Or so he says. He says it in a way that seems pretty unambiguous. So it must be true, right?

I don't know what goes on in that fat head of his, but color me skeptical. Consider his long history, for one. Consider the tone of this article, 'frightening consequences' and all that.

But more than that, consider the professional space Freidman occupies. He sits, alongisde other pundits like George Packer, Peter Beinart, et al, inside an allegedly liberal space of those whose professional identities rely on their influence, their quotability, the fact that they have staked out a distinctly identifiable, informed and smart-sounding position. Saying you want a cold war, but not really war, accomplishes that.

What I kept thinking about while reading this was Ken Pollack. 'Threatening Storm', Pollack's thick tome, was the most densely documented, thoroughly reasoned and persuasive argument presented anywhere and by anybody that we had to invade Iraq, for reasons that appeared (!) to transcend the partisan political purposes anybody could question. (The thin chapter on how deterrance wasn't going to work was easily devastated in a short article by John Mearsheimer, but the mass behind that skip-this entry was impressive)

Then, Pollack goes on to say that he thinks the administration is making a big mistake in the way it's going about things, that he would do it differently, etc. He hedged, in other words. Planted a seed that he could point back at later, in case things didn't go so well. And this he did, with great skill, after the fact; he performed his ritual mea culpa, some ablutions, then went back to cheerleading the ongoing debacle while being billed as a 'war critic'.

The hedge is an obvious, but important strategy, and Friedman is smart enough to know how the pundit game works. Or maybe, he really doesn't want war, but is too confused to wrap the rest of his what-shall-be-done article around that sentiment.

You're right, I did misunderstand the quotes. I would have understood if I had checked the document, but I didn't. Thanks for clarifying it for me (and everybody else).

Redaction itself is not a sign of guilt or criminal intent. I've done some redaction myself, following guidelines that have been in place for some time, which follow a non-political logic that most people would agree are reasonable. I'm still reading these things, but nothing has raised my eyebrows yet about 'why was this person's name or email removed'.

Please understand, I'm not trying to minimize what's happened here. A crime has been committed. I've been clear in here (see my other letters) how I feel about that. We'll all take our collective work and collective review and hopefully talk to friends (not just the converted) about it, write letters about it, pen op-eds for the local papers. It would be a lot more effective if we focus on things where there's a strong case, and do our best to see the people who are actually responsible for this 'program' held accountable.

A lot of stuff (on TPM) that people are exercised about reads like simple prepping, which isn't illegal and which provides a smokescreen others will hide behind. If Petraeus rehashed his congressional testimony to the analysts, which is what I would expect him to do, then I don't see him as culpable. I see the guy who set up that meeting as culpable.

I'm very wary of Petraeus, but he's also been very careful about managing his scope. There's a fine line between emphasizing the positive aspects of the disaster, within the scope of his responsibility to maintain support, and misrepresenting what's going on. We won't get him on that, and can rally more support behind him and this idiotic war if we choose our targets poorly.

Targeting those who closely managed a supposedly independent set of assets, and marketed the war to the media through them, you don't run into this problem. They don't have any fine lines. That's why I take the position I do wrt Petraeus.

These days, the political isn't just personal, it's visceral.

'Hurl Check' would be better if someone could show me how to add that TM sign, like Arne's EedjitBlaster. But me, I like it. :>

From way upthread, sorry not to reply sooner:

The invasion of Iraq is looking more and more like one big homosexual panic.

What worries me is that I think you just gave the conspirators their legal defense strategy. :>

I was thinking of that 'gay panic' thing, wasn't it the guy who murdered another guy who confessed a crush on him on Jenny Jones or some such? And didn't every other homophobe basher try to cash in on that for years afterwards?

I could see some of these guys, the usual toughs whose spines turn to jello, making this argument that they were all atwitter and just had to ... um, invade, torture, whatever ...

Actually, I was thinking of some equivalent to that SNL skit from when we bombed Kosovo, when the Republicans suddenly turned anti-war, featuring Jesse Helms and others carrying 'Hell No, We Won't Go' signs, and whimpering about the jack-booted thugs of the Clinton administration. Can you picture it? Want to star in it? Who would you want to play? :>