How do the parents of children killed in US airstrikes evaluate Obama’s “manhood”?
NBC‘s Meet the Press has made it a regular habit to complain about how some world leaders don’t seem to do what Barack Obama says he wants them to do (FAIR Blog, 3/3/14). So maybe it’s no surprise that it’d do it again, and somehow make the whole thing even more offensive.
Right-leaning pundit David Brooks was on hand on April 20 to share this pearl of wisdom:
Let’s face it, Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have a—I’ll say it crudely—a manhood problem in the Middle East: Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad, somebody like Putin? I think a lot of the rap is unfair. But certainly in the Middle East, there’s an assumption he’s not tough enough.
There have been plenty of reactions to Brooks’ comments (Think Progress, 4/20/14; Crooks & Liars, 4/20/14). There are obviously some absurd, arguably racist assumptions Brooks is making about “manhood” and what people in the “Middle East” think that means. But it is important to make a different kind of point about this.
The implicit message is that Obama either doesn’t use—or threaten to use—military force often enough, and in elite political/media circles, this line of analysis, while not often so crudely expressed, is considered normal. And that’s part of the problem.
Jim Naureckas noted (FAIR Blog, 8/30/13) that while Time magazine mused about Obama’s supposed hesitation to use military force, Obama’s record should speak for itself: a massive surge of US troops in Afghanistan to escalate that war, NATO airstrikes in Libya, and continued drone attacks in several countries. Indeed, one of the main foreign policy stories the morning of Brooks’ comments were a series of attacks in Yemen that seemed to be be US drone attacks.
The acceptability of this bizarre notion that Obama isn’t “tough enough” would explain why no one on Meet the Press really blinked at Brooks’ comments. In fact, the only response, from NBC reporter Chuck Todd, was a kind of agreement:
By the way, internally, they fear this. You know, it’s not just [Republican Sen.] Bob Corker saying it, OK, questioning whether the president is being alpha male. That’s essentially what he’s saying: “He’s not alpha dog enough. His rhetoric isn’t tough enough.” They agree with the policy decisions that they’re making. Nobody is saying—but it is sort of the rhetoric. Internally, this is a question.
It’s conventional to see pundits on TV news shows offering up these kinds of opinions. It’s hard to imagine someone appearing with any regularity who might make the case that Obama is too willing to use military force.
Perhaps if he changed his name to “Obomba” … ?
Consider the source(s).
FAIR comments start again with utter vapidity from Doug Latimer. Hey Doug, why don’t you get a life?
The manhood problem is not Obama´s, it affects a large proportion of the entire country. Obama a mere politician seeking to make that large proportion of the country like him.
when he’s ready to talk about how white men throughout history have been pedophiles and homosexual, from greece to rome to raping males slaves to cutting off our penises during jim crow to NAMBLA today; after white men are done talking about how killing one billion people with gunpowder in 500 years qualifies them for manhood even though they done all these other unmanly things throughout history, then i’ll hear what he has to say.
Shirley
Presumably one dependent on witless putdowns to pump up a insecure ego?
Could we forgo the personal comments and stick to the subject? It’s a stupid subject, anyhow, but “utter vapidity” advances nothing and just makes the writer look bad..
What? it was time for the Script to change; the media doesn’t provide a service (as in news) and has no customers but themselves. They decide when the “public” is going to like something or not, whether the Vox Populi agrees or not. And then when it looks like he made another ‘screw-up’ the script will change again and they will decide what the public is saying about it. Sometimes they might actually get a couple of words right in the report, but that is often by accident.
What the hell does David Brooks know about the Middle East? He has been a craven rightist since he was hired as a pretend-“liberal” by NYT. He knows well how to serve the interests of the military-industrial war machine and its neocon masters, but that’s pretty much it.
And this creampuff of a pampered propagandist has the nerve to even mention “manhood”? The most dangerous thing faced by his decadent sort is the possibility that his latte will be too hot. In a just world nobody like him would even be able to use the word “manhood” unless they’d done something “manly”, which this worm never has–and never will.
It will be a great day when Brooks oozes off into a well-undeserved retirement. Until then, please ignore him. He certainly has nothing serious to offer, and attention will only encourage his faux-belligerent silliness.
i like what Sundiata had to say… we need full spectrum history and McLemore nails this dirtbag Brooks. Our local rag carries his by-lines that make you want to throw up.
Obama-Crypto-fascist is void of any ‘hood’ ~ he’s a Neo-lib Operative and not just at the end of the sting. Obama-Crypto-fascist has deep roots as his family does in the CIA. He knows what’s shaken. He like those that surround him are void of the empathy gene. MSM/ Brooks’ are spokespersons for Soft Fascism come fascism.
And then there is Larry Sinclair.
The powerfool is the name caller.
“Lack of manhood” was the insult to the Jews when they did not have power.
I wont get into “IS” Obama tough enough or not.Does he use force effectively or not.I do think the basic idea in some enemy camps ,and in the halls of our adversaries is that Obama is a tentative man.A man reticent to use force.A man they fear(and yes respect)less than they should.
Assuming Mr. Brooks equates “manhood” with “getting tough,” perhaps he should discuss his theory with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
Didn’t the public make it clear that they don’t want to get into another confrontation/war during the Syrian uprising? Are they now suggesting that we do? Exactly what are Republicans talking about when they say “manhood”. They’ll say he’s not tough enough but when asked what they would do they don’t come up with anything much different than what’s already being done. Unless they can state exactly what they mean be being tougher, something different than what’s already being done, they’re just blowing political smoke up our asses.
Talkin about….The question is,is he tough enough to AVOID getting into a war.See the president may not get to make the decision to be at war.His enemy will make that decision.Does his enemy fear him enough is the question.Actually Osama did not.He was hiding in plain sight.Pakistan did not sweat us.We won that one.But this is not a one and done.
A. The president doesn’t make the decision to go to war, in spite of all the Bullshit Rhetoric the right has spewed with Bush (it’s called the War Powers Act); the Right to declare war on another country is still with congress. It has nothing to do with balls, tits or anything else the Uber-richt seems to be mostly preoccupied with these days, which all seems to be something to do with bedroom, not the boardroom.
B. Why would we go to war, to protect a country that has nothing to do with us, is not ours to worry about in the first place, and doesn’t even belong to NATO in the second? As always, the uber-richt morons are more concerned about the motes in every ones eye, while being unable to remove the main brace in their own.
C. How do the Ball less Wonders of the Uber-richt fascist’s media (AKA Fox News and Ilk) even begin to think they are man enough to be men, let alone decide who is to attack whom and who is ‘man enough’? The people like Brooks and his little pet boys, would wet their tiny little twisted knickers if someone so much as yelled at them, and they think they are going to war Hero’s? Perhaps they need to start passing out whatever it is they put in their tea, because they are all exhibiting symptoms of the furthest departure from reality I have seen in people, without the uninhibited consumption of psychotropic’s in massive quantities.