Glenn Greenwald really is turning attacking NY Times columnist David Brooks into a sport. In his latest demolition job, Greenwald takes Brooks to task for his column in the Times that claims 'there is a unique evil that one finds in the "fringes of the Muslim world"'. Brooks writes:
This narrative causes its adherents to shrink their circle of concern. They don’t see others as fully human. They come to believe others can be blamelessly murdered and that, in fact, it is admirable to do so.
Greenwald points out that Brooks has supported four separate wars on Muslim countries in the past 6 years that have caused indescribable suffering, destruction and death:
Here's a person who is constantly advocating and justifying the
killing, bombing, and slaughtering of Muslims, including well over 100,000 innocent civilians. And yet today he writes a column saying:Look over there at those radical Muslims; can you believe how degraded and inhumane they are?In fact, he says, "they"
-- those Muslims over there -- "don’t see others as fully human. They
come to believe others can be blamelessly murdered and that, in fact,
it is admirable to do so." That's from the same person who cheerleads
for the endless deaths of Muslims and destruction of the Muslim world
while thinking that it makes him strong, resolute, Churchillian, righteous and noble -- exactly that which he accuses "fringeMuslims" of doing.
David Brooks plays perfectly the role of a state apparatchik - a cleverly disguised propagandist for the U.S government working as a columnist for a paper that hasn't opposed a single war the U.S has instigated until after the fact. Writes Noam Chomsky:
No one would be disturbed by an analysis
of the political behavior of the Russians, French, or Tanzanians
questioning their motives and interpreting their actions by the
long-range interests concealed behind their official rhetoric. But it
is an article of faith that American motives are pure, and not subject
David Brooks likes to speak truth to those with no power, an easy task that has brought him riches and fame. Doing the opposite would require true bravery, and little compensation. And for David Brooks, his position as an armchair warrior for the powerful is simply too comfortable.