Brooks: Bush’s ‘Body Language’ Means He Won’t Attack Iran
Brooks: Bush’s ‘Body Language’ Means He Won’t Attack Iran
Despite the Bush administration directly threatening Iran, talking up “World War III,” imposing unilateral sanctions, and requesting a “bunker buster” from Congress in recent weeks, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks is convinced of the President’s peaceful intent.
In a PBS interview yesterday, Brooks said that Bush’s “body language” when discussing Iran made him “reasonably confident there’s going to be no military” confrontation:
[I]f you look, read his language, if you look at his body language, you see a man that’s totally different than before Iraq. He is preparing the way for the next administration to have some means to deal with the situation. He believes in the diplomacy. But unless I totally misread him, I think he has no inclination to launch a military action.
Watch it:
During the interview, Brooks said he is part of a group of right-wing columnists who meets regularly with President Bush. “I’m sort of the Fidel Castro of the group. I’m on the far left,” Brooks said.
Transcript of the program available here.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Take that to the bank, since he’s been right about so many other things.
right.
October 27th, 2007 at 10:45 amAnd Lehrer and Mark Shields didn’t laugh him off the set and throw tomatoes at him? That just encourages him to say more stupid sh** next time and next time and next time.
October 27th, 2007 at 10:46 am“I’m on the far left”?
sure, along with joe lieberman.
October 27th, 2007 at 10:49 amAnd since when has David Brooks been right about anything?
October 27th, 2007 at 10:50 amBody language?!?
That is reassuring. What about he needs the approval of Congress to declare war? Oh wait, I forgot…
Gosh I’m glad we can at least get a ‘guess’ at what our government might be up to. Thanks for that.
October 27th, 2007 at 10:53 amSo that’s how Brooks interprets twitchy?
October 27th, 2007 at 10:56 amSo that old leftist rascal Bobo saw into W soul and determined he’s one of us. That is just adorable!
October 27th, 2007 at 10:56 amWhat Brooks needed to do is look in to his soul…oh forgot Satan doesn’t have a soul.
And what is this “Far Left” crap, Far Left my butt.
Buck Fush
October 27th, 2007 at 10:58 amTo examine “body language” one must have a subject that is:
October 27th, 2007 at 10:58 am1. Sentient
2. without clothes
Mr. Brooks’ argument is specious unless it can show proof of either
Brooks read Bush’s body langauge. Bush read Putin’s body language. This stuff should be on O’Reilly, not Newshour.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:01 amRightie or Leftie, on this we can agree: David Brooks is a dullard and a suck-up.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:06 amO’Reilly is TOO smart for Brooks..It should actually would fit rather nicely on a RE-RUN of Beck on CNN…Since CNN is like Parvada-in-training it’s more applicable.
Just my thoughts….
Brooks is SO lame it hurts….
October 27th, 2007 at 11:06 amBush’s mouth lies when it moves. What makes this fool think that Bush’s other body parts have some creditability. The only time Bush’s “boby language” emits the truth is when he is taking a Cheney.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:13 amIt continues to amaze me that in spite of his stunning, perhaps unprecedented record of failure, certain media figures (Brooks) continue to conclude that Bush is secretly a great leader, and the rest of us just don’t have the vision to see it.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:18 amHis actions, and the results of those actions, don’t seem to enter into the equation. The rhetoric, the posturing, the steely look of determination, are all that matters. What universe do these people live in?
uh huh… all those things certainly point to
the “President’s peaceful intent” in MY mind too…
o. mygod.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:28 am.
“He is preparing the way for the next administration to have some means to deal with the situation.”
if it were any NORMAL administration, i would like to believe
that this is true… would that it were… but…
“He believes in the diplomacy. But unless I totally misread him, I think he has no inclination to launch a military action.”
all three issues here point to the OPPOSITE,
by past experience…
we’re being set up… as usual…
October 27th, 2007 at 11:33 am…
What universe do these people live in?
Comment by Del Capslock — October 27, 2007 @ 11:18 am
And can’t they find jobs there and stay there and stop coming over here and phu(king up our universe?!?
