Shorter Robert Waldmann
Jonathan Chait wrote "I focused entirely on the rationale for war, which I still think was solid, and failed to think very hard about the likely outcome of of an American occupation of Iraq."
So the rationale is different from the likely outcome ?
What does that mean ? What could that mean ?
I can understand, if not accept, the logic of absolute pacifism whatever the consequences but supporting a war whatever the consequences is insane. Chait is sane. He couldn't have meant what he plainly wrote. What could he have had in mind ? How could those words come to be written ?
Those aren't rhetorical questions. I ask for information.