Via a commenter at my other home, Jack Shafer seems to be unaware that for a reductio ad absurdum to be effective, it has to involve undesirable consequences. Shafer, on the other hand, argues that if the Times were to reject the worthless pro-war hackery of Bill Kristol, it would also be bound to reject the buffoonish pro-war hackery of Tom Friedman:
If being wrong about the war should disqualify Kristol from the Times op-ed page, then Times op-ed veteran and war-supporter Thomas L. Friedman, who was still calling the invasion "one of the noblest things this country has ever attempted abroad" eight months after the fact, should resign his commission. Bill Keller, Times executive editor today but a columnist at the dawn of the war, should pack and leave, too, because he supported the war in February 2003 as a "reluctant hawk." To be completely consistent, let's have the Washington Post sack its editorial page for its Iraq errors and the majorities of both houses of Congress resign.
Where do I sign?
--Scott Lemieux
