He presumes to identify four different camps in the question of Iran. The Pre-Emptionists (McCain), The Sanctionists (Hillary), The Reformists (BushCo), in which he drops this bombshell :
Privately, some administration officials believe there is no way to prevent Iran from getting the bomb; we might as well try to make the regime as palatable as possible.But then he comes to the part where he gets to libel Democrats with a fiction of his own creation. The fourth group is:
The Silent Fatalists. Mainstream Democrats have been remarkably quiet on this issue. Their main conviction is that American-led military action would be disastrous. This shapes their definition of the problem. A nuclear Iran may not be so cataclysmic, they privately say. Why shouldn't Iran have as much right to the bomb as any other nation? The regime may be nasty, but it's containable with deterrence and engagement.
What utter bullshit. Notice that these supposed Democrats go unnamed. They speak
privately, i.e., they are figments of David Brooks imagination.
WHY do I have to see this liar every Friday night on Lehrer, every Saturday night in the paper, and every Sunday morning on McLaughlin? Did they run out of pundits? Why are they constantly shoving him in my face? And why isn't he held to a minimal standard of substantiated facts before he can make a charge like that against anonymous Democrats on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times?
The rallying cry of the Democrats this year needs to be ETHICS. That is what is lacking in every aspect of this Republican machine. They bleat about morals but they have no ethics. None of them live up to their professional obligations. They're dishonorable. As a journalist David Brooks should hold himself to a standard of truth. But as a Republican shill he has no ethics. Just like the rest of them.