Rosa Brooks of the Los Angeles Times and poster child for irrelevant leftist drivel masquerading as informed ‘thought,’ has left yet another stain on paper.
# Deneme
# Deneme 1-2
In 9/11 was bad, but…, she posits the notion that ‘The attacks were appalling, but they don’t pose the threat politicians make them out to be.‘ That’s right. In BrooksWorld, the events of 9/11 were a distraction, with political overtones.
Brooks goes on:
Every year, we also lose millions of Americans to preventable accidents and disease. We’re more likely to die on the road than as a result of Al Qaeda’s machinations. Annually, we lose some 43,000 people to auto accidents. For the grieving families, that’s 43,000 deaths too many. But, although we surely could reduce auto fatalities if we chose to make it our top national priority, the Bush administration has yet to announce a “War on Highway Deaths.”
Why wasn’t a War on Highway Deaths a priority of the Clinton Administration?
If terror isn’t such a big deal, why did Bill Clinton work so hard to kill Osama bin Laden? Why expend American energies on such an irrelevant concern? Why was Richard Clarke so critical of the CIA efforts to kill Bin Laden, if he wasn’t such a threat?
Clarke was insistent that Clinton had
put in place the plans and programs that allowed America to respond to the big attacks when they did come, sweeping away the political barriers to action.
Is it possible that terrorism on our shores might be a bit more important than Rosa Brooks says it is?
In BrooksWorld, deceit is the order of the day- responding to terror on our shores, she says, is a political expression.
After 9/11, the Republican line was that all future terror attacks on U.S. soil must be prevented at any cost.
If terror weren’t such a big deal, why is Hillary Clinton defending her husband’s record on terror
I think my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take these attacks
The former president won’t even hear of anyone criticizing his administration for being soft on terror. The former president said he
“left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy” for the Bush administration.
The former president also insisted that he came close to killing bin Laden and noted that his administration took the threat of terrorism more seriously than the Bush administration did before the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Shouldn’t that admission be enough to taint the Clinton administration forever in BrooksWorld?
Does Rosa Brooks believe that there is an ‘appropriate’ body count type benchmark that must be reached before we take terror on our shores seriously?
This morning, Dr Sanity has posted The Postmodern Psychological Landscape And The Battle Between Guilt And Shame, one the best pieces on the post modernism and leftist ideology you will read this year. She discusses multiculturalism, moral equivalence and cultural relativism, that Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole that is the entry portal to BrooksWorld. In discussing the terror mindset and the western response of which Rosa Brooks is so dismissive, Dr Sanity’s insights are hard to ignore- unless of course, you live in BrooksWorld.
…this toxic interaction will not produce peace in our time; but, on the contrary will inevitably lead to more war and even more death and destruction than is now able to be imagined. Because, these Islamic fanatics–who do not let reason or life interfere with their jihad; who abide by no treaties, follow no rules, and scorn the very values upon which western civilization is founded will not be appeased and will use the postmodern lunacy very well to their advantage against us.
We could have lived with them they did not insist that we must submit, become what they are, or die. But they have defined the groundrules (or the non-rules) of this conflict; and eventually, we will have to meet them at their level–or they will win. They have set the psychological landscape of this war, and the political left in our own country and around the world has done all it possibly can to ensure that those committed to our destruction have the advantage and that we must operate under a vicious, self-imposed handicap.
Rosa Brooks has a clear agenda, one that desperately must deny and obfuscate reality. This denial would be irrelevant and comical, if the stakes weren’t so high. Brooks isn’t satisfied in putting her own future on the line, as is right. She is insisting that we all follow suit. She wants us to be exactly what she is- ‘good little Nazi,’ following ‘ideological orders.’
In The Apes In Tuxedos And Hypocrites At The LA Times, we noted how truth and reality are toxic in BrooksWorld. We concluded by noting that
Until such time as Ms Brooks and her ilk take the initiative and reclaim the kind journalism that is not so beholden to an ideology, or a committed to an agenda at the cost of truth, journalists will remain marginalized and not trusted, as polls continue to show.
They will remain apes in tuxedos.
