OK, I don’t think it’s the complete Wolfowitz. But Markus of Dormouse Dreaming has assembled an impressive number of links dealing with the US Deputy Secretary of Defense’s recent “Vanity Fair” interview.

Thinking of problematic arguments, I remembered this interview with Stanford Prof. Steven Weber (and former colleague of Condi Rice) that he gave the Stanford Alumni newsletter last Autumn. Memorable quotes:

“I think the Washington elite underestimates the intelligence and maturity of the American public. I feel very strongly about this. President Bush refers to Osama bin Laden as ‘the evil one,’ and talks about something as apocalyptic as an ‘axis of evil.’ There is a tendency to put things in black and white, and I think the reason people in Washington do this is because they believe it’s an effective political strategy. But I think it’s infantilizing the American public.”

– and –

“I would guess that the mainstream of American international relations scholars, basing this on my e-mail traffic, is almost entirely opposed to an invasion of Iraq. I’d say 95 percent opposed. … It’s because it’s easier for people who are not in decision-making positions to be against high-risk strategies than to be in favor of them. It’s very easy to point out the five things that could go wrong.”

William Safire, the hawkish NY Times columnist, believes he has to justify the US administration’s decision to sell the war with arguments – WMD, Al Quaeda – that were politically useful, albeit factually questionable, if only because he was one of their prime salespersons. Boy is Wolfowitz having fun these days ;-).