Houseboy Brooks, Ignoring Obvious Relevant Facts, Again

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/opinion/24brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


Brooks, at his syncophantic worst.

Bush and Cheney went for the Surge because prior to the Surge, they looked like complete and total dolts, and had, for years. With the Surge, there was a chance that in the future, they might not look like such dolts.

Why not take the shot? It wasn't their family money. It wasn't their children in harm's way.

Easy choice to make, when you're an irresponsible, smirking brat.

 

You want a sycophant? Then read Cohen in today's WaPo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062301829.html

 

The surge is finally working, so lay off. Just the other day the N.Y. Times had a story that the Mobils and Texacos and all the rest now are getting back their leases in Iraq that Saddam took away from them.

It's heartening to know that we weren't fighting for nothing after all.

 

If I purposely start a fire, and then put part of it out myself, do I get a reward?

Brooks conveniently ignores the part where the surge was only necessary because Bush got us into Iraq in the first place. But, hey, nevermind. That's in the past.

 

C'mon, andy, you are being too hard on W and Brooks.

Trial and error is a terrific way to learn stuff.

 

no need to read a word... this is the rube who ripped the legendary Colbert monologue at the WH dinner.

 

Better the New York Times uses their conservative quota hires on morons and liars than on someone who is a legitimate and independent thinker.

 

If he'd written the same kind of column about Obama, you'd be cheering.

 

So ... if he wrote a column saying Obama shouldn't be criticized, and could get away with flip-flopping and outright lies, because he was a POW, I'd cheer. Fine. You got me. If that happened, I'd cheer. Hooray, fictitious POW Obama!

 

Before Bush proposed it, many Dems were pushing a troop surge (and then suddenly were against it).

Harry Reid is one of the biggest culprits.

 

That Cohen column was all kinds of stupid bizaro logic.

McCain can flip flop because he's been tortured in a Vietnam prison, but Obama can't because we don't know how far he'll go for his principals. That's probably the dumbest thing I've seen written this campaign. McCain signed the "confession" the Vietnamese put in front of him, and regretted it every since. But who can blame him for signing the thing? I'd sign the fucker too, if they were beating me like they beat him. Probably is a second. How does that logic translate into "It's ok for him to reverse himself, because there are some things he won't do?" -

 

OK, we get it. The surge is working and you all are pissed.