[lbo-talk] zio-liberals etc

[Carl Remick]

>From: "Michael Pugliese" <michael098762001 at earthlink.net>
>
>>I think Kenneth Pollack and Friedman (of the NYT) are committed to a  hell 
>>of a lot more than that--
>>for example, their pro-war positions against Iraq.
>>  Yes, they do seem to be fundamentally pro-war, in the sense that they  
>>aren't calling for immediate U.S. withdrawal. In any case, I consider  
>>Friedman basically a clown, whereas Pollack seems to be a bit more  
>>serious, anyway.
>
>[snip]
>
>If I had to write The Threatening Storm over again I certainly would not  
>have been so unequivocal that war was going to be a necessity. However, I  
>still would have pointed out that there was a strong case for removing  
>Saddam's regime (for the reasons mentioned above) and that realistically  
>the only way to remove him from power was to mount a full-scale invasion.  
>I might have decided that when you weighed all the pros and cons,  
>deterrence and invasion might have been roughly equal, but I would have  
>pointed out that a key difference between them was that if you opted for  
>invasion you were removing a great evil from the world and creating the  
>possibility that we could turn Iraq into a real positive, as Tom and  
>Fareed argued when they made the case on the basis of democratization. It  
>would not have been as compelling, but my guess is that many readers would  
>still have come to the conclusion that war was the least-bad choice among  
>a menu of imperfect options.
>
>Ken Pollack

In short, Pollack is every inch the clown Friedman is -- he just strokes his 
chin a lot more.

Carl