And Another Thing...

RARELY do I type as purple-faced as I sound, but that Brooks column yesterday made me madder each time I went back to pick something out of it, until, by the time he'd finally reached the President's speech--ostensibly his topic--I wasn't bored with him, as usual, but simply wrung out. Of course it's often the case that Brooks' dishonest set-ups are more irritating than his faux-cryptic wingnut-talking-point conclusions, but then, those're rarely introduced by

As a young thoughtful black man, he would have become familiar with prophetic Christianity and the human tendency toward corruption…

And thank God, else as we speak he'd be out offin' Whitey. David Brooks talking about the Black Christian experience: it's the McRib sandwich of punditatin'.

This brought on a brief reverie in Brooks for Obama's legendary 2002 "anti-Iraq War" speech. Not, of course, for the anti-war bit that was sold to the rubes, but the rest of it, the support of Good Wars and the general acceptance of the, sadly necessary!, Right To Get Belligerent Once Something Really Pisses You Off, provided you're only in it for the democracy.

And so we reached the Oslo speech, and let me just note that, to me, presuming to lecture an international audience on the joys of "Centrist" American foreign policy when there is a very good chance that, apart from Mr. and Mrs. Smith there, you understand less about it than anyone in the house, is more amusing than anything else, same as gathering up your trophy, your giant novelty check, and hitting Air Force One without so much as a quick wave at the kaffeeklatsch afterwards. What is sufficient about the whole episode, for me, is that the President--unlike Dr. Kissinger--might actually be possessed of a soul which could be haunted by the thing for the rest of his life.

(What is it with the Right and platitudes, anyway? I've known pet dogs that required less constant reassurance. Brooks may have tilted US history until international pugnacity looks efficacious--I have my doubts about that--but, still, there's no way anyone over the age of nine believes this nonsense. Is there?)

And yesterday I thought it best at that point to stop typing and start drinking seriously, but then this morning I woke up--really--with this in my head:

Obama has not always gotten this balance right. He misjudged the emotional moment when Iranians were marching in Tehran.

And--I was still half-dreaming--my response(s) laid out like they were spread across a Christmas buffet. I'll leave you with three:

1) Yeah. Insufficiently pro-Chalabi.

2) Not like when Dick Cheney freed the Georgians.

3) Well, his hands were tied. It's not like he had an Iranian Benazir Bhutto to bring out of exile.