The bilingual weblog that dares to go
Contact the Webmaster
Bush's sin is that he has been too honest
writes David Brooks sarcastically in a New York Times op-ed piece (of December 13, 2003) that, no, is not particularly partial to the United States (viz. his comments on the Clinton and first Bush administrations) nor is his praise even necessarily favorable to the current Bush administration (as can be seen if you read the column in full).
So the columnist seems to be no more a blindingly devouted follower of Dubya than I am. Still, for the purpose of the theme of this weblog (the debunking of self-serving anti-Americanism), let us dwell on his points regarding the valient "peace camp" (and their disparaging of the hypocritical U.S. authorities), whose nail he hits squarely on the head. "Until the Bush team came to power, foreign relations were conducted with a certain gentlemanly decorum", Brooks writes.
Brooks, as stated above, does not praise this stance unreservedly — far from it — since he acknowledges it to have brought about major problems. ("The administration's fundamental problem is that it is not very good at dealing with people it can't stand", he writes in his final paragraph. "The men and women in this White House are exceptionally forthright. When they come across someone they regard as insufferable, their instinct is to be blunt. They seek to be honest rather than insincere, to not sugar things up but to let these people know how they really feel. The Bush administration is facing an insincerity crisis. It has become addicted to candor and forthrightness. It needs an immediate backstabbing infusion.") Still, it is nice to see another point of view than that of the valient peace camp selflessly trying to prevent the neanderthal-like and hypocritical "neoconservatives" in Washington from making stupid mistakes and being responsible for all the chaos in the world.