I hadn't spoken to him one-on-one for several months, though we'd both been at some dinner parties where the conversation was kept light and airy. Last week we arranged a dinner so that we could really talk, but we were already on the phone so we began a conversation about the world.
Or, rather, I should say that he did. He knows what I do for a living. Still, he needed to tell me how well things were going in Iraq.
I asked him how he knew.
He told me that everything that had happened was justified.
I asked him on what basis.
He told me about the reconstruction of Germany and Japan.
I asked him how those experiences applied and what we had learned.
He told me that success in those countries took years of direct rule.
I asked if we would spend the same years this time.
He told me that the Administration was doing the best that they could.
I asked what their plan was so we could try to measure that "best".
He told me it wasn't about oil.
I asked what it was about.
He told me that anyone who used chemical weapons should be destroyed.
I asked under what circumstances and with what methods.
He told me nuclear proliferation was unacceptable.
I asked what we could do about it.
He told me Israel was right.
I asked about what.
He told me that Arafat was the whole problem.
I asked what would happen if Arafat left the scene.
He told me it was okay to kill terrorists.
I asked about children and innocent bystanders.
He told me it was war.
I asked with who.
He told me things were going well and getting better. He told me that it was too early for me to pass negative judgement.
I asked who? was passing negative judgement. I finally offered an opinion that if it is indeed too early, as he suggested, then perhaps the confidence he expresses might also be premature.
Posted by Martial