david brooks on Bush

David Brooks' piece on Bush in today's NEW YORK TIMES is typical of his strategy these days: write from ABOVE the fray about Iraq, observe the personalities and sociological "facts" while ignoring the actual issues. In a column about how Bush is calm about Iraq even as his own party deserts him, Brooks never once bothers to talk about, or ask Bush about, the actual facts of Iraq: the lies to get the war, the shifting justifications for the war, the dishonest linking of Iraq to Al Qaeda both before the invasion and now, the strategy created with PR in mind rather than with actual success, the bullying and demonizing of anyone who dares oppose the administration's infinite wisdom. No, Brooks would rather talk about how Bush and Tolstoy (??? what the hell is that?) have different views of the power of the individual leader to shape history.

His last column was the same thing. In a piece purportedly examining--again, from on high, with a disengaged voice, never once granting that he was a fervent supporter of this bullshit war from day 1--the "endgame" debate in Congress.

At least Bill Kristol has the honesty to continue to advocate for his war, rather than, like Brooks, pretending he is just a disinterested observer.