The accusation this time is that I haven’t been steady in my judgment of what’s going on in Iraq. Well, let me plead guilty. My judgment of a fast-moving, volatile and opaque situation that is largely off-limits to many journalists has indeed varied with events. My principles remain the same: I supported the overthrow of Saddam and hope we can achieve a more democratic polity in his wake. I still do. I sincerely hope the elections succeed. I have a feeling they will be more successful than many realize. Most elections are. I have said this on multiple occasions and written it on my blog. But I don’t know for sure. I’m in DC – almost as isolated a place as Venice, California. And when people I respect, like Burns and Kaplan, emphasize the extreme insecurity in Iraq from the place itself, I’m chastened and worry. Although I hope democracy succeeds, the fact that Iraqis have to face being gunned down in large numbers to vote does not strike me as a great achievement for an occupying power. A blog reflects the changing reality of the times and the variable responses of one human being to that reality. I take my responsibility as someone who supported this war seriously, which is why I have been keen not to ignore warning signs. What would Mickey have me do? I guess I could take the Reynolds line, rarely acknowledge setbacks or failures, link only to good news, stick my fingers in my ears when things go wrong, and mock those who worry. Or I could take the Hersh line that everything has been botched from the very beginning and that Saddam should have been left in power. But what if my best judgment is that the truth may be somewhere in between? Am I supposed not to reflect that in my blog? Besides, I’m not a military commander. I’m a blogger and writer. Does Mickey think the job of a writer is to take a line and stick to it in order to rally morale? If he does, then he can always read Powerline or the Belmont Club. Nothing unpredictable there. Whatever Bush does, they’ll defend it.
Besides, for Mickey to talk about unsteady judgment strikes me as a little rich. Hands up who can now recall whether Mickey was for the war or against it? Was he for Kerry or did he loathe him? Is he for gay marriage or against it? This is a man who cannot write a sentence without fifteen parentheses for qualifications, internal rebuttals, self-questioning, meta-meta-spin, obscure references to people he might once have dissed or who might have dissed him, and even an imaginary editor to subvert his own points even as he makes them. This idiosyncrasy is part of Mickey’s charm and why I have always loved reading him. He’s like Larry David parsing the Washington Monthly. But he takes after me for inconstancy? That’s like being accused by Woody Allen of being neurotic.
The Dish 