With the situation in Iraq deteriorating, some observers are questioning whether or not the same hawks who boosted America's 2003 invasion should be given a platform to address today's crisis. For example, on her MSNBC show, Rachel Maddow said:
"It is very frustrating to see that this is the way we handle debates about foreign policy in this country," she said on her show. "We take people who were so provably, terribly wrong and bring them back and treat them like experts on the very subject they were wrong about. It is maddening." [Politico]
In fairness, a diverse group of of pundits, including Andrew Sullivan and Ezra Klein, supported the war. But they have admitted they were wrong. In that regard, the Washington Examiner's Byron York argues the architects of the invasion like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz — and advocates like Bill Kristol — ought to at least acknowledge past mistakes:
Rather than disqualify them from speaking out, it could lend depth and perspective to their proposals on what to do now. They don't have to grovel, even if that's what some of their adversaries want. They just have to concede they played a part in creating the problem they now hope to fix. [Washington Examiner]
That makes too much sense. It would never work.