A Jan.14 newspaper column by conservative columnist David Brooks concerning The Bush Administration's new Iraq policy is a classic example of contorted reasoning. Basically, Brooks says that because Democrats have not presented a viable alternative to the Bush plan, defined I suppose as one with which Republicans can agree, they will be partially responsible if the Bush plan fails.

Bush has never given serious consideration to the opinions or suggestions of anyone outside of his own appointed inner circle of advisers, particularly when it comes to his Iraq policy. This is evidenced by his response to The 9/11 Commission Report as well as the more recent recommendations of the bi partisan congressional committee  on Iraq. Consequently, if the current Bush plan fails, it will be the sole responsibility of the Bush Administration.

 David Brooks' attempt to assign blame for the possible failure of the plan makes about as much sense as saying that if an arsonist sets your house afire and you fail to douse the flames you are partly to blame for your loss. Does Brooks really believe anyone would buy into that argument? Whatever happened to the Republican Creed of taking responsibility for one's own actions?

Rodney Hebert

Port Neches