Radley Balko responds to yesterday's post -- and I owe him an apology.
Trying to be brief in an already over-long essay, I inadvertantly lumped Radley's stance (pro-Terror War, anti-Iraq Campaign) in with the no-war-at-all peaceniks. For that I'm sorry.
Reasonable people can (and should) disagree reasonably over Iraq, and Radley is one of those reasonable people. But I stand by the rest of the piece.
I wouldn't flip-flop on this. Balko IS a no-war-at-all peacenik. He is notorious for his selective reasoning to push any half-baked anti-war theory he can find. The fact he isn't a rude anti-war.com troll and that he tends to flip-flop on his support of anti-war positions does not let him off the hook.
At least the Lew Rockwell anarcho-dummies are consistant. Or is politeness the only qualification for non-peacenick status?
