Likelihood of Success

Martin Kramer says at his Sandbox blog (and I paraphrase) that Jacob Weisberg must be dizzy after his dervish-like rotations in Slate on Bernard Lewis, in which Weisberg claims Professor Lewis soft-pedals the Crusades — anything to bury neoconservatism, which Weisberg pronounces very dead. Weisberg is so giddy over how the ocean of spilled Moorish blood has led to this development that, in his own turn at revisionist history, he pronounces that the”less principled, more effective pragmatism associated with Bush 41, Brent Scowcroft, and James Baker” was… “more effective.”

Kramer demonstrates (hat tip to Soccer Dad!) that Weisberg is wrong on the first count. Is it really necessary to demonstrate that he’s wrong on the second? (Because if it is, I respectfully submit that it’s been done.)