I don't want to wade too deep into the latest Other Klein controversy. What seems fairly clear is that Klein opposed the war in 2002, and maybe in early 2003, and then got largely swept up in the mania that swept through elite Washington (and, to be fair, much of the country). Arianna (and I, for that matter) is right, though: Joe should stop claiming the anti-war mantle. In 2003, being anti-war was something like being pregnant. You either were, or you weren't. The stakes were high, and those who took the anti-war view paid for it. If you waffled, particularly in public, particularly from a position of influence, you were part of the march, even if you waffled with thoughtful and cautious caveats.
That said, I think the larger point here is one of trends: It's now an advantage to have been anti-war. Even in elite Washington, the right answer is to have seen this invasion for the catastrophic crock of lies and poor-planning that it was. I'm glad Joe wants to associate himself with the skeptics. And I think it's honorable that he's hearing the criticisms and trying to address them. It's a bit undernoticed, but he's actually engaging with the blogosphere's criticisms on a more serious and substantive level than anyone could have expected -- and they will, on some level or another, echo through his head every time he sits down to write.
But I'm sort of tired of wondering why and whether folks were wrong in 2003. Joe, like others, largely admits that he made a mistake. What I haven't seen, not from anywhere, is a serious attempt to make sure that mistake doesn't happen twice. To populate Sunday roundtables and newsweekly opinion pages with actual liberals, or realists, of just about anyone outside of the mainstream spectrum of manifest destiny that ranges from Beinart to Kristol. I'm done with apologies. They're useless. Amends would be different, though. I want someone to give Anatol Lieven, or Daniel Levy, or Juan Cole, or John Judis, or some other expert voices a chance. And folks like Joe, who see what occurred, remember being the closest thing to a skeptic on Meet the Press, and know clearly that they couldn't say all they wanted to say, are actually in a position to make that happen. Or at least say, with some impact and effect, that it should happen.
