David Brooks is an *sshole!

His column today espouses another reason for the Iraq war and wraps bush's speech last night with the Declaration of Independence. I loathe people like him more than the Safire and Krauthammer types because Brooks passes himself off as mannerly and middle of the road. In actuality, he is one of the vilest demons for the right.

<snip>
It's a huge gamble to think that the solution to chaos is liberty. But it's fitting that during the gravest crisis of his presidency, President Bush reverted to his most fundamental political belief. He began this war in Iraq repeating the sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence, that our creator has endowed all human beings with the right to liberty, and the ability to function as democratic citizens. He said last night with absolute confidence that the Iraqis are democrats at heart.

Bush is betting his presidency, and the near-term future of this nation, on that central American creed.
<snip>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25BROO.html?hp>

for all that is wrong with Iraq. After all, he didn't trust democracy in this country due to his lawsuit that interfered with the legitimate vote counting in Florida that eventually gave him the results he wanted: figurehead.

However, his gang thinks WE are, and that's why they keep using that word, even after they've destroyed the concept here in the US to grab power for themselves.

David Brooks in summary:

'He's basing his presidency on the Declaration of Independence! You don't hate that do you!? He's basing it on love and freedom, and sugar gumdrops and apple blossoms--do you really hate all of this? Are you really some pinko Hitler-loving anti-Semite America-hater?'

LOL!

that was waged to rid Israel of a dangerous enemy should disclose a potential bias? For example sinceBrooks is Jewish should he mention it? Should readers be made aware of this potential bias?