DAVID BROOKS SHOULD STICK TO MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES, LIKE JOHN KERRY'S SENTENCE STRUCTURE

I think he's hit a new low on this one. At least, from the perception of anyone who's paid more than cursory attention to the situation in Spain. It takes the superficial "they're appeasers!" argument as hilariously far as it can go.

I am trying not to think harshly of the Spanish. They have suffered a grievous blow, and it was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre. Nonetheless, here is what seems to have happened:

The Spanish government was conducting policies in Afghanistan and Iraq that Al Qaeda found objectionable. A group linked to Al Qaeda murdered 200 Spaniards, claiming that the bombing was punishment for those policies. Some significant percentage of the Spanish electorate was mobilized after the massacre to shift the course of the campaign, throw out the old government and replace it with one whose policies are more to Al Qaeda's liking.

What is the Spanish word for appeasement?

Damnit, David, this column went up Monday night at midnight. This means that you had plenty of time to read all kinds of different news outlets and notice that Spanish voters ousted Aznar because he pushed the lie that ETA was behind the attack, even as all the evidence supported a quite different conclusion. Yeah David, I know, the actual events in a given situation can be quite problematic when trying to paint a broad picture of appeasement. Especially when those events show that Aznar wasn't serious about terrorism, certainly not about telling the truth about it.

Brooks had time to hear about this. Either he was lazy and wrote his column without researching the election, or he was just being his usual hack self.

Let's rejoin Mister Brooks, as he feigns even-handedness, while continuing to denigrate the voting population of an entire country:

There are millions of Americans, in and out of government, who believe the swing Spanish voters are shamefully trying to seek a separate peace in the war on terror.

I'm resisting that conclusion, because I don't know what mix of issues swung the Spanish election during those final days. But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable.

Exercising one's right to vote is "inexcusable"? Of course, lying about a terrorist attack is inexcusable, but Brooks certainly doesn't mention that in his column, when he certainly could have.

Anyway, Brooks' gross neglect pretty much negates his entire column.

UPDATE: And this column, which more or less says exactly the same thing, appeared more or less right next to Brooks' column in Tuesday's paper. Nice work, guys. Showing up to the prom in the same dress and all. And what a tacky dress it is.