I'd put him in the too stupid to know he's lying category. He's the #1 reason why I finally gave up on TNR.

"Yglesias cites careerism as the sole motive for liberals’ support for the Iraq War."

While not the sole motive, I cite careerism as a major motive for "professional Democrat" support for Obama.

"But this is why it's not worth taking Jamie seriously. You just can't trust the kid."

We all know Kirchick is an abortion of a Democratic pundit. We know we can't trust him today, we knew we couldn't trust him yesterday, and we'll know we can't trust him tomorrow.

The more interesting question is whether or not we can trust Ezra.

We all know Kirchick is an abortion of a Democratic pundit.

Just like we all know Peter is an abortion of a Democratic poster?

The fact that you turned this into an Obama/Ezra slam opportunity says a lot Petey. Why don't you go weep on John Edwards' lawn, or start volunteering for Nader, or something else that mostly just wastes your time instead of ours.

Petey is the abortion. Not Peter. I meant the asshole.

Are there neoconservatives who aren't consistently dishonest ? Perhaps, but I can't think of one.

Let's see, "City" - printed by the Manhattan Institute which has Billy Kristol on its Board and Dicky Scaife as a donor - publishes a book review which has outright lies and we are supposed to be surprised?

Petey, remember that discussion we had in the Yglesias comment threads where I laid out 5 different reasons why I didn't think Clinton was substantially more likely to pass Edwards-style Universal Health Care? And where you conceded like 3 of them and said that you could understand why an Edwards man like myself was on the O-team, even if you disagreed?

What happened to all that? There's a lot of complex issues floating around here, making this a difficult choice. It isn't the kind of issue where calling people's motives into question is the right move, either intellectually or practically.

It is quite comical for the left to be complaining about lying. They have spent the last 7 years telling the biggest lie of all, that Bush intentionally lied about Iraq and WMD.

The fact is Bushs intelligence was the same as everyone elses except for the fact that the people who actually PRODUCED that intelligence and oversaw its creation were all Democrats appointed by Bill Clinton.

If one studies Bill Clintons 1998 Desert Fox attacks in relation to the statements of the Clinton National security folks you come to understand that it was the Clinton adminstration that created the WMD hype and had no way to then admit they were lying.

"Too-stupid-to-use-a-pseudonym": you're a sore loser. Get over it. Your president is a liar and an idiot and a failure. Own it or apologize for it. You're faced with a world in which the MattY's can write books and rightfully call their critics liars, and you have to sit and take it. I suggest you stop whining about it, because it only makes you seem more like a coward and a loser than we already regard you and your ilk as.

I bet you laughed it up at Bush's "no WMD's there!" yuckfest at the Press Corps Dinner, too. Right after you wet your pants when bush said, "toy airplanes will attack america with WMDs!" You're nothing but a pathetic idiot trying to explain why you're not a gullible idiot on the wrong side of history. Thankfully, your belief system is going to be wiped out in the nextr election when any last fragment of power will be taken away from those adhering to your gutter ideology.

Neil was a bigger part of the Ezraklein Edwards Supporter Local 484 than I was, so I'd like to throw my voice in with his on the above point.

I found it a relatively difficult choice between Clinton and Obama, but ultimately I determined that I did not think that Hillary's relative strength on economic policy proposals was worth enough - given her close association with neoliberal economic advisers and union-busting chief strategists, and most importantly given her refusal to accept Edwards' challenge to get corporate money out of the Democratic race, I don't see Clinton as having placed herself in a position to actually make economic change happen any more effectively than Obama.

I think that Obama has articulated a much clearer anti-neocon set of policies for foreign affairs, so there I was, an Obama supporter.

If I had a different read of Clinton's devotion to a leftist economic policy, I'd feel differently, but I don't think it's at all obvious that Clinton has such a devotion, and there's a lot of room for honest disagreement.

Tyro,

If Bush had said cave dwelling terrorists in Afghanistan are going to destroy the World Trade Center and cost our economy 1 Trillion dollars and we must invade to stop them.

Then Bush invaded and we found a bunch of uneducated cave dwellers with nothing but small arms and RPG you would ALSO now be claiming BUSH LIED.

