Jonathan Chait of The New Republic is continuing to spend (by his own admission) an inordinate amount of time on me and my writings these days. I’m flattered by his interest, but I’m once again disappointed in the quality of his arguments.

According to Chait, my posting here is terribly offensive. And the particular offense is my line that, “More importantly, [Obama] has taken a series of steps that, particularly as it relates to our intelligence agencies and their capacity to protect Americans from mass death, he, and his countrymen, may well come to regret.” (He is also offended, I gather, at me citing a line from Shakespeare, “The whirligig of time brings in his revenges.”)

According to Chait, while I have the “requisite disclaimer” that I hope and pray another attack doesn’t happen, the “rest of the post sure makes it sound like Wehner is waiting for terrorists to vindicate him.”

This is pretty silly, even by the standards of a TNR blog. I am worried about Obama’s recent decisions, for the same reasons as Washington Post columnist David Ignatius — no Bush Minister of Propaganda he — is:

At the Central Intelligence Agency, it’s known as “slow rolling.” That’s what agency officers sometimes do on politically sensitive assignments. They go through the motions; they pass cables back and forth; they take other jobs out of the danger zone; they cover their backsides. Sad to say, it’s slow roll time at Langley after the release of interrogation memos that, in the words of one veteran officer, “hit the agency like a car bomb in the driveway.” President Obama promised CIA officers that they won’t be prosecuted for carrying out lawful orders, but the people on the firing line don’t believe him. They think the memos have opened a new season of investigation and retribution. The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down. Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard.

To say that Obama and Americans “may well come to regret” Obama’s actions if his policies make us weaker and terrorists succeed in striking us is, I think, a fairly obvious thing to say, and a fairly tame way to say it. Does Chait believe that if Obama’s policies do pave the way for a future attack, Americans — and perhaps even Obama himself — won’t come to regret those policies?

As for whether “conservatives will blame Obama’s anti-torture policies” if an attack happens: It depends on the facts and circumstances. If Obama’s policies were found to be responsible, does Chait believe we should pretend they weren’t? One cannot judge in advance who is responsible for what. What we can hope and pray for is that an attack doesn’t occur.

I’ve praised President Obama for things I believe he’s done right (like re-appointing Secretary Gates, his stands on Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as distancing himself from Attorney General Holder’s comments that the United States is a “nation of cowards”). I have also said, repeatedly, that I find him an impressive and in some respects an appealing figure. It’s true enough that I disagree with Obama on many issues — but I could not say about Obama what Chait said of Bush: “I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it.” Chait is, in fact, a cautionary tale of what deranged hatred for a political figure can do to a person’s writing and intellectual and analytical abilities. I had hoped that with Bush passing from political center stage, Chait might regain his balance. Apparently, and unfortunately, he hasn’t.