David Brooks on Bush's Religious Nut Conference with Winger Journos

[BurtWorm]

The conference at which Bush excitedly predicted a Third Wave religious revival. Brooks concentrates on Bush's pronouncements about the war and notices a troublesome paradox (which lefties noticed long, ago, Brooks, you smarmy shit--but at least he's noticing it):

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/opinion/14brooks.html

Bush was pressed about Iraqi troop levels repeatedly during our interview. His general response was that during Vietnam, tactical decisions were made in the White House. “I thought it was a mistake then, and I think it’s a mistake now.”

So on troop levels and other tactical issues, Bush defers to Gen. George Casey, who is in Iraq. He asks questions but does not contradict the experts. If Casey asked for two more divisions tomorrow, Bush would deliver, regardless of the political consequences. But Casey does not ask (and maybe none are available).

What if Casey is wrong?

“Then I picked the wrong general,” Bush says bluntly. “If he’s wrong, I’m wrong.”

When asked if he should have expanded the military back in 2003, to give the current commanders more manpower, Bush used words that were uncharacteristically jargon-ridden: “The notion of warfare has changed, and therefore, we’re modulizing the army so that it becomes more operational and easier to move.” That sounds more like a transformation briefing paper than the president.

In other words, when Bush is strategizing goals, he is assertiveness on stilts. When he is contemplating means, he defers to authority.

[Supersedeas]

1. does Brooks has any credibility left?

[lady lib]

2. I used to have some hope that Brooks

being a seemingly reasonable guy would one day see the light. Now I've come to realize that it would take the jaws of life to extricate him from *'s hind quarters.