David Brooks hasn't yet "apologized" for the LIES he wrote

[Stephanie]

Several DUers received an "apology" from David Brooks via the NYT ombudsman in response to their complaints. The apology is wholly inadequate. I'm reposting this from the other thread because I am still in a rage over this.

His "apology" only addresses the complaints about his outrageous accusation of anti-Semitism against those who criticize the neo-cons.

He fails to apologize 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?

[Stephanie]

1. And David, which is it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/06BROO.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fDavid%20Brooks

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....

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....

"The Era of Distortion" indeed!

[DUreader]

2. The sad thing is that he truly belongs at the nyt...

corporate rag that it is.

Any real journo would have resigned long ago.

[Stephanie]

3. I've never heard him accused of being a real journalist

I think it's common knowledge that he's an idealogical propagandist.

[Stephanie]

4. Speaking of Perle

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5490.htm

Quotes from Richard Perle's new book, "An End to Evil"

Iran is itself a terrorist state, the world's worst. North Korea has committed terrorist atrocities, too <...> Both regimes are nightmarishly repressive; both regimes present intolerable threats to American security. We must move boldly against them both and against all other sponsors of terrorism as well: Syria, Libya, and Saudi Arabia. And we don't have much time. (pg 98)

Third, as we reposition troops, we should develop detailed plans for a preemptive strike against North Korea's nuclear facilities. (pg 103-104)

If all our problems were as easy as Syria, the war on terror would have ended a year ago. Here is a regime that is surrounded by U.S. and allied forces; that depends for fuel on oil exports from Iraq; and whose economy is a pitiful shambles. Really, there is only one question to ask about Syria: Why have we put up with it as long as we have? (pg 114)

We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington. (pg 249)

[Stephanie]

5. Is everyone already tired of beating up David Brooks?

I'm not.

[Stephanie]

6. last kick

:kick: