Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Mon Apr 21, 2014, 10:51 AM Apr 2014

New York Times’ David Brooks Says Obama Has ‘A Manhood Problem In The Middle East’

New York Times’ David Brooks Says Obama Has ‘A Manhood Problem In The Middle East’

By Ben Armbruster

New York Times columnist David Brooks on Sunday claimed that President Obama’s foreign policy isn’t “tough” and that he has a “manhood problem” in the Middle East.

Pivoting off Sen. Bob Corker’s (R-TN) charge on NBC’s Meet the Press that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine have showed an “era of permissiveness” under Obama, later in the program, Brooks — while noting that he doesn’t necessarily agree with the charge — said this issue extends to the Middle East:

BROOKS: Basically since Yalta we’ve had an assumption that borders are basically going to be borders and once that comes into question if in Ukraine or in Crimea or anywhere else, then all over the world all bets are off. And let’s face it, Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have a — I’ll say it crudely — but a manhood problem in the Middle East. Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad or somebody like Putin? I think a lot of the rap is unfair but certainly in the Middle East there is an assumption that he’s not tough enough.

NBC’s Chuck Todd agreed. “By the way, internally they fear this you know it’s not just Corker saying it, questioning whether the president is being alpha-male,” he said. “That’s essentially saying ‘he’s not alpha-dog. His rhetoric isn’t tough enough.’”

<...>

What Brooks and Todd are essentially saying is that Obama isn’t more willing to use or talk about the military option as a foreign policy tool, as much as, perhaps, his predecessor was. The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol — who championed the war in Iraq and has been calling for one in Iran — is also a proponent of this kind of “manhood” in foreign policy construct. “Real action” in Iran, he said earlier this year, is not using diplomacy to solve the nuclear crisis, it’s a military attack.

So far, however, it appears that Obama’s diplomatic approach to the Iranian nuclear issue is paying off.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/04/20/3428792/brooks-obama-manhood-problem-middle-east/


13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
New York Times’ David Brooks Says Obama Has ‘A Manhood Problem In The Middle East’ (Original Post) ProSense Apr 2014 OP
Ugh. Brooks and then Chuck Todd cited in same paragraph. KittyWampus Apr 2014 #1
David Brooks yet another loser with no military service willing to send someone else to war Johonny Apr 2014 #2
When it come to war and aggression Faux pas Apr 2014 #3
This is also an attempt at pre-empting a Hillary candidacy. WinkyDink Apr 2014 #4
+1000 Tom Ripley Apr 2014 #10
Says manly man's man Brooks. What a fool. Ed Suspicious Apr 2014 #5
You're not a man unless you start a war. TwilightGardener Apr 2014 #6
David Brooks, Chuck Todd and Bill Kristol are probably the last people anybody thinks of tularetom Apr 2014 #7
Brooks needs a column, he looks in the mirror, underpants Apr 2014 #8
Brooks projects too much Tom Ripley Apr 2014 #9
I am beyond excited, just thinking about Charlie Pierce's eventual retort to this piece! bullwinkle428 Apr 2014 #11
the right salivates at the thought of possible war spanone Apr 2014 #12
Right. bravenak Apr 2014 #13

Johonny

(20,854 posts)
2. David Brooks yet another loser with no military service willing to send someone else to war
Mon Apr 21, 2014, 11:02 AM
Apr 2014

so he can feel like a man.

the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Brooks argued forcefully for American military intervention, echoing the belief of commentators and political figures that American and British forces would be welcomed as liberators

How wrong can you be and still have people seek out your opinion and treat you like an intellectual. I'm just saying before the war the majority of Americans did not believe this lie and yet WE still aren't sought out for our opinion but this idiot is... America!

Faux pas

(14,682 posts)
3. When it come to war and aggression
Mon Apr 21, 2014, 11:03 AM
Apr 2014

I prefer a man with a cool head. A cool head has NOTHING to do with manhood. What a pair of big talking pussies. Barf.

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
7. David Brooks, Chuck Todd and Bill Kristol are probably the last people anybody thinks of
Mon Apr 21, 2014, 11:05 AM
Apr 2014

When they see the word "manhood".

underpants

(182,837 posts)
8. Brooks needs a column, he looks in the mirror,
Mon Apr 21, 2014, 11:09 AM
Apr 2014

and sees a prick wearing glasses "Hey! I'll write about that!!"

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
13. Right.
Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:07 PM
Apr 2014

Remember bush in his flight suit? I guess Obama needs a flight suit and a mission accomplished banner to get hs 'manhood' back.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»New York Times’ David Bro...