Today the New York Times celebrates the anniversary of Mission Accomplished by asking nine “experts” how we should proceed in Iraq.
Among those experts: Frederick Kagan, L. Paul Bremer, Kenneth M. Pollack and Richard Perle, each of whom has been consistently and disastrously wrong about Iraq from the very start. They are joined by Anne Marie Slaughter, of whom I’ve never heard before, but, through Google, I learn was also a supporter of the war There is not a single article by anyone who opposed the war from the start. One (Anthony Cordesman) warned of potential problems, but does not appear to have actively opposed the war.
We lawyers use experts in court cases. We tend to avoid experts who would fall apart under skillful cross examination. That possibility is, of course, enhanced if the expert in question can be proven to have been consistently wrong in the past.
The Times might consider taking a page from us lawyers. We look for experts who will support our position (which I assume the Times would deny it is doing), but we try to avoid people with a demonstrated record of incompetence. The Times might consider asking someone who has been consistently right about the war to appear in its pages as an expert.
Update: I note from Digby that I missed one. Danielle Pletka, of whom I have apparently been blissfully ignorant, is also a wrong-from-the-starter. I forgot to Google her.
Post a Comment