Pure panic in David Brooks

[Cocoa]

On McNeil-Lehrer "political wrapup" with Mark Shields, Brooks was twitchy and incoherent when trying to explain why this uranium story doesn't matter.

He was angry at hell at the dems for making such a big deal about it, he called them "rabid."

A very sanguine Mark Shields ripped him to shreds, including calling him on his claim that Bush's approval ratings are holding up, which they're not.

By the end, Brooks was PLEADING with his eyes for Ray Suarez to end the segment. Unfortunately, Suarez showed him mercy he didn't deserve. :-)

[blm]

1. heheh...

I caught some of that. You nailed Brooks down to the floor.

[Cocoa]

3. I hope he's ok

he looked a little pale. Shields and Suarez were talking to him like he was a mental patient. :-)

[Terwilliger]

8. like Condi when she had to explain that "No one thought of a plane...

hitting a building"

She looked pretty uncomfortable herself.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I need to watch tonight

that sounds entertaining, is it me or is this starting to look like Watergate all over again?

[diplomats]

4. Hey

I wish the Dems WERE rabid! BTW, this story has only exploded the past few days, so the real effect on Bush's ratings won't be seen until next probably.

[diplomats]

5. That should say

next week

[Terwilliger]

6. Suarez better than Lehrer

Lehrer doesn't want to hear about bad Republicans. He usually just won't stand for it.

[DODI]

7. Shields Did a Great Job

I wish the repugs would stop saying "but aren't we better off without Saddam?" I am sick, sick, sick of that tag line! I wish one of our "pundits" would point out the true question here: Is our intelligence any good!!! That is the question we should be asking. If our intelligence is good and the use of it is bad -- impeach. If the intelligence is bad -- fix it!

[RainDog]

11. Are we better off without Saddam?

No.

Why?

We invaded Iraq on terms which have never existed for America before.

This was a pre-emptive invasion. As both Chris Matthews and Bob Schneider have noted, this "Bush Doctrine," requires a higher standard, or flawless evidence to justify an invasion.

That we have invaded another country based upon lies is a serious issue for our nation, and those who try to deny it, or those who don't care, are dangerous people.

Pre-emption is already against the philosophy of our republic, against the philosophy of true conservatism, and those who try to claim they are conservative while embracing Trotsky's endless war, and fascism's nationalistic fever are dangerous to our form of govt.

Combine the above with the reports from military and CIA before the invasion which said that at least some of them thought an invasion would make America and the world more vulnerable to terrorism, then, no we are not better off because we invaded Iraq.

However, the neo-cons are better off, at least temporarily. They have their massive deficits, their pepetual war machine is churning to keep them in power and keep the America people enslaved, and their daily attacks upon democracy and civil liberties in this country continue.

Would we be better off without the Bush junta?

ABSOLUTELY.

[salmonhorse]

9. I like Brooks...

It is no-less than a form of shame really. All these otherwise brilliant thinkers having to explain the inexplainable = G.W. Bush ~

Now there is no more cover for having not delved into these matters of life & death more deeply...as should have been the case all along.

Freedom of Press! We need our free press and we need it right thee fuck NOW!!!

[salmonhorse]

13. Eh...

Brooks looked a little weak out here on the west coast on News Hour. They (re-publicans) will just have to eat-the-fact-raw that they wanted to start the war in Iraq soooo damn bad that they didn't care all that much about the truth. Maybe never did maybe never will. Oh well...it's only a little Freedom & Liberty! A little international prestige; a little blood & treasure ~

Fuck Our Phoney-Ass 4th Estate!

[marigold20]

10. Shields did a great job on that segment

Usually Shields is just too reasonable but tonight he really nailed it. His remark about Bush being remarkably uncurious about the whole blow up was right on. I'm sure Rover has told Bush this story is going nowhere so ignore it.

Edit - Rover?

[LearnedHand]

14. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Rover is PERFECT, marigold20!

[quilp]

12. "Thou hast committed fornication. But that was in another country.

and besides the wench is dead." This is Brook's argument. A lie was told but that's OK because the consequences of that lie are being felt elsewhere by other people.

[Terwilliger]

15. Shields and Brooks starting NOW 6:45 PDT west coast

[Imajika]

16. I didn't see it...

...but I always find the take on these things amusing.

I can sit and watch one of these political gabfests with some of my rightwing friends and family, and they will typically make comments about how Hannity, O'Reilly or someone like Brooks "ripped" or "shredded" their liberal or Democratic opponent to pieces.

I could then log on here and read reports from my DU brethren who having watched the exact same program post precisely the opposite.

Now more often than not I agree with the views on DU, but it has always amazed me that otherwise intelligent people could watch a debate and come away with such radically different thoughts on who dominated and won the argument.

It really is quite amazing.

Hope I am not hijacking your thread, I just felt compelled to make that point.

Incidentally, I have watched this David Brooks guy enough to know that he is typically a yammering idiot. I would always expect Mark Shields to outclass him when it comes to debate.

Imajika

[Jacobin]

17. Ooooh....sorry I missed that one

Brooks is such a whiney little snot with that sneer....and Brooks is exceptionally good at poking holes in his bullshit.

With the ammunition now at hand, it had to be a classic excoriation.

[Terwilliger]

18. UHHHHHH....what the fuck happened?!?!

On this showing of the Newshour THEY DID NOT TALK ABOUT BUSH OR THE NIGER LIE!

[Terwilliger]

19. holy crap they reshot Shields and Brooks!!!!

They didn't talk about the BUSH lie?!?!?! :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[Shiraz]

20. OMG

That's exactly what I was thinking when I happened to catch him while channel surfing!!

[RevolutionStartsNow]

21. Are you serious?

Did they really reshoot it, or just cut it?

[librechik]

22. DON'T PANIC!! They were on twice in the same show

once early in the show when they talked ONLY about the Uranium thing, and later when they just talked about other stuff. But strangely, the audio and video for the early piece is ABSENT from the website, while the yawn-provoking Later bit is there in all its routine humdrumness.

The transcript is probably up somewhere though....