Fun read o' the day

From today's online surf:
(Because sometimes, you gain more knowledge in the re-reading, as in this ugly case of "gloating" and finger-pointing, only a month after American troops entered Iraq.)
----

"Yeah, there has been a lot of pro-war gloating. ... So maybe we shouldn't rub in just how wrong, and morally corrupt the antiwar case was.

Maybe we should rise above the temptation to point out that claims of a "quagmire" were wrong -- again! -- how efforts at moral equivalence were obscenely wrong -- again! -- how the antiwar folks are still, far too often, trying to move the goalposts rather than admit their error -- again -- and how an awful lot of the very same people who spoke lugubriously about "civilian casualties" now seem almost disappointed that there weren't more -- again -- and how many people who spoke darkly about the Arab Street and citizens rising up against American "liberators" were proven wrong -- again -- as the liberators were seen as just that by the people they were liberating.

And I suppose we shouldn't stress so much that the antiwar folks were really just defending the interests of French oil companies and Russian arms-deal creditors. It's probably a bad idea to keep rubbing that point in over and over again. Nah." *

*Tennessee law professor and insta-intellectual Glenn Reynolds, April 11, 2003.
-----------
Nothing like getting in early with the insta-opinions, or calling the game a few minutes into the first period. Indeed. In fact... indeedy-do.

(Is it ugly to go back after a few years, and compare reality to those early observations? Not when the insta-expert was so confident in his trash-talking. Not in my book. Not if you believe in accountability and want to determine who has credibility in their future predictions.)