I'm genuinely baffled by these responses to my liberal hawk column. "A 'liberal hawk,'" complains one, "is simply a liberal who understands that fighting a war involves brains and brawn." Ah. Cool. Further on: "Liberal hawks" are liberals that acknowledge the existence of very real enemies in the world, and maintain any and all options in dealing with those enemies. You thank God when you can avoid confrontation, but act swiftly and decisively when left with no other diplomatic options." As opposed to...who? Who are these liberal doves who avoid confrontation when avoiding confrontation is impossible, and then seek to act sluggishly and in as muddled a fashion as possible when finally moved to act? Name names, please. I'd like to steal their lunch money.
Meanwhile, Sullivan quotes this odd discourse on "what is a liberal hawk" (someone awesome, and handsome, and charming and smart, as it turns out) and then goes on to say, "The questions before us are bigger and more important than whether you despise the presidency of George W. Bush." Yes, they are. Among them is whether you think force is justified to disrupt the Iranian nuclear program. That is the point of the piece you profess to have read, and a reply that omits that critical piece of information is no reply at all. Increasingly, a liberal hawk appears to thank God when he can avoid the question, and then acts swiftly and decisively to change the subject once pressed.
Oh, and no, Ahmadinejad is not a totalitarian dictator. He'd had have to be, you know, in charge of the country for that. And this doesn't happen to totalitarians.
Update: Read Thers: "'Just because we were wrong in the past doesn't mean we are ontologically wrong,' they intone...[it] is perfectly right to judge people writing on foreign policy primarily on their stances towards real world issues. A discussion of "underlying beliefs or theories" in this context is absurd, given the horror of the Iraq debacle. If your "underlying beliefs or theories" made you stick your dick in the blender, even "reluctantly," and you haven't thoroughly reassessed these concepts, I frankly don't want to hear your advice about what to do with the weed whacker."
