Diana Hsieh writes,
I particularly recommend [Noumenalself's] two posts (one and two) on Robert Tracinksi's continued defense of the Iraq War. (Then again, I'm not sure that any critique could be quite so devastating as Barbara Branden's hearty endorsement of The Intellectual Activist. As Betsy says, "In the long run you get the kind of friends -- and the kind of enemies -- you deserve." So true! The advocates of a kinder, gentler, and more tolerant "Objectivism" (like Barbara Branden and Robert Bidinotto) should be expected to support those defending the ongoing sacrifice of American soldiers in an altruistic-in-design and unwinnable-as-fought war. They should be aghast at those advocating lasting victory over the enemies who actually threaten us. And so they are.)
Barbara Branden also speaks glowingly of Ayn Rand. Should we think less of Ayn Rand for that?
Robert Tracinski wrote "Notes On A Question of Sanction," a detailed critique of David Kelley's tolerationism. He has neither disavowed his essay nor expressed support for Kelley. Why would it be devastating if tolerationists agreed with his position on Iraq? Given that the Kelley faction loathes ARI, it figures they would agree with anyone who disagreed with ARI on Iraq. They might even agree with one of their most prominent critics; that's what toleration is all about. But it does not follow that their agreement with him, which he neither sought nor celebrates, makes Tracinski look bad.
You can criticize Tracinski's stand on the war -- I have questions about it myself -- but to suggest that Tracinski is wrong or somehow tainted because a tolerationist recommends his magazine is not logical.