I have little interest in escalating the tensions heating up on Andrew Sullivan's excellent blog.
But let me respond to this sizzling couple of lines from Jamie's note to Hilzoy and me today:
I understand how throwing around the word "neocon" (and McCarthyite calls or "Purging the neocons from the American soul"), as Steve regularly does, is now standard practice in some quarters as it provides a helpful substitute for actual argument, but providing red-meat to the nutroots doesn't make it any more intellectually responsible.
I use the term "neocon" because I feel as if I know precisely what it means, to whom it should be applied, and what the broader agenda and objectives of the neoconservative movement are. We may disagree about the place that neoconservative politics belongs in our national security debates, and I do believe that Jamie has been providing a "sideways defense" for the neocons. I thought my own commentary was pretty diplomatic towards Jamie. If not, apologies as I didn't mean to rile him on a personal level.
For those who want to read a bit more on the mis-application of the term "neocon", read my "Norman Ornstein's Neocon Problem."
But thanks Jamie for your insinuation that I am intellectually irresponsible.