In Which David Brooks Wins My Sympathy, And Hell Has Chilly Weather (But Not Freezing)

Hmmmm. Very interesting. This evening I sat down to watch the Bush interview on the News Hour, and I did so in a not happy frame of mind. After all, this makes the third time in seven days that I have had to listen to Bush speak at length, and to force myself to pay attention to what he says (rather than just yelling at the TV, hopping around in rage, and changing the channel). I hate it. It makes me grouchy. So I was surprised to find myself less enraged than just...glum.

This is despite the fact that all of the usual sources of irritation were there tonight. All of these boil down to the pain of watching Bush thinking he's smart when he's talking absolute shit. My favorite: Lehrer asked whether Bush thinks that Iraq is like a broken egg, and can't be put back together. Bush says he prefers to think of it as a cracked egg. Lehrer went, "A cracked egg?" as though hoping he'd misheard. So, Bush understands neither metaphor nor eggs. Nor, of course, war.

And there was worse, of course; the usual nonsense about Al Qaeda setting up camps; failed states and the West held hostage over oil (that one pisses me off particularly from this oil sucking president); failure not an option; listening to the generals about troop numbers. There were only two interesting things to report.

First, this is the second time in three days that a major interviewer has asked W whether he thinks it's fair that only the members of the armed services and their families are asked to make sacrifices in this "ideological war of the century". It's sad that it took four years for people to start really pressing this most obvious of questions -- I mean really, it's a war for the soul of the country, and I don't even get to rivet something? -- but it's even sadder that it will evidently take Bush more than four years to figure out why the question matters.

But that's only a lead-in to the really interesting bit, which wasn't in the interview at all. If you can get it on YouTube, watch David Brooks' analysis after the interview. It's a crie de coeur, really; I almost felt badly for him. He said everything I would have said -- about the reductiveness of Bush's analysis; his inability to explain why the number of troops he's asking for will work (an insurmountable task, of course, but he doesn't even try); the lack of seriousness about trying to explain to us why we should listen to him; the lunacy of continuing to rely on the "I listen to the generals" dodge; the cynical political calculation behind the "no sacrifices necessary, thanks!" rhetoric. Brooks' summation, after a pained statement that he'd like to be convinced that the plan will work, but isn't getting what he needs from the president: "You gotta ease the skepticism based on three years of failure, and that involves granularity; that involves evidence; and that involves treating people like adults and not talking down to them." Amen.

Things look very grim for this surge plan and this president, as for the war. Everyone has fled the plan except for the neocons, and they're hedging their bets. And to say that it serves Bush right is really no consolation at all. Watching Bush flail around isn't even enraging anymore, or at least not the way it used to be. It's just pathetic.

But it will be a cold day in hell when I start feeling sorry for him.