You would be claiming there is no way some 13th century cave dwelling terrorists could possibly have caused all the damage Bush claimed they would have. All we found was basic terrorist gear, no big bombs, no nukes, the very idea they could have toppled the WTC was a Bush fantasy.

I have to hear this crap from you, defending a president who ignored the briefing, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack US" when there had already been a previous WTC attack? Don't make me laugh. Your president was and is an ignoramus about the issue, even after he was told of the risks.

October, 2002, bush gave the "iraqi toy airplanes going to attack US with WMDs unless we invade now," and I thought to myself, "that's it, this war is a crock and bush is bs'ing us. If he weren't, he'd have come up with a better argument." Looks like I had much better judgment than you did.

You're jsut whining now because the people who called your ilk to task on their BS are now being hailed for their insighjt while you are derided for being the fool and coward that you are. You couldn't stand up against the Iraq war or apologize for your support because you were either too stupid or too cowardly to do so, and you were too invested in a man who's a failure as a president and as a moral human. Don't go lecturing everyone else to cover up for your moral failure as a human being. So suck it up. MattY gets the fame, you and Kirchick look like idiots. That's the way the world works, and that's the way it's going to be for the next generation. All because you were too much of a coward to stand against bush when it mattered. No use trying to lash out in sore loserdom now.

Anonymous--

I'm happy to stipulate that Bush believed that Saddam had WMD development programs and that both the Bush and Clinton administration had some bad intel on the situation. So no, Bush didn't lie about believing that Saddam had a WMD program. But he did exagerate the quality of the evidence, including for example the business about the alleged Nigerian yellowcake in the SOTU.

The BIG LIE was that going to war was a) part of the war on terrorism and b) related to the suspected weapons programs. In fact the basic strategy was hatched by the PNAC crowd during the 90s and was really all about American Imperialism. Rumsfeld told his people to find a way to link 9-11 to Iraq within hours of the attacks on the WTC.

wtf, Petey. This post has absolutely nothing to do with Obama, yet you couldn't keep your fingers off the keyboard anyway. Prick.

Tyro,
I used no BS, my point was that YOUR and Clintons policy of committing genocide against the innocent Iraqi ppulation, while getting in bed with Saddam was a very bad policy and led to far more dead Iraqis then Bush policy.

The left still cannot admit that they were committing genocide of the people of Iraq even though two UN heads of oversight in Iraq declared it so.

The choice of slowly destroying 20 million innocent people through malnutrition, disease and infrastructure destruction and neglect or killing the bad guys and liberating teh innocent, I think the liberation was a very good choice.

Barack Obama said he was happy committing genocide, he said he would let Sadam stay in charge of Iraq and die of old age and continue sanctions on Iraq. Why slowly killing 20 million innocents is preferably to killing a few thousand bad guys is preferable to him I will never know...

Tyro, Why do you blame the Bush adminstration for the UAV/drones in Iraq?

It was Hans Blix that claimed in his reporting to the UN, and the subsquent UN report itself that Saddam was in fact building illegal drones and was in fact violating the UN resolutions by failing to report the drones to the UN.

"""A REPORT declassified by the United Nations yesterday contained a hidden bombshell with the revelation that inspectors have discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone with a wingspan of 7.45m, suggesting an illegal range that could threaten Iraq’s neighbours with chemical and biological weapons.
Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, did not inform the Security Council about the drone, or remotely piloted vehicle, in his oral presentation to Foreign Ministers and tried to bury it in a 173-page single-spaced report distributed later in the day. The omission raised serious questions about Dr Blix’s objectivity.

“Recent inspections have also revealed the existence of a drone with a wingspan of 7.45m that has not been declared by Iraq,” the report said. “Officials at the inspection site stated that the drone had been test-flown.

----------------------------

So was Hans Blix lying? Was he a war monger?

Galen: """Rumsfeld told his people to find a way to link 9-11 to Iraq within hours of the attacks on the WTC.""

Now that's a laugh. Could you give me an actual quote. I would suspect he asked his people to see if their were any ties to Iraq, the head of DoD having to fight the war, wouild probably want to ask such a question.

