To: Alighieri who wrote (175635 ) 9/30/2003 3:37:06 PM From: Joe NYC Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1570725 Al,Could he be any more wrong, unlikely...the issue IS ideology. But, in that case, you would have to go case by case. Given the almost 100% opposition of what the president (by many), it is more likely that David Brooks is right. Let's consider your list:Pre-emptive wars Pre-emptive doctrine is based on assumptions, so it is a little slippery. But not universally wrong as you seem to be suggesting. The opposite of pre-emption is waiting waiting for a cause, say few thousands of US citizens killed (= sacrificed). Sacrificing innocent citizens of your country to gain a moral high ground is a little cynical, but that's how it always worked. But suppose it is not just a few thousands. Suppose it is millions killed by a nuclear weapon. Is that still ok with you, or would it be ok to pre-empt such an action?unilateralism What is wrong with unilateralism if you are doing a good thing? It is the merit of the action that matters, not how many join with you.destruction of decades of order Tell about this order of yours to the victims of Saddam, his torturers and murderers.UN You mean the same UN that handed Libya the chairmanship of Human Rights Commission?allies French?environmental order What exactly is enviromental order?faith as a base rather than a distinct and separate freedom I think the founding fathers guided by religious faith did much better job at protecting liberties by the US constitution than most other countriessocial unity ???fiscal responsibility Ok, Bush needs improvement here. I could see a president from your party doing exactly the same thing, without any complaints from you, which is another indication that David Brooks is right in his analysis, which is that it is the obsession with the person on your part, rather than ideology. Joe