October 27th, 2007 at 11:37 amYou do. You totally misread him. Read him again. Goofball!
October 27th, 2007 at 11:38 amSo that is Brook’s gut feeling? Better buy some duct tape just in case.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:38 am“He is preparing the way for the next administration to have some means to deal with the situation” . . .which he is creating.
Fixed it.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:39 amThis whole thing is based on the premise that Bush has some say in what the Project for a New American Century will do next.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:44 amHe believes in the diplomacy. But unless I totally misread him, I think he has no inclination to launch a military action.
He believes in diplomacy. Right there that tells you that Brooks is a lying sack of sh*t.
The dictionary defines diplomacy thusly: “the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations”.
Threatening statements and economic sanctions can not, by any reasonable means, be called “negotiating”. In order to negotiate you have to have two sides participating. Every attempt at negotiation the Iranians have made towards our government have been turned down by Bush.
The only thing holding Bush back right now from attacking Iran is the Republican party who are telling him that if he attacks Iran, he will be dooming the party to obscurity for the next 20 years. Right now Bush appears to be listening to them. Who knows how long that will last. In the end, Bush doesn’t give a rats as* what happens to the Republicans once he is out of office and in his compound in Paraguay.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:44 ami guess he missed that part where bush wiped his ass with the constitution…. what kind of body language does that signal?
October 27th, 2007 at 11:48 amWhy doesn’t Brooks tell us that Cheny’s phyrenology isn’t right for an bombing of Iran. I’m serious the bumps on someone head makes about as much sense as doing this BS FAUX NEWS thing.
It’s what the man says!
October 27th, 2007 at 11:49 amIs that the body language the Chimp displays when he can’t get through a door, or when he’s falling off his bike?
Brooks is an incurable twit.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:52 amWhat next, reading chicken bones?;) They will attack Iran when the timing is best to effect the 08 elections.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:54 am…
Un-f___ing-beleivable. This administration is using all the same Talking Points that they used in Iraq, and this boob thinks the Pres. “Body Language” indicates he won’t attack.
The Only “left” side he’s on is in the Photo Op…
October 27th, 2007 at 11:58 amBush won’t bomb Iran. That will be left for “President for Life” Cheney after “terrorists” assassinate Bush. I hope people aren’t holding their breath till the election. I have a bad feeling there won’t be one.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:02 pmIt’s 2007 and Brooks is relying on tea leaves and not words or actions or history? Can our discourse get any sillier?
October 27th, 2007 at 12:03 pm…if you look at his body language, you see a man that’s totally different than before Iraq
That’s because Bush was nervous the first time. He hadn’t started an illegal, unconstitutional war before. Now that he knows how to do it and get away with it, he’s more relaxed about lying to the American people about it. See what a little success can do for your confidence? The rest of the illegal and unconstitutional wars will be a piece of cake for him from now on. Syria, he’s looking in your direction next.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:05 pmBrooks is far left, just like the rest of all media.
[/snark]
October 27th, 2007 at 12:28 pmThe only thing holding Bush back right now from attacking Iran is the Republican party who are telling him that if he attacks Iran, he will be dooming the party to obscurity for the next 20 years. Right now Bush appears to be listening to them. Who knows how long that will last. In the end, Bush doesn’t give a rats as* what happens to the Republicans once he is out of office and in his compound in Paraguay.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 27, 2007 @ 11:44 am
Well, the Paraguay scenario is fun, but not very realistic. I also doubt the 08 elections will be cancelled.
There will come a point of no return if Bush truly does want to launch airstrikes against Iran. Any air campaign will need at least 6-8 weeks. It can’t just be surgical strikes on their nuclear facilities; the RG would have to be targeted, as would munition production centers and air defense systems, along with naval installations along the Gulf.
The blowback from an attack vis Hamas, Hezbollah, Mahdi Army and fighting for control of the waters of the Gulf will take months. It can’t be an ongoing thing past Labor Day or it will be electoral trouble for the Repubs and Bush’s support in Congress will evaporate.
