My God Can Beat Up National Review's God

Everyone's already seen this:

National Review, in the issue out today, runs an editorial paragraph that it did not mean to run. We had a debate among the editors--as we debate many things--about Gen. William Boykin, who recently made some highly provocative remarks about the war on terror. Some editors felt that he should be fired forthwith; others demurred. A draft editorial paragraph was prepared, stating the position that Boykin should be fired; at just about the last minute, we decided to withhold judgment--to see how the investigation into the general�s behavior proceeded, and to reach a conclusion then.

Because of a production error, that paragraph--the one calling for Boykin�s head--went to the printer.

The old production error -- the mysterious curse of publishers everywhere.

So were the editors who opposed the editorial that went to print in favor of withholding judgment, or were they against canning Boykin? And which editors took which position? The NRO site contains a masthead listing numerous editors, but most of them are the chuckleheads from the Children's Department, that is, the website itself.

Let me pull a Jack Shafer: If anyone knows the real story behind the Review's waffling and weaselling, e-mail me.