Oh yeah, about those two 'liberals'

Faux News and wingnut bloggers are foaming at the mouth over the op-ed, 'A War We Just Might Win' , that Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack wrote for the NY Times yesterday. I heard Sean Hannity on his show last night trumpeting that 'these two liberals from these liberal think tanks' should, basically, (paraphrasing) 'shut up those who oppose the surge and the rest of the entire clusterfuck that is our occupation of Iraq'.

But, the problem? These two 'liberals', O'Hanlon and Pollack, have been big supporters of the war in Iraq from before the asinine invasion and they haven't gotten anything right about it since.

Let's take a look at some of the comments these two 'newly' pro-Iraq war 'liberal's' have said over the last few years, starting with Mr. O'Hanlon;

'Here’s why things are going well and why they will soon go even better'. [New York Times, 3/28/03]

'We’ve got to go to war by March, I think, if we’re going to use the good weather'. [Fox News, 1/3/03]

'The U.S.-led mission in Iraq is still quite likely to succeed over a time period of roughly three to five years. The lack of any unifying ideology for the resistance there makes it unlikely we will face a snowballing mass insurgency'. [O’Hanlon, 10/5/03]

And for those wingnuts who have been desperately grasping for straws since yesterday; Here's what O'Hanlon wrote just 5 days ago!

"The situation in Iraq remains tenuous at best. … [V]iolence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past 2-plus months, with a resilient enemy increasingly turning its focus to softer targets outside the scope of the surge". …

Here's what Ken Pollack has been saying about the war in Iraq;

'The United States has no choice left but to invade Iraq itself and eliminate the current regime'. [Foreign Affairs, March/April 2002]

'The question is not one of war or no war, but rather war now or war later–a war without nuclear weapons or a war with them. [New York Times, 9/26/02]

'I think it’s very important that the president receive a very clear statement of support by the Congress'. [NPR, 10/2/02] {Unfortunately for the country, Congress laid down and didn't send a 'clear' statement - 42% of Congressional Democrats went along with Republicans and voted to give 'Commander Guy' the authorization to stupidly invade Iraq}

'Increasingly, the option that makes the most sense is for the United States to launch a full-scale invasion, eradicate Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, and rebuild Iraq as a prosperous and stable society-for the good of the United States, the Iraqi people, and the entire region. [The Threatening Storm, 2002]

Sorry wingnuts ... O'Hanlon and Pollack are not two liberals who have suddenly come to their senses and are just now praising Bush's bonehead war in Iraq. They've actually been pathetically cheerleading for it from the start and are only trying to save face from being so wrong for so long.

I don't know O'Hanlon's and Pollack's political leanings but I do know, they haven't been right about the war yet, so why would I get all excited by what they are saying now?

I don't need to grasp for straws trying to vindicate my position on Iraq. That's the benefit of being 100% right from before day 1.

Think Progress