So – if nothing has happened by April 1, I will say Brooks is right and the strike isn’t coming. That gives us about six months of trepidation.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:39 pmYeah, right. On the very day Brooks said this the Bush administration unilaterally imposed stiff new sanctions on Iran. Sanctions are not a form of diplomacy. Sanctions are a form of warfare.
It sounds to me more like Bush sent Brooks out there to confuse the issue and make it easier for Bush to get his way. Brooks is the new “Gonzales” enabler.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:58 pmIt can’t be an ongoing thing past Labor Day or it will be electoral trouble for the Repubs and Bush’s support in Congress will evaporate.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — October 27, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
So your real concerns are simply political? JUST… DISGUSTING.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:09 pmIt can’t be an ongoing thing past Labor Day or it will be electoral trouble for the Repubs and Bush’s support in Congress will evaporate.
So – if nothing has happened by April 1, I will say Brooks is right and the strike isn’t coming. That gives us about six months of trepidation.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — October 27, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Well thank God somebody’s got the b*lls to do SOMETHING.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:18 pmFEMA is no longer an agency designed to assist victims in times of crisis, in this country. They are, rather, the “tip of the spear” in an effort to manipulate disasters to maximize profit potential for certain corportions, as well as implementing privitization agendas being sought by Freidman Capitalists. They have been doing this since Bush came to power.
Please read this history of FEMA’s crimes:
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/what-has-fema-become/
October 27th, 2007 at 1:19 pmHa, ha, ha, ha… I just had to laugh at david brooks latest babbling….
Bush has been at war with life virtually his whole life: killing frogs with firecrackers, branding frat brothers, rubberstamping Texas executions then the big time: murdering over one million Iraqis in his war of fascist aggression against the Iraqi people.
Bush’s blood-lust is unabated: now he wants to murder one million Iranians…
October 27th, 2007 at 1:20 pmBrooks looks for body language becuase Bush’s English becoming hard to understand; with WWIII in mind,no body language will ever be understood by Brooks.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:22 pmWait until Bush comes with Divine language and orders from heaven to engage Iran.
I think Brooks should also look for Cheney’s lips the coming days and months.
“Brooks said he is part of a group of right-wing columnists who meets regularly with President Bush.”
HELLLLOOO
October 27th, 2007 at 1:31 pmNOW you finally realizing where you are getting your talking points from. Holy SHIT!!
So your real concerns are simply political? JUST… DISGUSTING.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 27, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Noooo….my COMMENT was simply political, since the topic of this thread is whether or not a strike will occur. I think politics will heavily affect the decision to do it or not.
It is a huge strategic decision; it is fork in the road as to how we approach the Middle East. Both roads have their own perils.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:33 pm“…if he attacks Iran, he will be dooming the party to obscurity for the next 20 years”
Bilbo, More like BREAKING the GOP for good. ANd the VAST MAJORITY of Americans would not shed one fu(king tear to see them pulverized into obscurity.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pmThe great party of Lincoln is no more.
keltoi, you can take that fork and shove it you know where.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:36 pmIt is a huge strategic decision; it is fork in the road as to how we approach the Middle East. Both roads have their own perils.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — October 27, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Only because Bush is in charge. Same as on 9/11. No Bush, no attacks. Very simple, even simple enough for a rightard. No Bush, no protection for Saudi terrorists, like Bin Laden. Bush is the problem, not the solution.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:37 pmkeltoi, you can take that fork and shove it you know where.
Comment by Bush is a TRAITOR — October 27, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Ah, the enlightened discourse here at TP….
October 27th, 2007 at 1:42 pmAh, the enlightened discourse here at TP….
Comment by Keltoi at Night — October 27, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
You reap what you sow, fool.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:43 pm…manipulate disasters to maximize profit [...]
Comment by willyloman — October 27, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
google “naomi klein, disaster capitalism”…
see also: http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine
October 27th, 2007 at 2:00 pm…
Brooks described the “interviews” he allows with right wing columnists. That’s just great. Bush is woefully shallow on foreign policy, he doesn’t take the time to read policy papers, and he is subservient to Cheney on all issues. We’re supposed to be glad that Brooks is there as the “far left columnist?”
