And some (like Frank Gaffney, for example) are just egregious buffoons.
Don't know the man personally, nor have I ever been in a room with him. But, on the basis of his TV personna, I could not agree more.
So, if you have the time and the interest, how about lining up the players in terms of your categories, at least that first set, the folk to take seriously, the ideological but serious, and the buffoons. Rumsfeld, Walfowitz (sp), Bolton, Rice, and whomsoever else comes to mind.
As for Foreign Affairs, I've been reading the book and will most likely take out a trial subscription to the mag in the near future. As for my earlier comments about it representing the "mainstream," I think I said the "establishment". Importance difference. But I did not mean to use that term to dismiss it; rather to label a place from which some voices come. And to urge others to pick voices from other places to read, ones they come to consider credible but, heaven forbid, are not their own positions. The only way we can rethink the crusty old is to read, argue with, fight with well argued positions different from our own. (Now I'll stop sermonizing. Occupational hazard.)
John |
