Subscribe via RSS Feed

David Broder is a Terribly Stupid Man

[ 39 ] October 31, 2010 |

It’s not as if there are a lot of good arguments for war against Iran, but Broder has constructed what has to be the worst.  Duss does the necessary demolition work. Prepping for war against Iran in order to improve the economy is not unlike staying in on a 2-7 offsuit in order to maximize your chances for a straight flush.

Comments (39)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. gmack says:

    The Dean of the Washington press corps. Jesus Fucking Christ.

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      gmack–I must warn you severely against this kind of gutter language, which as Mr. Broder’s teacher at the Emily Post High School of Etiquette class of 1891 informs us is a sign of bad character. How uncivil! Please use properly sanitized language to argue for killing hundreds of thousands of innocents for illogical reasons in the future.

  2. c u n d gulag says:

    Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan have turned into such great drivers of the national economy.

    Paging Dr. Kevorkian.
    Dr. Kevorkian?
    Paging Dr. Kevorkian to David Broders room.
    Dr. Kevorkian? Please respond ASAP!!!

  3. KC45s says:

    Maybe he got the idea while giving one of his $50K speeches to the International Funeral Directors Lobby.

  4. R.Johnston says:

    You’ve got it all wrong. David Broder is a terrifically stupid man. His stupidity is high quality stupidity and is most prolific.

  5. Hann1bal says:

    This column made clear to me the following:

    1. David Broder has no real knowledge of economics.
    2. David Broder has no real knowledge of Iran.
    3. David Broder does not remember the last 9 years.

    And therefore,
    4. David Broder should be taken seriously on this issue by no one.

    Anyone who can say, with a straight face, that “…Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century.” needs to be slapped hard gently informed that he is full of excrement. I’ll be generous and assume that he’s simply been misled on this.

    • R.Johnston says:

      I think the more proper conclusion is that therefore David Broder should be taken seriously on any and all issues by no one. The professed opinion of a known habitual liar is worth precisely nothing. And make no mistake about it: it takes a habitual liar to just make shit up like Broder did, especially on a matter so easily fact checked.

      • Hann1bal says:

        I meant “this column specifically”. One would be able to draw your conclusion from following Broder’s columns over a period of time. Not that that would be a very wise choice. I can think of more profitable uses of my time, like writing papers for class, or stabbing myself with rusty nails.

    • Aaron says:

      I think the problem is that you simply don’t understand bipartisanship, a subject upon which Broder is an undisputed expert.

      You see, all problems this country faces should be resolved through bipartisanship. As any sensible person knows, “bipartisanship” means “Democrats finding out what Republicans want, then cooperating with Republicans to implement that agenda.”

      John McCain, a Republican, once sang a little song about bombing Iran. Therefore, an attack on Iran would be a bipartisan venture. What part of that isn’t easy to understand?

    • larryb33 says:

      4. David Broder has no real knowledge of morality.

    • Brad Potts says:

      I fully agree with you on No.1, but the foremost liberal expert on all things related to economics has been (when not trumpeting a trade war with China) has been making Broder’s economic argument for him for a while now.

      There is this from late September called “Arsenal of Recovery”:

      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/arsenal-of-recovery/

      Or there is this one, entitled “1938 in 2010″:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1

      When an economist as influential spends the last couple of months pointing out that we have only managed the political will to spend as much as we need to by going to war, it is only a matter of time before an establishment moron conservative makes an argument like Broder’s.

      All sides of the establishment in DC want a bigger, more aggressive government: Liberals in their financial treatment of China and their intrusion into personal lives in order to save entire failing industries, and conservatives in the military adventurism.

      I am simply amazed by the way in which each side screams and wails about the other sides aggression, but accuses anyone who questions their own side of being either naive, stupid, or selfish. Only a small sliver of libertarian leaning thinkers seem to understand that the government big, powerful, and aggressive enough to wage multiple aggressive wars, is going to seek to be big, powerful and aggressive enough to lock down on healthcare and nationalize industries and corporations. Likewise any government that is big enough to micromanage the healthcare provision of 300M people is going to find it easy to invade the privacy of 300M people and lead the nation to ill-advised wars.

      • Brad Potts says:

        On a side note, this does bring up another question: There has been fairly strong consensus that war time spending can help jolt a nation out of a recession, and there has also been fairly strong consensus that we are in need of more spending, anyway it can occur.

        We have, over the last decade, seen a nearly 100% increase in federal spending, be it for medical services, military spending, regulatory spending, or what have you. If we can still suffer a devastating recession after doubling the debt, how much more are we going to actually need?

        • DrDick says:

          It is not merely how much the government spends, but also what they spend it on. Tax cuts to the rich and military spending generally are very weak tea with meager returns compared to increased welfare payments and unemployment benefits. WW II had the effect it did owing to the scale of the effort and the total mobilization of the economy. The current wars, while ungodly expensive, have several orders of magnitude less impact.

          • Brad. P says:

            Leaving aside the moral considerations that I’m sure outweigh the economic considerations for both of us, I doubt there is little difference between paying people to build bombs and shoot guns and paying them to do nothing.

            • DrDick says:

              The research on the topic is quite clear that the multiplier effects from social welfare programs are several times as high as those for military programs. I am not sure why exactly as I am not an economist. Again, the scale of the war effort in WW II was vastly greater than it is now.

            • patrick II says:

              “To dig holes in the ground,” paid for out of savings, will increase, not only employment, but the real national dividend of useful goods and services. — John Maynard Keynes

              However, he goes on to suggest other forms of investment would be better.

            • RobW says:

              In one scenario, nobody gets bombed or shot. Not such a little difference.

        • wengler says:

          In fairness most of that spending went to an industry where they make things to blow up. A lot of the debt was caused by gearing the entire federal government apparatus into an ATM for the rich.

          If there was some sanity left in Congress or the White House they would began to reverse the changes that have destroyed the middle class. But making money for nothing is just too damn much fun.

    • Brad. P says:

      I lost a comment here. What happened to it?

  6. Tom M says:

    I can only conclude that after the Rally to etc., etc., at the cocktail party Broder decided that sanity is terribly overrated and the natural response is to say something insane.
    He needs to drink less.

  7. Anthony says:

    Staggeringly stupid column. There’s so much wrong in it – historical, economic, political, strategic – it’s very hard to know where to start.

  8. NBarnes says:

    Shorter Broder; Deficit spending on roads and schools as economic stimulus is immoral. Deficit spending on bombs and guns and killing Iranian children is moral and, more importantly, TOTALLY AWESOME!

  9. patrick II says:

    For arguments sake, let’s say that war actually did improve the economy in some mysterious way that other economic stimulus programs did not. If so, to propose starting a war motivated even in part to enrich ourselves at the cost of the death of others would not be stupid but immoral.

  10. wengler says:

    This is the exact same thing that Nestor Kirchner, recently departed former President of Argentina, related to Oliver Stone about what Bush told him while President.

    “The only way to boost the economy is through war.”

    Apparently we now know who Bush’s tutor was for 8 years.

  11. Erik Loomis says:

    Can’t we all agree that it’s only matter of time before this scenario actually occurs? The beginning of the next Republican administration at the latest.

  12. DrDick says:

    I will settle for Broder is quite simply a terrible man, an amoral monster in fact.

  13. mark f says:

    Shorter Cliff May:

    Even the liberal David Broder (and Fred Hiatt!) agrees etc.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site