Brooks also said that this group asks Bush questions, but it’s “kind of a game” because he knows what they will ask. Kind of a game?? Brooks’s comments to Jim Lehrer are maddening, frustrating, depressing.
October 27th, 2007 at 2:28 pmWas Bobo carefully scrotinizing the codpiece for evidence of a chubby?
October 27th, 2007 at 2:30 pmi think brooks is right. russia has put a stop to an attack on iran…
October 27th, 2007 at 2:48 pmBrooks’s comments to Jim Lehrer are maddening, frustrating, depressing.
What is even more depressing isi that Jim Lehrer let him get away with it. Admittedly they didn’t show the whole interview but I think if Lehrer had called him on his baseless statements, they would have put it on the video. Jim Lehrer used to be a good journalist. Why is he standing down like so many others and allowing this government to control the message?
October 27th, 2007 at 3:16 pmi think brooks is right. russia has put a stop to an attack on iran…
Comment by Freakaloin
Where did you get that? I listened to the interview and Brooks said nothing about Russia putting a stop to an attack on Iran. But I do agree that Russia and China aligning themselves with Iran is making the Bush Crime family think twice.
Did anyone else notice where Brooks implied that Iran is responsible for a majority of the deaths in Iraq? That is Bush’s new message. AQI wasn’t working so now we have solved the AQI problem and Iran is the new boogy man. But, what about Saudi Arabia and all the assistance they are giving to the Sunnis? Why does the MSM totally ignore that?
October 27th, 2007 at 3:18 pmI got to wondering about polls about Iran and found this page:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm
What I find frightening is how many people actually think that Iran is actively involved in Iraq even though we have been shown no poof. I guess that shows that catapulting the propaganda works. Since that’s all the public has read in the MSM and most people don’t bother to question whether or not they are being told the truth, the propaganda works just fine.
On the other hand, the first part of the poll says that more people oppose military action against Iran in the middle of October than they did earlier. I would be very interested to see how that poll would go today. My bet is that the number of people who oppose military action will be up, not down.
October 27th, 2007 at 3:25 pmTell me when the concept of ‘the President can declare war whenever he feels like it’ came to be.
I can’t help but think this b.s. is just more ‘be afraid . . be very afraid’.
It’s just that this time, they want us to be afraid of who they call our President and what he might do.
Setting up to further the b.s. by saying ‘well, the President didn’t declare war (even though he isn’t capable of doing so), so he must be a great leader and President’. As if that will somehow make Iraq disappear.
October 27th, 2007 at 3:33 pmThey really think we are all as half-witted as their puppet in chief.
Noooo….my COMMENT was simply political, since the topic of this thread is whether or not a strike will occur. I think politics will heavily affect the decision to do it or not.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — October 27, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
So your “COMMENT” was simply political… yer full of Cheney.
Talk about smug and disingenuous… your “comment” doesn’t reflect your concerns, and once you state your “real concerns”, what???
October 27th, 2007 at 3:43 pmI have a bad feeling there won’t be one.
Comment by pete — October 27, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Marshall law is on the way. When you’ve committed the crimes these a$$holes have you cannot allow a “regime change” (free election) otherwise lots of RePugniScums are going to prison for a very long time. And I think some RePugniScums should swing from a rope. The sooner the better!!! Start with Dick(head) Cheney!!
October 27th, 2007 at 3:57 pmDavid Brooks is a runner-up for the title of “Dumbest man on the face of the planet”.
It’s too bad Douglas Feith won by a nose. Better luck next time, David.
October 27th, 2007 at 4:12 pm“He is preparing the way for the next administration to have some means to deal with the situation. He believes in the diplomacy.”
After watching the recent show detailing how this administration totally screwed up our dealings with Iran, I’d have to say that Bush did a ‘Heck of a Job’ “preparing the way for the next administration”.
How the heck could anyone read Bush’s ‘body language’ anyway?
