“The Bible is filled with reluctant leaders, people who did not choose power but were chosen for it — from David to Paul.... History is full of reluctant leaders, too. President Obama is the most recent.”
David Brooks, New York Times, September 11, 2014: The Reluctant Leader
The president invited a group of foreign policy experts and former government officials to dinner on Monday[September 8, 2014], and a separate group of columnists and magazine writers for a discussion on Wednesday[September 10, 2014] afternoon. Although three New York Times columnists and an editorial writer were among those invited to the second session, this account is drawn from people unaffiliated with The Times, some of whom insisted on anonymity because they were not supposed to share details of the conversations.
Emphasis added
Peter Baker, New York Times, September 13, 2014: Paths to War, Then and Now, Haunt Obama
In highlighting this confluence of major media and the White House in the run up to war, Xavier Best points out that "this is the kind of servility that would make Kim Il-sung blush."
Since Brooks is white and he is defending the violence of a military superpower (and not a “terrorist” organization), he can be spared accusations of being indoctrinated into a “fundamentalist” ideology with an “end of days strategic vision.” One can imagine a different response in the US if he were brown and was making references to the Quran.
Those who support the President in this bombing campaign should be glad to have the full imprimatur of the Bible, the White House, the News Cabal, and David Brooks himself on their side.
Ivy Lee would be so proud.
UPDATE: 10:41 AM David Brooks is merely a feature of this article, and I did not intend for discussion to focus on his obvious odiousness. The point is the cooperation between such pissant "journalists" and the White House, the blatant propaganda that is being used on behalf of the administration to foster public approval for another racist military adventure in the Middle East. Those who understand the role that the media played in the run up to World War I should see the startlingly unchanged echoes of a century ago. If not, either you need to find better sources or think long and hard about what truly makes this time different than not only the 3 previous consecutive engagements with Iraq, but Wilson's war as well.