matthew, i'm neither an admirer of beinart nor someone in disagreement with your characerization of lunatics like podhoretz and ledeen, but i think you're a little too harsh on beinart here. within the context of the typical style of the new york times book review, beinart was as critical of these two characters as the editors will publish.

Peter Beinart is one of those Very Serious People who needs to be selected to review Very Serious Books by other Very Serious People.

I second Howard, and I'd add that we should not be taking Jonah Goldberg summaries of anything, even of someone Goldberg says he admires, at face value. In fact, in a small way, by crediting his summary, you're giving credit to Jonah Goldberg - a man much, much less deserving of serious attention and quotation than Michael Ledeen.

"As Beinart points out, Podhoretz can't even be bothered to differentiate between the various groups in the Middle East, preferring instead to skip the boring research and move right to the part where he gets to sling accusations of treason"

Wasn't Beinart very busy not too long ago doing just about this very same thing, arguing via historical analogy in that charming way that supporters of this war had taken to doing?

Oh, to be that erudite...

Matthew wrote:

"That would have been a more appropriate title for Peter Beinart’s entirely too-kind review of the new cri de wars by Norman Podhoretz and Michael Ledeen. While Beinart capably dismantles the two mens' war-porn,..."

Michael Ledeen does not support a military intervention in Iran, as he thinks we should be doing more to support the dissidents inside the country to bring change from within.

You can read up on this in Ledeen's response to Beinart over on the homepage of NRO.

A little research wouldn't hurt every now and then...

torourke: michael ledeen believes that iran is at war with us. he believes we should have gone after iran and not iraq. only the most extremely credulous thinks that he's not in favor of attacking iran.

you may be extremely credulous, but the rest of us are not obliged to listen to ledeen's bullshit.

Right on, howard. Ledeen, and by extension, torourke, do everything BUT make an outright declaration for war. They're pussies who want to imply what they feel is the right course, but they're too chickenshit to say it on the record.

BTW, Pat Buchanan may be the last serious pundit left on the cable news. He is convinced that the reason Bush needs the "Surge" to be preceived as working is so they can roll out War 2.0 with Iran. I'd love to see a liberal come out forcefully about this horrifying prospect, but all I hear are the crickets chirping.

Here's what Peter Beinart wrote in the NYT:

"In some ways, Ledeen’s aim is similar. The mullahs in Tehran, he maintains, are global revolutionaries, indifferent to the self-preservation that restrains normal states. If they get a nuclear weapon, they will use it, quickly. Where Ledeen differs is in his proposed solution. Somewhat surprisingly (and unlike Podhoretz) he doesn’t counsel military action against Iran. Rather, he proposes an aggressive but nonviolent American campaign for regime change."

By the logic of Howard and brewmn above, Peter Beinart is credulous and a "pussy" because he takes Ledeen at his word when he says that he does not favor military intervention in Iran. But of course Howard and brewmn know what Ledeen is REALLY thinking and feeling, but he just wrote a book saying the exact opposite so he and all of those other evil neocons can plot for war with Iran. Great stuff guys.

The irony here is that even when someone one the right writes a book saying that we should confront Iran in a non-military manner, Duss and his followers call this "war-porn" and an apparent cover-up of his real motives.

Poor reading comprehension + conspiracy-mongering = idiotic commentary.