Greenwald se fait David Brooks

Greenwald réduit en miette David Brooks qui tient une tribune dans le NYT. Brooks a connu la gloire à la fin des années 90 en inventant le terme "Bobo". Il a surtout milité pour la guerre en Irak comme si sa vie en dépendait en 2002 et en 2003 et il bat encore aujourd'hui le tamtam de l'escalade en Afghanistan (et partout ailleurs tant qu'on y est). Greenwald lui rappelle ses écrits de l'époque et met en doute sa légitimité à détenir l'un des bâtons de Maréchal de la punditry américaine: une tribune dans le New York Times.

Greenwald se demande comme toujours par quel miracle ces élites faillies ont réussi l'exploit de ne pas voir leur situation se dégrader suite à leurs mensonges répétés (et à leurs conséquences tragiques) mais au contraire de voir celle-ci s'améliorer: Brooks est monté dans le pecking order de l'influence journalistique aux Etats-Unis en passant du Weekly Standard au NYT après le désastre irakien (tout comme Bill Kristol d'ailleurs).

Extrait de l'attaque de Greenwald:
Just read some of what Brooks wrote about Iraq. It's absolutely astounding that someone with this record doesn't refrain from prancing around as a war expert for the rest of their lives. In fact, in a society where honor and integrity were valued just a minimal amount, a record like this would likely cause any decent and honorable person, wallowing in shame, to seriously contemplate throwing themselves off a bridge:

Greenwald ne fait pas dans la nuance en lui conseillant d'envisager le suicide mais quand on pense aux centaines de milliers de morts que des gens comme Brooks ont provoquées en écrivant dans le confort de leur living room, on a du mal à réellement s'émouvoir. Et je vous rassure, vu l'arrogance imbécile que Brooks ne cesse de manifester dans ses écrits propagandistes, les chances que cet appel de Greenwald à ce qu'il "se comporte honorablement" soit entendu sont absolument nulles.

Je recommande la lecture de tout le post de Greenwald qui donnera une idée au lecteur de ce qu'on entendait aux Etats-Unis dans le "run-up to the war". Voici néanmoins un extrait de ce que Brooks écrivait au lendemain du speech grotesque de Powell à l'ONU du 5 février 2003 qui ira particulièrement droit au coeur d'une audience française:

I MADE THE MISTAKE of watching French news the night of Colin Powell's presentation before the Security Council. . . . Then they brought on a single "expert" to analyze Powell's presentation. This fellow, who looked to be about 25 and quite pleased with himself, was completely dismissive. The Powell presentation was a mere TV show, he sniffed. It's impossible to trust any of the intelligence data Powell presented because the CIA is notorious for lying and manipulation. The presenter showed a photograph of a weapons plant, and then the same site after it had been sanitized and the soil scraped. The expert was unimpressed: The Americans could simply have lied about the dates when the pictures were taken. Maybe the clean site is actually the earlier picture, he said.

That was depressing enough. Then there were a series of interviews with French politicians of the left and right. They were worse. At least the TV expert had acknowledged that Powell did present some evidence, even if he thought it was fabricated. The politicians responded to Powell's address as if it had never taken place. They simply ignored what Powell said and repeated that there is no evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and that, in any case, the inspection system is effective.

This was not a response. It was simple obliviousness, a powerful unwillingness to confront the question honestly. This made the politicians seem impervious to argument, reason, evidence, or anything else. Maybe in the bowels of the French elite there are people rethinking their nation's position, but there was no hint of it on the evening news.

Which made me think that maybe we are being ethnocentric. As good, naive Americans, we think that if only we can show the world the seriousness of the threat Saddam poses, then they will embrace our response. In our good, innocent way, we assume that in persuading our allies we are confronted with a problem of understanding.

But suppose we are confronted with a problem of courage? Perhaps the French and the Germans are simply not brave enough to confront Saddam. . . . Or suppose we are confronted with a problem of character? Perhaps the French and the Germans understand the risk Saddam poses to the world order. Perhaps they know that they are in danger as much as anybody. They simply would rather see American men and women--rather than French and German men and women--dying to preserve their safety. . . . Far better, from this cynical perspective, to signal that you will not take on the terrorists--so as to earn their good will amidst the uncertain times ahead.