First, Brooks conflates conservatism and GOP policies. As close readers know this is increasingly a major bugaboo of mine. The mess the GOP and the conservative movement are in, to some degree, stem from the lamentable fact that whatever Bush does has come to define conservatism and, in many corners, conservatism has come to mean defending Bush's policies.
Other than their hating "the Mexican" it is hard to discern an area where most of the Corner's denizens have any differences of substance from Bush. An area, one should also note, that puts them at odds with about 80% of the country and 10% of the punditry that bring up the topic.
Every sodding day, they pretty much never mention deaths in Iraq (when was the last time the "troop supporting" Corner took note of an American soldier that "died for their freedom" [I'm not addressing the irony of that phrase in this post]). At the same time any piece of NY Post or Washington Times manufactured bullshit in support of whatever the Bush Administration policy is in Iraq (pre-surge or post) they throw up.
Two of their writers, Clifford May and Michael Ledeen are veritable Major Kongs, wishing and hoping every fucking day for another war to break out in the Middle East. If there is any unfounded conspiracy Ledeen, the non-farsi reading Ledeen, can toss out there it goes up immediately. When timetables are passed they are called "Surrender" declarations.
And somehow Jonah seems to not notice his own flaccid rag isn't Bush conflator with conservativism's number one violator.