Weigel Versus Kirchick

It's not a close call.

Comments

there does not appear to be a right-winger in america who understands that "those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."

and there still appear to be plenty of right-wingers who have never read the Iraq Liberation Act and who therefore do not understand that it specifically excluded american military action (nice to see a golden oldie like the iraq liberation act come up in kirchick's moronic piffle, though!).

Posted by howard | July 14, 2007 10:52 AM

Y'know, Kirchick seems somehow even more pathetic than his mentor Marty. At least Marty's ravings are, we know, driven by a deep hatred of Arabs and Muslims, so there's a certain twisted logic behind them. Perhaps Kirchick has the same drive, but my sense is no -- so his incoherency is simply the result of a fundamental inability to reason and/or argue honestly.

It drives me crazy to see people say that "regime change in Iraq was the consensus US policy." "Regime change" is not a policy It's a goal. A policy is what actions you're going to take (or are willing to take) to reach that goal. And basically, the "policy" therefore was to support Ahmed Chalabi and the INC; that was about it. It was not " we will take all steps necessary, including invasion, to achieve regime change," as morons like Kirchick want to make it out to be.

Posted by Glenn | July 14, 2007 11:11 AM

And basically, the "policy" therefore was to support Ahmed Chalabi and the INC; that was about it.

It was still insanely stupid policy. This is a real problem and pretennding the bi-partisan nature of it isn't a problem is counterproductive.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 14, 2007 11:31 AM

My comment got eaten -- any particular reason?

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | July 14, 2007 3:03 PM