Brooks on The Lehrer Report last night did indeed go berzerk in the face of Shield's superior defense of Kerry's reasonable approach. Brooks repeatedly agreed with Shield's analysis showing Bush/Cheney was dogmatic, inflexible and incapable of admitting error, then went on to defend their fundamental righteousness as being what you have to do to win against others having the same characteristics. He said reasonable people like us, meaning the three on the show, are not typical of those Bush/Cheney are appealing to. Their base consituency does not want equivocation they want to be right, and win, no matter what other countries may want. Brooks conceded that this desire for being a winner take all, by force if necessary, concealed a fear of being ignorantly wrong, and that any candidate which exploited this fear by promising might is more powerful than knowledge and doubt will do very well. This argument is made here by James Donald, and before him, Tim May and groupies. To be sure the armaments makers aplaud this rock-headedness of the cowards who always advocate that others die -- preferably in large numbers -- for the safety of the yellow-striped shickenhawks needing their necks wrung. Yeah, yeah, they'll rooster-crow about popping their peashooters at anybody who violates their isolationist piss-markings of triadic carriers, boomers and stategic bombers. But what the cowards want is for somebody to cuddle them like mommy did, to keep a tit ready to slumber-suck away nightmare doubts. Brooks got so worked up, Shield's had to pat him on the back to assure the weenie his futile defense of idiot hatemongerers didn't mean he'd get booted from the elite in-nut-hut.