Except maybe for an editor/artist at Mad Magazine.
Bush & Alfred E. Newman, separated at birth?
“What, me worry?” Doh!
October 27th, 2007 at 5:40 pmSorry, David
October 27th, 2007 at 5:54 pmYour track record on politics is not too great – I doubt you are any better on reading body language.
His body language doesn’t tell us anything. It’s when he is reading that we get his messages (because when he is not reading just speaking on his own, it’s an undescribable tragedy!)
But I don’t think the “nucolar bomb” is going to be used… Unles there is a confusion between the right and left hands… or some Ob-Gyn starts loving the patients too much around the country…. In such a case, it would be advisable to flee to the “Austrian Continent”… because just being in a ranch in the “State of Taxes” wouldn’t be safe enough… Anyways, it will all be OK at the end, because men can definitely co-exist with fish…
Oh my!!
October 27th, 2007 at 6:28 pmIf Brooks sucked any harder his head would cave in!
October 27th, 2007 at 6:29 pmIf Brooks sucked any harder his head would cave in!
Comment by bronco214 — October 27, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
And GW Botch’s ballz would be flying out of his ears!!
October 27th, 2007 at 7:18 pmA sociopath can lie without showing the corresponding body language.
October 27th, 2007 at 9:02 pmWhy is it we have to sit on pins and needles evaluating every move this pathetic moron does wondering if he is going to blow up another country? What ever happened to WE the People.. We don’t matter? Pelosi has been out there stating Bush can not invade Iran without Congress’s consent… so that does not matter either?
October 27th, 2007 at 9:02 pmI’ve been saying that republicans have mystical powers. Here’s yet another example: Brooks can read body language and know its meaning. Bush can look into Putin’s eyes and see his soul. McCain can look into Putin’s eyes and see, as he states the letters, K-G-B.
I feel I haven’t been properly educated. No one has ever taught me to read body language to definitively know the meaning of a person’s gesticulations, nor have I been taught to look into someone’s eyes and know for a fact what their intent is. Public education is a disgrace.
October 27th, 2007 at 9:04 pmTIMES and TELEGRAPH – both murdoch properties…
…
i knew i’d read something somewhere… this is one story:
The Iraq news blackout: how the press spent its summer vacation
by Eric Boehlert
[...]
The media’s coverage from Iraq has naturally ebbed and flowed over the four-and-a-half years since the invasion. And escalating security concerns in Iraq have made it both more difficult and more expensive for news organization to operate there.
But the pullback we’ve seen this summer, the chronic dearth of on-the-ground reporting, likely marks a new low of the entire campaign. It’s gotten to the point where even monstrous acts of destruction cannot wake the press from its self-induced slumber.
[...]
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200709050002
although, i wouldn’t hesitate to make a bet that it’s NOT “self-induced”…
October 27th, 2007 at 10:30 pm…
oops… wrong thread… i’ll try it there…
October 27th, 2007 at 10:31 pm.
I wonder exactly which of the current corrupt, criminal president’s body parts Media Putz (http://mediaputz.com/07/07/putz0712.html) Brooks was watching to come to the “scientific” conclusion that “…if you look at his body language, …he has no inclination to launch a military action.”
Sen. Larry Craig could probably tell us.
October 27th, 2007 at 11:06 pm{:-)
#53 – Thanks for the link on polling.
I found the following one the most interesting.
“Based on what you have heard or read, do you think that the government of Iran is or is not providing weapons and other support to the insurgents who are fighting the U.S. troops in Iraq?”
.
Is Is Not Unsure .
% % % .
10/12-14/07 82 13 4
Perhaps the inclusion of “other support” skews this but we have been provided no proof whatsoever of direct support. Once they attempted to provide the smoking gun of Iranian involvement only to find that the weapons used came from a facility near Basra. Another time the General in charge of the area just south of Baghdad said that there were 50 Iranians operating in the area. A good General would have gone after them rather than just whine about it. Obviously, an awful lot of people are confusing this speculation with proof. Can’t fool me again, my ass.
October 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pm