"Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot." (note the quotation marks)

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan, I found this article by Yale history prof Glenda Gilmore. Arguing against the new National Security Strategy proposed by the administration and against war in Iraq, Glenda chalks it all up to Bush's desire to be emperor: "It is not enough for Bush to be President of the United States, he must become the Emperor of the World. This unclothed emperor is, as they say in Texas, all hat and no brains."

What I want to know is this: where is the Glenda's "tolerance" for opposing ideas? She clearly doesn't have any. Apparently, Bush is driven not by principles, but by idiocy, ego, or worse; and by extension, so is everyone else who supports his position. Tell me: can Ms. Gilmore not conceive of the possibility that there are intelligible, articulate arguments in favor of the Bush position? Apparently not. I just had a nice conversation about a possible war against Iraq with an old friend, who happens to be generally opposed to such an action. Now, I firmly disagree with him, but at least I am able to respect his position and see that there is intelligibility therein. Unfortunately, people like Glenda Gilmore seem unable to reciprocate.

Talk about intolerant.