I guess you'll be happy that if this happened under Obama, he'd be asking if their were any ties to typical racist white women; or ties to the CIA who his mentor is sure are the worlds biggest terrorists.

In fact asking if Iraq was involved was a perfectly logical question, I'd be worried if Rumsfeld asked if
the NAACP, Peta or New Zealand was involved.

That's basically what did it for me too, DivGuy. Plus (or maybe times) realizing that the president's share of control over foreign policy exceeds his share of control over domestic policy. And, of course, looking at the last two years of polling data.

To say something topical in this thread: Thanks, Ezra, for calling out Kirchick. It's rare that you see such a blatant straw man.

Anonymous, Bill Clinton didn't invade Iraq. George W, Bush did.

Thats really all there is to it, your attempts to muddy the water aside. And make no mistake, Bill Clinton's faction is paying a price for their endless saber rattling.

Anonymous, With the sheer number of outright racist and sexist things you've said over the last month, You really don't get to make 'typical white person' jokes.

Divguy, if I actually believed Hillary Clinton about any of that stuff, I would probably side with her.

It's hard to forget how she practically wrote the bankruptcy bill, until John Kerry lost in 04 and she needed to reposition herself to run in 08. Just like she was a major proponent of NAFTA before she was against it. Hillary doesn't just surround herself with those people on accident. She surrounds herself with them because she agrees with them.

People lie during campaigns. If someone didn't talk about something before they ran for President, they don't really mean it. I trusted Edwards because he was a neophyte when he made his mistakes, and he did his best to make up for them. Hillary talks a lot, but I haven't seen any real evidence to suggest she's actually convinced her previous corporatism is wrong.

If Bush had said cave dwelling terrorists in Afghanistan are going to destroy the World Trade Center and cost our economy 1 Trillion dollars and we must invade to stop them.

Then Bush invaded and we found a bunch of uneducated cave dwellers with nothing but small arms and RPG you would ALSO now be claiming BUSH LIED.

You would be claiming there is no way some 13th century cave dwelling terrorists could possibly have caused all the damage Bush claimed they would have. All we found was basic terrorist gear, no big bombs, no nukes, the very idea they could have toppled the WTC was a Bush fantasy.

This troll is AWESOME. Why the anonymity? Do you have a blog?

Actually, a handwritten note on an internal memo from Rumsfeld on 9/12 said something along the lines "must link to Iraq/Saddam." CIA analysts are coming forward and saying that they were pressured into drumming up the intelligence, especially by Cheney's visits. Remember, a lot of these guys were behind various Team B's during the late Cold War. The Office of Special Plans existed for a reason. The fact that a Senator, not the White House, had to request the NIE in the first place just shows how little the White House cared about the truth. The White House also made sure that the footnotes, which included internal CIA dissent, were not seen by members of Congress.

I understand the anti-Clinton position but don't get the Obama love. He is the one running as the DLC candidate at this time - post partisan rhetoric, Chicago econ team, blue dogs, and the lesser healthcare plan. What is most disconcerting to me, is Obama hasn't needed big donor money since November and yet he hasn't moved left at all.

Kirchick is a joke and should be ignored. I do think MY supported the war because that is what "serious" Democratic foreign policy people were doing at the time. He is an interesting thinker and writer but didn't want to be lumped in with the DFHs.

""Anonymous, With the sheer number of outright racist and sexist things you've said over the last month, You really don't get to make 'typical white person' jokes.

Posted by: Soullite |"""

Soullite, you are intelligent enough to understand that 'anonymous' is not one person right? 'Anonymous' is everyone who hasn't entered a name...mostly in solidarity with others who's names aren't allowed to be used.
---------------------------
"""Anonymous, Bill Clinton didn't invade Iraq. George W, Bush did.

Thats really all there is to it, your attempts to muddy the water aside. Soullite"""

Sorry Soullite, if mentioning committing genocide against a people by our government is considered 'mudding the waters'. I mean, would you consider Hitler not so bad if you don't 'muddy the waters' with all that war and holocaust stuff.

----------
The fact is you can't even begin to understand Iraq until you understand what the people went through and how Osama Bin Ladens declaration of war was based mostly on our genocide in Iraq.

