Why does David Brooks have a column in the New York Times? His weekly columns there are generally as fact free as this interview was. This turd-polisher made his regular appearance on the PBS Newshour and tried to downplay the rise in Islamophobia that we've seen as the Republicans and Fox News hope to get their base worked into a lather so they'll come out and vote in the mid-term elections. Mark Shields responded appropriately that there has been a rise in anti-Muslim activity and the Southern Poverty Law Center has more on that here.

And note to David Brooks. 9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Quit conflating the two.

JIM LEHRER: And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks. David, first, go back to the discussion that Jeff ran on 9/11 and tolerance, et cetera. What was your reaction to that? DAVID BROOKS: Well, first, on Islamophobia, I think the evidence is at best mixed about the level of Islamophobia in the United States. The polls certainly do suggest an impact, but, in reality, as Nick Gillespie mentioned, the hate crimes are not up. I think most of the people who are the most vitriolic are off on the extreme. And, so, it is mixed. As far as our ideals go, I wouldn't say the situation is where we would want it to be. But, as far as history goes, you know, I actually think United States culture is doing reasonably well. In Ray's piece, we just saw the fact that, for the last nine years, American soldiers and others have been getting killed and wounded by Islamic extremists, Taliban, al-Qaida in Iraq, and so on. Well, we know what happens to countries in war. In World War II, do you think American attitudes towards Japanese were very good? No, they weren't. In World War I, attitudes towards the Germans, not very good. So, it happens when you -- in a hot, emotional situation, when people in your country are getting killed, sometimes, prejudices do rise. I think, compared to those levels, or even compared to Vietnam, attitudes toward the Vietnamese, I think it is much, much better. So, my bottom line would be, not where we would want it to be to match our ideals, but, historically, maybe better than in past wars.