Yes, that Josh. Look it up. E.g., www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/001684.php . He wrote in October, 2002: "Let me recommend a book to you in very strong terms. It's called The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq by Ken Pollack. ... [A]t the end of the day he thinks that the only real option is to topple Saddam's regime and that the only real way to do that is by force. Now, I know many regular TPM readers don't agree at all with that proposition. It's one I find both deeply troubling and, I think, inescapable."
To listen to him now about Simon Rosenberg would invoke "shame on you."
The problem lies in the fact that the Cheney-Rumsfeld axis carried it out in a way that was calculated not to produce a free Iraq, but an client state, dependent on the US for survival and therefore compliant with multinational corporate interests. People who were too optimistic/gullible to realize this can be forgiven (though running one of them for President was a lousy idea). I'd say Josh deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Could you please cite, quote or link to Marhsall's "strong endorsement of Lieberman." I don't remember that one. But maybe it was there.
Also, it's pretty clear he's acknowledged he was wrong on the invasion of Iraq. It's not as good as being right in the first place, but it's more than a lot of liberal hawks can say, to say nothing of those on the other side.
This is no brief for his endorsement of Rosenberg. I just don't think you're being fair to Marshall.
