The Commentary editor follows up to say that his response to my critique of Robert Kagan:

was not a rebuttal; rather, I was making a point about the bizarre nature of publishing a rather personal and ad hominem attack on someone who is on the masthead of his own publication. If Chait wishes to explain why that conduct is appropriate, that would be interesting to read. It would be one thing if, sharing Chait’s disgust with the argument posed by Kagan, the magazine’s editor, Martin Peretz, removed Kagan from the masthead and then let Chait have at him. But short of that, one might think Chait would owe a colleague a minimal measure of respect. Or is that expecting too much?

Okay. First, a contributing editorship is an unpaid, seldom-updated honorific. Most editors and staffers at magazines couldn't tell you at any given time who most of their contributing editors are without looking at the list. Our contributing editors list has, and continues to have, people on it who have written rather unkindly about TNR writers or even the magazine itself without triggering Podhoretz's delicate sensibilities.

Second,  I wasn't making making an ad hominem attack on Kagan, I was refuting the substance (or lack thereof) of his argument. It's true that I called his column "fairly embarassing" -- because Kagan is an intelligent person who's capable of good work. I wouldn't have used the term if such a shoddy column were written by, say, John Podhoretz.

--Jonathan Chait