David Brooks makes stuff up. He ignores facts. He says his own personal opinions are those of the majority of Americans, even when they are radically different from the actual opinions of the majority of Americans.

What do we do about it? How do we combat his outright falsehoods?

It is important to remain cognizant of the actual state of affairs. Thanks to Mr. Greenwald for keeping us aware.

But.

This state of affairs is untenable. Something must be done. But what? There comes a time when repeatedly pointing out that these things are false fails to accomplish anything. It is past time for taking the next step.

I don't know what that step is. Does anyone?

Why should it surprise anyone that the invasion of Iraq has been and continues to be of benefit to Iran?

Our invasion, justified (at least in theory) by Osama bin Laden's attacks on the US, has almost completed bin Laden's vision for Iraq. Why would it stop there?

Bolstering Iran's place in the Middle East and in the world is an inevitable consequence of this adventure. At the very least we have removed the balancing power for Iran. How much more we do to support the Tehran regime is just a matter of waiting to see.

If there was some way to provide a benefit to Pyongyang, I am sure we would do that too.

How about when a teenager who outweighs you, and is much more fit, and has been in way more street fights than you have, threatens to punch you in the face? Is $30,441/year overpaid, or underpaid?

If the issue is bullet fragments, as the article states, what difference will banning lead shot make?

If you were to actually pay attention to the clip, you could hear Kerry repeatedly speak. But hey, it is much easier just to make disparaging comments about me, isn't it?

I don't know anything about any 150-year-old mad scientist though. You have no idea why I call myself farnsworth. But I guess it is just much easier to allow your lazy prejudice to marginalize me, rather than actually paying attention to the facts of the matter.

You get the last word, though. I am finished with your silly ad hominem attacks and lack of thought.

Saying people only react according to prejudice isn't wisdom, "farnsworth," it's lazy cynicism.

I haven't been "saying people only react according to predjudice." I have done a lot of research on this incident. And I have read all the posts. And most of the posts, including yours, show a lack of understanding of the facts. Either that or a willful omission of inconvenient facts.

"Kerry's cowardly response," huh? Kerry went out of his way to defuse the situation. Did you bother to pay attention? He, several times, tried to get the officers to leave the kid alone. He tried to calm things down with humor. He called the instigator's question "very important." What do you want him to do? Jump into the middle and fight the officers off with his bare hands? Use his superpowers to fly the instigator out?

And my "lazy cynicism" is based on a thorough reading of the responses, and noting that the majority of them left out key parts of the incident. Curiously those parts they left out were those that wouldn't have allowed them to make the points they wanted to make.

But I am now indulging in wasted effort, since you have clearly demonstrated that you aren't willing to look at any facts that don't support your prejudices.

The most interesting issue in all the responses posted here is the way most of the posters have found just what they were looking for in this.

Bush lovers have found cause for Bush love.

Bush haters have found cause for Bush hate.

Kerry haters have found cause for Kerry hate.

And on and on.

Too bad that most have obviously ignored whatever parts of what actually happened that don't reinforce whatever they want this to mean.

You claim that Kerry cannot be deemed "innocent" because he didn't instruct the officers to let the disruptive questioner ask his question.

Actually, more that once Kerry says "Let me answer his question." He tries to defuse the situation with humor. He calls the question "very important." He does everything that could be reasonably expected to keep it from escalating. He even goes beyond reasonableness, in my opinion. Not that this gives me any respect for Kerry. I am just pointing out the gross incorrectness of your assertion.

So, your objection has no basis whatsoever in fact. Like the objections of many of the posters here.

Underpaid, undertrained security officers, probably at least a little frightened, certainly amped up on adrenaline, and they over-reacted to someone trying to create an incident.

So we should add to the over-reaction? Yeah, that's the best plan.

Thank you.

In the paragraph:

Why do Giuliani and Krauthammer and friends feel so free to advocate a plainly fringe position of Endless War on behalf of Israel? Usually, political advocates, and particularly presidential candidates, avoid such positions like the plague. Here, it is because no political figure can possibly oppose this view, at least not explicitly. Is it even possible to imagine a presidential candidate object to the view that the U.S. should consider Israel's enemies to be enemies of the U.S., even though vast majorities of Americans share that view?

I can't follow the meaning of this sentence:

Is it even possible to imagine a presidential candidate object to the view that the U.S. should consider Israel's enemies to be enemies of the U.S., even though vast majorities of Americans share that view?

Could you please explicate?