It amazes me — and maybe it shouldn't by now — that the "talking heads" discussing the Iraq War on our teevees can make predictions and then aren't held to any standard of results. You can be proven dead wrong about everything and still get a lot of air time. You can also still hold public office and even get a medal from George W. Bush…but that's a different problem. You'd just think that with all the people in this country who'd love to get on C-Span and the news channels to give their views, those who achieve that exalted position would be shoved aside if they're consistently off. I mean, you wouldn't keep going to a doctor whose track record was as bad as William Kristol's…but somehow, there's always a place for him on the Sunday morning news programs.
One guy who's gotten all or almost all of it right about Iraq is Scott Ritter, who is invariably identified as a "former weapons inspector." When Bush apologists say, of the fact that no Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq, "Everyone got that wrong," they're omitting Ritter, who was among the few who got it right. You'd think there'd be more interest in what he has to say now about Iran…not that he or anyone is infallible but come on. If two guys predict all the football scores and one guy gets most of 'em right and the other gets most of 'em wrong, who are you going to listen to for next weekend? Here's a link to a video interview with Ritter talking about Iran.