In the dumbed-down debate we’re having, there are only two sides: Pro-war and antiwar. This is silly. First, very few folks who favored the Iraq invasion are abstractly pro-war.

I've long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the "Ledeen Doctrine." I'm not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."

You know what the problem here is? Blogging. Blogging allows every stupid joke you made two years ago to be thrown in your face whenever someone wants to discredit you. Are you positive you want to subject yourself too this, Mr. Ackerman?

And assuming you are, want a free makeover for your blog? I've been taking classes in HTML and CSS code and would be happy to have the practice.
 J'myle | 6:15 PM

J'myle, Jonah Goldberg made that comment in 2002 in a Naional Review column called "The Goldberg File," which bore his picture at the top. It's entirely fair to hold him accountable now for what he said then.

Besides, it's a pretty disgusting sentiment, one which cries out for some sort of therapeutic intervention.

Have you never been saddened by the fact that our country can't seem to stop going to war? The urge to show the world how tough we are makes it hard to see when war is regrettably necessary, and when it's not.
 Hal | 8:40 PM

Hal,

I'm perfectly well aware that it's been over a century since America could go two years without invading anybody. (See "Cowboy Nation," Robert Kagan's cover in the Oct. 23d TNR.) And of course that's a massive problem. But treating anything written in a) NRO b) Spencer Ackerman's blog or c) the comment section of Spencer Ackerman's blog as seriously as you seem to be is a waste of perfectly good indignation. If you have self-righteousness you'd like to work out, can I suggest writing you congressmen about our inaction in Darfur? Might be a better use of your time.
 J'myle | 9:17 PM

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 J'myle | 9:17 PM

I don't have a problem with what people make the mistake of putting in print coming back to bite them in the ass, especially when what they say then appears not to match what they say now, and especially when what they say now appears to be oh so convenient.

If someone give someone else rope with which to be hanged, I think it's only fair to take them up on it.
 Alexander Wolfe | 9:31 AM

J'myle -- Hey, talk about self-righteous.

Goldberg said it, and he meant it as long as meaning it felt good. The American Right thinks it's fun to push people around and they think the point of politics is to give them endless opportunities to do so.

But if you want to be useful, I hope Mr. Ackerman takes you up on your offer of design help. I figure the site's background would be better as plain white instead of the floating bubbles.
 Kyle | 9:55 AM

Blogging allows every stupid joke you made two years ago to be thrown in your face whenever someone wants to discredit you.

The Pantload is indeed a large, stupid joke. Although his embrace of the 'if only anti-war types hadn't been so shrill' weasel should make George Packer and Peter Beinart feel a little uncomfortable. Every time you're in the intellectual company of the Pantload, it's a bit like being in the social company of dung beetles.
 pseudonymous in NC | 10:20 AM

Even if Jonah had not made the earlier statement, the latter statement is absurd on its face. Iraq war supporters weren't reluctant warriors, wanting to wait until every other option had been tried. They were screaming for war, and branding any who raised doubts as traitors, terrorist-appeasers, etc.

Not every supporter of the Iraq war was a warmonger, but many were.
  Robert Boyd | 11:32 AM

I think j'myle can be ignored. Here's his aproach to argument and debate:

1. Irrelevance and ad-hominem. He attacks the look of the blog, as if that somehow makes his argument stronger.

2. Claims that indignation and self-righteousness are not appropriate responses to blogs, which he indignantly huffs and puffs; then we find him self-righteously demanding that indignation be directed to Darfu.

Seriously. I couldn't make up such a self defeating argument. It deconstructs itself before our very eyes.
 T.R. Elliott | 10:39 AM