Last week, David Brooks was horrified at the idea of the President of the United States taking his case for firing missiles into Syria to the Congress of the United States:
“I certainly agree, if Syria was the main thing, I think, when you go to war, if Syria was the main thing we were worried about, and if we actually had a plan to actually change something materially for the good in Syria, then going to Congress would be fine, and that would be a good thing to do, to get popular support, so the president isn’t isolated, so you get enough people on board in the beginning, so they’re there at the end when things get complicated. That would be fine. But this really isn’t about Syria. The policy is not going to do anything materially to affect Syria. We may lob a few missiles in there. That’s just face-saving. Let’s face it. The real issue is the broader credibility of the president, the international credibility of the United States, especially vis–à–vis Iran. This is really about Iran more than Syria. And by going to Congress and potentially getting slapped down, then our credibility vis–à–vis Iran is in shatters, and the president’s credibility at home is in shatters. And so I just — on substantive ground, I think Mark is right. On Machiavellian ground, I think it was a mistake.”How civilized and genteel are we? David Brooks can still spout off about war and peace and what a President should or should not do about an awful situation in a Middle Eastern country and no defenestrates him from the nearest tall building.
Pride and joy and greed and sex
That's what makes that town the best
Pride and joy and dirty dreams
Are still survivin' on the street