Every now and again, it’s worth remembering that they pretend to know everything but, in fact, know nothing about the Middle East, and have been proven wrong and wrong and wrong again on the subject. Their primary characteristic, of course, is never conceding a single error of judgment or denying responsibility for disasters in plain sight. So here’s a plethora of Dick Morris Award nominees from just last year about the now successfully completed withdrawal and destruction of Syria’s WMDs in the height of the civil war there. Drum roll please. First up – who else? – Krauthammer last September:
This is a clearly a way to get Obama off the hook politically. The chances of these weapons being eliminated from Syria are less than of the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series this year, and they are now mathematically eliminated.
Utterly wrong – and something he won’t ever cop to. Let’s go to Max Boot next:
If the U.S. is not seen as willing to strike Syria, what incentive does Assad have to comply with the terms of any disarmament deal? The most likely scenario is that Assad will agree to something in principle and then fudge on the implementation, knowing that Washington will have lost interest by that point.
Next up: a Kagan (little Freddy this time)! Notice the faux expertise and specificity of the bullshit:
Removing the weapons would require ground forces in large numbers. It appears that Assad keeps his chemical weapons at a variety of sites around the country, which would make it necessary to insert many strike forces simultaneously. Each strike force would need to be able to overcome the guard forces at each facility very quickly and then hold it against regime counterattacks. The strike forces would have to be accompanied by specialists in rendering chemical weapons safe enough to be transported, and those specialists would need to be supported and guarded…
The U.S. military has indicated that such an option could require tens of thousands of troops, and this quick sketch bears out that calculation. Since no one in this debate is advocating sending a large ground force into Syria, we have effectively dismissed the option of seizing the weapons or destroying them and thereby entered the realm of high-risk options.
Look: we all make mistakes. Plenty of other observers said it would be impossible as well (David Kay among them, with egg now all over his face). But when you have been wrong so consistently about so much, and have never copped to it, let alone reflected upon it, you should surely be a little circumspect in these instant, faux-expert opinions. And if you are a booker on cable news or an editor at an op-ed page, are you really going to keep giving these idiots a platform to be wrong yet again? Or are you going to grow some and care just a little about the truth?