the evil represented by this man [Bin Laden]?" Brooks obviously thinks that it is Bush who gets it, but I don't know how he could say this since instead of actually going and getting Bin Laden, Bush decided to invade Iraq instead. Seeing that video could make you think, "Oh yeah, I remember Osama Bin Laden. Didn't he kill 3000 Americans a few years ago?" because he is so far under the radar screen of the Bush administration and thus, the press. Does Bush really get how evil Bin Laden is? Maybe, but if so he sure doesn't seem to care that much. Does Kerry get how evil Bin Laden is? Yes.

2. Brooks blames Kerry for getting political with Bin Laden and 9/11 and claims that Bush took the high road when seeing the video. Can he actually say this without laughing? It takes an incredible amount of selective memory to say that Bush didn't politicize 9/11. But God bless the man, he can lie to himself with the best of them.

3. Brooks does remember enough about Osama though to attack Kerry for saying that we shouldn't have used local troops to get Bin Laden but that we should use local troops in Iraq. Um, Dave, they're 2 very different things. Of course when you are trying to rebuild a nation, you need to use local troops to establish legitimacy for a new government. Otherwise, it would be even more obvious to Iraqis and the rest of the world that we are really just an occupying, imperialist force. But when you are chasing the biggest villain in the world in rugged country and in a land where the loyalties of everyone are in question, it is absolutely stupid, irresponsible, and criminal to use the troops of Afghan warlords instead of highly trained American fighters to go and get Bin Laden.

Has the Times ever had a columnist as bad as David Brooks?