"I do think my judgment is superior to [Cole’s] when it comes to the big picture. So, I have an idea: Since he doesn’t want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let’s make a bet. I predict that Iraq won’t have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I’ll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now). This way neither of us can hide behind clever word play or CV reading. If there’s another reasonable wager Cole wants to offer which would measure our judgment, I’m all ears. Money where your mouth is, doc," – Jonah Goldberg, February 8, 2005.
I apologize for missing this a couple of days ago. Jonah wrote last Wednesday that the issue is moot because Cole declined to take the bet. But the underlying issue isn’t moot, is it? Goldberg made the bet to prove that his judgment was superior to Cole’s. As a simple empirical matter, it wasn’t. And the salient fact is not that Jonah got something wrong – we’re all human – but that he isn’t man enough to admit it, and make an accounting.
Update: I missed this accounting. Here it is, for the record. My bad.
The Dish 