To be clear, I do not think you are being knowingly dishonest or disingenuous. But you still have your Iraq war gameface on and someone should tap you on the shoulder and remind you that the world already knows the truth.

Now, if you are defending Pollack, you say he was misled by the Bush admin. You do not try to do what you did – suggest that his book was a substantive case for war. Since it has been shown otherwise.

No doubt , in the near future, Obama will find Republicans to make his case for x, y, or z. You and your fellow Republicans will cry foul.

Pollack’s book was a similar work (though much of what Pollack wrote was shaky and it is doubtful that a smart man such as him believed much of it).

Irony of irony – Stone wrote things he may have known to be false. Are you suggesting Kagan and the others you cite, did not do the same? You know they did and everyone knows that you know and you know that everyone knows.

Why? Same reason as Stone’s probably was – A feeling the greater cause was true. etc etc.

Ahmad Chalabi has given up trying to pretend he believed everything he told the world – Now it’s time you followed suit.

“Put aside what many commentators have noted, most recently Robert Kagan, that not only U.S. but British and French intelligence, as well as the stance of Saddam Hussein himself, convinced the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ready to use, and that sanctions by the UN were not working. Also put aside that the consensus among Democrats, including the outgoing President Bill Clinton, was that Iraq was a serious threat, and that his removal was a dire necessity. Remember that the major case for invasion was made by the Clinton administration advisor Ken Pollock, who spelled out the case in the strongest terms in his 2002 book, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.”

First of all – You write as if the McClatchy reporters were making a case, rather than being vindictaed. Second, you cite Kagan, which is sort of like a fellow traveler citing Kruschav in defense of the USSR when replying to a Soviet dissident.

The UK and France did not “believe” Saddam had weapons – they just echoed the “inte” the US had given them. Also – Saddam did not claim to be armed – He actually produced a a dossier that suggested otherwise. Perhaps, you forgot *that* dossier.

You would be far better off if you said that the admirable work of the McLatchy supporters surprised you and that you were re-thinking your pre-disposition to believe the Bush admin.

Or maybe you should say that McLatchy’s work should not be besmirched by linking it to Stone.

One way or the other, you have to admit that McLatchy has been vindicated and Kagan has been shown to be what he is.

Your very fine memoir indicates a fine mind – Now is the time to put it to use and stop fighting old lost battles.

This is another reminder why I hold Harvard University in such contempt. It is generally speaking a vastly overrated academic institution—except for its hard science departments. A Harvard liberal arts degree graduate should be treated as a idiot until proven otherwise.

Should I be surprised that IF Stone was the son of a wealthy family? Or that the Boudins were wealthy? And boy, were they all totally interested in the plight of the poor.

Why didn’t this bunch just mind their own business?