On the domestic side, I disagree with your reading of Congress’ authorization. Here’s what I see:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

Now, this seems like a blank check to me. I’d be interested in where you find some provision about Blix finishing the inspections. I would just add that the Kosovo bombing wasn’t authorized by Congress either – just a thought.

On Friedman: First, it’s my understanding that his Iraq remarks were made in 2003, last week. No matter, really, it still correctly demonstrates why people are definitely fair to criticize Friedman. I have no problem with that. But my point was about this particular article and how it seemed as though a lot of people in the blogosphere were taking Friedman seriously on the Cheney thing while missing the more important point, that force should be on the table. But he’s been reasonable on Iran. From May 2007:

“If I thought that isolating Iran and Hamas was working, I’d continue it. But it manifestly is not — any more than isolating Castro has worked. So either we find a way to draw them in or we’ll be fighting them — and the hard boys — in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and Afghanistan for a long, long time.”

So he, in my view, wants a balanced approach where the threat of force exists but we are doing the kind of diplomacy most Democrats and liberals are calling for. I think this should still be taken seriously in liberal circles, because you are right, he is brilliant; however, people shouldn’t forget his “6 months, 6 months” Friedman unit and the fact that he got Iraq wrong.

The problem with Friedman is that he is not advocating force as a last resort, as you seem to support. He believes in force as a policy tool, as a means to reshape the Middle East. This was never more evident than last week in an interview with Charlie Rose, in which Friedman said, “We attacked Iraq because we could.” In the same interview, Friedman said the purpose of the war was to tell the Arab world, “Suck on this.” This just isn’t the most enlightened approach to discussing foreign policy, and I would argue that it’s dangerous. But that’s just my opinion.

Also, Jonathan, what’s “illegal” about the Iraq war?