Patrollin' National Review Online (NR0)

Joan Goldberg must have been a little confused when he wrote this post for the Corner:

I am constantly amazed by the tendency of the nuance brigrades -- i.e. Marshall, Blix, Kerry, Prodi et al -- to hang on to their past objections to invading Iraq as if those past objections are relevant to the current situation. The war happened. And whether you were for it or against it, matters as little as whether it was right or wrong for the US to declare war on Germany after Pearl Harbor.

Well, the reason why were are in Iraq now may not matter in a military or strategic sense, the case for war (and the case against it) really does matter politically. If the Iraq war was a bad idea and has failed to make us safer, then logically those that engineered the war ought to be removed from power. Of course, Joan understands (at least I hope he is able to understand this) and so he tries to side step trying to justify the war and instead just declares that history has moved on and that critics of the Administration should stop living in the past. It is the sort of slight of hand that shouldn't even deceive a small child and its an insult to every literate person that Goldberg and the National Review would ever let it see the light of day.

Update: Its posts like Joan Goldberg's that make jabs like "he has fallen back on hackwork that wouldn't cut it on National Review Online." so devastating.