I think Andrew Sullivan makes some fine points, but I also think he’s over-reading the editorial in an attempt to find more wobbliness than there is in it. Still having had nothing to do with putting the editorial together, I think there are other folks around here who can defend it. What I do find pretty ironic is that he’s getting so steamed about NR when the magazine he’s writing in — and with which he’s still closely associated — has virtually an entire issue dedicated to Iraq-panic on a level far out-stripping anything he can find in NR’s editorial or between its lines.