Perhaps it has not yet occurred to Jonah that different critics have different criticisms/opinions, and that all these critics aren't under some obligation to harmonize their critiques.

He's such a sloppy thinker that Im not sure if he's thought of this & ignored it for rhetorical purposes or if he's just not thought it through.

In other news, it's sad to see self-proclaimed conservatives praising the virtue of taking government officials at their word. What's so sinister about members of the body politic considering the motives of their elected leaders?

It has also not occurred to them that different people in the administration might have reached the same conclusion (invade Iraq) for different reasons--that Iraq was an overdetermined event, in other words.

I prefer the Edroso Doctrine: "This is the stupidest thing ever written until such time as Jonah writes something else."

Here's what I can't understand: "It's disturbing how many people are willing to look for motives beyond the ones debated and voted on by our elected leaders."

Why is that disturbing? Should people take everything "at face value" all of the time instead of, you know, thinking about the issues and maybe getting past some of the rhetoric?

I can't believe Jonah Goldberg actually thinks that people should simply trust everybody to be candid about their own motives. That's silly- only a toddler could believe that.

the motive for the invasion that was actually voted on was the WMD threat.

there is no WMD threat.

therefore, i assume Jonah thinks we can go home now.

except that he doesn't.

so what motive is he now supporting? surely not one that was debated and voted on....

Every time the people from the Los Angeles Times subscriptions department call me, I tell them that they fired Robert Scheer for being prematurely anti-war, but they keep paying Jonah Goldberg who is wrong about everything.