So, How Wrong Do You Have To Be Before They Stop Listening To You?

It's something I wonder a lot when it comes to those pundits, politicians, pro-war guys who were all about this war: That it would be good for the US and the Middle East, that it would deal a blow to international terrorism, that we would be greeted as liberators and that Iraq would be a cakewalk. How could you not support that?

How can people be so damn wrong, about such important matters, so many times, and still have people listen to them? You don't reward idiots with poor track records with continued attention...the credibility of anything these people say should seriously be questioned. Yet it doesn't stop there; Now the same people who cheerleaded and brought you the Iraq war are now instigating and pushing for war with Iran? The nerve of these guys!

Not only that, but they don't seem to have learned any lessons from Iraq, namely, striking and invading Iran will not bring Iranians to side with the US and topple their own government. They are not going to come out and greet us as Liberators with flowers and candy.

Repeat for the Warmongers: They are not going to greet us as Liberators and it will not be a cakewalk.

We have our plates full with Iraq at the moment...I say the US military should focus on that for the time being.

For example of how wrong you can be -- and in the case of Glenn Reynolds how deluded you have to be to insist that he still thinks he was correct by saying the following: From April 11, 2003

"FOR SUCH AN ADVANCED SPECIES, THEY SURE KNOW HOW TO RUB IT IN."-- Marge Simpson

Yeah, there has been a lot of pro-war gloating. And I guess that Dawn Olsen's cautionary advice about gloating is appropriate. So maybe we shouldn't rub in just how wrong, and morally corrupt the antiwar case was. Maybe we should rise above the temptation to point out that claims of a "quagmire" were wrong -- again! -- how efforts at moral equivalence were obscenely wrong -- again! -- how the antiwar folks are still, far too often, trying to move the goalposts rather than admit their error -- again -- and how an awful lot of the very same people who spoke lugubriously about "civilian casualties" now seem almost disappointed that there weren't more -- again -- and how many people who spoke darkly about the Arab Street and citizens rising up against American "liberators" were proven wrong -- again -- as the liberators were seen as just that by the people they were liberating. And I suppose we shouldn't stress so much that the antiwar folks were really just
defending the interests of French oil companies and Russian arms-deal creditors.
It's probably a bad idea to keep rubbing that point in over and over again.

Nah.

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald links this post in the -- as usual -- deluded notion that it proves his point. I've responded here.

So how wrong can you be?

Gleen Greewald found these ridicolous right-winger posts

PS: I have been brewing over the situation in Iraq for a while now...I will share my thoughts in a post later today. You might be surprised at what I say.