Posted on 05/20/2010 6:53:15 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
David Brooks seemed to be having a coherency challenged moment during his latest scheduled conversation with fellow New York Times columnist, Gail Collins. First Brooks excused what Connecticut senatorial candidate Richard Blumenthal falsely claimed about being a Vietnam combat veteran as an "accident":
As for Blumenthal, my guess is he survives his little brush with mendacity. The Connecticut Democrat accidentally said he was a combat veteran, when in fact he never served in Vietnam. Could happen to anyone!
A moment later, Brooks reversed course and admitted that Blumenthal lied but, eh, no big deal:
The claim is dishonorable, but everybody expects politicians to lie. One of the odd perplexities of an angry moment is that expectations are so low, politicians end up surviving scandals that would kill them in happier times.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
"Honestly, Officer, I 'accidentally' shot him 6 times with my single-shot revolver"
"And when the legions of NVA regulars converged on us, there at the top of the ridge I stood, weapon trained up them, cutting them down by the hundreds, saving whole brigades..."
Does he ever take his knee pads off?
Agree. He should be proud of having been a Marine Reserve and that should be good enough. He is like Congressman Murphy in PA 8th. He was a JAG Lawyer in Iraq and claims he led troops up Ambush Alley. Imagine a Lawyer leading anybody anywhere. Serving is good enough, enhancing your service is the sin.
David Brooks knows how to keep getting invited to the “right” cocktail parties.
Was he a Marine? Well he went through boot camp, ITR, and some sort of MOS Training (maybe OJT at his reserve unit).....beyond that he never really put himself in a position to sacrifice, or risk his life for his country.......he played it safe for himself all the way.......I tend to think he gamed the system for his personal benefit.......there was a war going on ya know! He studiously avoided service in it.....and now I’m supposed to applaud him?
He rates just a tick above those that say “ Well I was gonna join, but....”
Conversely, a five-time deferral Marine Reservist who never served in a combat zone but claims otherwise is fair game, Reserve service notwithstanding.
Murtha was dishonorable scum. The fact that he wore the uniform of an honorable service did not cleanse him.
Lying liars making lying excuses for liars.
And by right, you mean Left. Right?
Kerry really was in Vietnam; true. But nearly everyting else he had to say about anything regarding it was refuted by the rest of the Swift Boat veterans.
Kerry also testified before Congress that he commtited war crimes
Kerry testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, telling the Senators and a national audience that American troops "...had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..."
http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=WarCrimes
Jean Kerry "sounds like a pathological liar" because he is one. And that is why he was included in the post.
It wasn't just "Christmas" and Tet"
Like I said: dishonorable scum. You may defend him. I sure as hell won't.
One more thing: I have more than 20 years honorable service in two branches of the armed forces. I'm proud of it but I sure as hell don't embellish it or boast about it to buy votes. Unlike Murtha, I won't even tell you what medals I was awarded.
I didnt see the article but it sounds as though he is accusing the hoi polloi of doubting global warming etc simply because the liberal elite endorses it. But he’s wrong. We dont doubt GW simply because Al Gore is its spokesmodel. We reject it because we have looked at the evidence and it is pathetic. Similarily opposition to abortion rights outside of the “educated class” is based on something more than said class’ support of it.
There has always been something nauseating about the manner in which liberal elites dismiss lies like Blumenthals as if they were akin to inflating the value of something you donated to Goodwill by a few bucks. Brooks gets more like them all the time.
Hm. Methinks the author (you?) missed the sarcasm in Brooks’ first statement. The “could happen to anybody” part is a pretty good clue.
As for Blumenthal, my guess is he survives his little brush with mendacity. The Connecticut Democrat accidentally said he was a combat veteran, when in fact he never served in Vietnam. Could happen to anyone!
Now, perhaps the sneering, sarcasm is too muted for most to perceive, but you cannot read "little brush with mendacity" as anything other than calling the guy a liar, and the irony of "accidentally said he was a combat veteran, when he never served in Vietnam. Could happen to anyone!
Well of course, as the respondents to this have universally stated one does not do this "accidentally," and does not happen to anyone of even modest levels of honesty.
Brooks employs a number of common rhetorical devices including "litotes," understatement and even ridicule. While the average person may not be sensitive to it, if you wish to join the club of main line blogging correspondents you need to educate yourself on the rhetorical devices in common use so that you don't make yourself look ridiculous by so patently misunderstanding what is a very clear communication.
Would someone please accidently put a bunion on Brooks’ noggin.
You make yourself look stupid by accusing Brooks of being that stupid. Brooks and I have our disagreements, but given Brooks's own erudition, I think it is safer to suggest that Brooks is poking fun at the self-described intellectual elite who make exactly that accusation. Brooks is not Al Gore.
Exactly. Sarcasm that is about as subtle as being run over by a freight train.
That's a great line. Yes, the past couple days have been a real learning experience. Phony NY Times token "conservative" Brooks' response was expected, but Neil Cavuto's was a shocker.
I am despondent over the future of conservatism, if so many conservatives lack the sensibility to look past Brooks literal statements even though he so obviously invites his audience to do so. It would appear that the deplorable state of public education affects the average conservative writer here, at least as much as it does the average liberal. Sad, really.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.