Chickens coming home to roost, so to speak.

The fact is you can't even begin to understand Iraq ...

This from the guy supporting the crowd that didn't know that there were both Shi'ites and Sunnis in Iraq and refused to hire people who spoke Arabic to work at the CPA.

No one in the Bush administration understood Iraq. If they did, they wouldn't have invaded. And if you did, you wouldn't be a mindless bushbot.

irony....

"The problem isn't that Ezra disagrees with our HC System. It's that he doesn't know it. Or possibly has read about it and is lying about it. Or isn't smart enough to understood it. But there's no way to argue with him, really, because he's not being honest about the functioning of the system."

Galen: """Rumsfeld told his people to find a way to link 9-11 to Iraq within hours of the attacks on the WTC.""

Anonymous: "Now that's a laugh. Could you give me an actual quote."
---------------
CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Anonymous "It is quite comical for the left to be complaining about lying. They have spent the last 7 years telling the biggest lie of all, that Bush intentionally lied about Iraq and WMD."

In the two years following 9/11, On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

Petey,

I had to joing to chorus, but I have to agree with them here. I don't get your post. Yes, Iraq and even the economic issues are difficult. Yes, Obama needs to be much better. But so does Clinton. More importantly strictly on the particulars of Ezra's post above. It does call into question, since you brought it up, Clinton's judgement. The fact is, regardless of her reasoning, it was piss poort judgment to have voted for this war. This doesn't excuse Obama's lack of leadership since being in office. But I don't think you answer the complexity to act like we have easy choices here. I also think that my biggest problem with you is thatyou seem to be as virulent as the Obama supporters who occasionally post here are. You seem to be making excuses to paint the Democratic choices as extremes in comparison, but then ignore the extreme that is McCain. The untrustworthy extreme I remind you that says he wants to stay in the Iraq for the next 100 years. And, what of the other choice- let's talk of Nadar- he aids and abedds McCain by his existence in the race. We all want the best outcomes, but the perfect outcome isn't and at least shouldn't be used to deny a better outcome. I would like better choices too, but I have no illusion about what choice I will make in Nov. Over at open left they were debating what is the most important election- 2008, 2004, or 2000. I argue this one is. This is the time to put the final stake into the heart of Reaganism. Yes, I would like better choices on our side to do the hammering, but I am still focused on killing the real monster that has put this country through 30 years of darkness. Shorter me: I think you have the wrong priorities.

"had" in the first sentence of my last post should read "hate"

and, by the way, I want to pull this line out because this is critical to me, and my central criticism here of you and other extremists:

"You seem to be making excuses to paint the Democratic choices as extremes in comparison, but then ignore the extreme that is McCain. " He's Mr. 100 Years War, Keaton 5, etc. What are your priorities? to let this into office?

Petey doesn't care about poor brown people being blown up in other countries for no reason. All he cares about is if working-class people in this country are forced to buy health insurance and if they don't, they're fined.

What happened to all that?

Being long Clinton at 25 on InTrade, probably. He's notably evasive about the idea that Obama's downticket coattails might do more than Clinton's commitment to universality.

Anyway, on-topic:

Peretz : Kirchik :: Black : Steyn

Reality Man could have enlisted at anytime to ensure one less poor brown person was not sent overseas. He could also be pushing for mandatory military service to ensure the burden of war, especially a foolish one, was shared by all segments of America. RM has convinced himself that supporting the candidate who has done nothing to end the war relieves him of any such actions.

It occurs to me that Kirchick’s parting shot about partisan hackery is transparently false, belied by his own review of the ideas in the book, and suggests he regards a debate on the merits of foreign policy with no little fear. Hence the over-the-top attack that doesn’t even attempt to understand where the author is coming from or to acknowledge what the difficulties might be in his own position, a rhetorical posture reminiscent of numerous other hawks. Inquiry equals weakness equals defeat—honesty be damned! His imagined audience must be easily intimidated.

Ezra:

This is really something coming from you; the man who harshly critiqued Jonah's book and yet admitted he had only scanned it in a book store. Physician heal thyself.

Craptacular, this.

Add this Kirchick offense to the list:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/low_standards.php