Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
Pundit immunity.

For some reason, our professional class of media loudmouths is never held accountable for when they are wrong. This goes not just for the Iraq War but for most other issues as well. Indeed, book deals often result (for Iraq alone: Kenneth Pollack, Peter Beinart, Thomas Friedman, Max Boot, Jeffrey Goldberg, Judith Miller, Ralph Peters, and I'm sure many others).

Pundits should have batting averages for when they're flatly right or wrong on their various predictions posted next to their bylines. It'd help to know if you're dealing with Tony Gwynn or Mario Mendoza when you're reading their latest argument.
At least Ken Pollack did some introspection to try and figure out where he went wrong ("Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong," Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2004)

Kind of reminds me of one of the very cool moments in my life. When I was on the faculty of the Air War College in the early 90s, we were holding a Vietnam Retrospective. I agreed to escort Westmoreland. So I sat in the O Club having breakfast with three people at the table: Westie, me and Walt Rostow. I just soaked in the amazing conversation between those two. But, I was struck that Westmoreland's position had not moved one millimeter since 1968, while Rostow was in the midst of serious introspection to try and figure out where he went wrong.

Which leads me back to my point. I suspect that Kristol, Perle, Feith, Rumsfeld, etc. will concoct (or have concocted) a "stab in the back" explanation for Iraq rather than simply admitting that they knew nothing about that country and thus read it wrong.

I did like your analogy though. In my own predictions, I try to stay above the "Mendoza Line."