Why do we listen to them--or grant them any credability?

[Lemon law]

In a blast from the past--todays political talk shows featured Steven Hadley on at least two of them---seeking his views on what to do now in Iraq.

My only reaction after barfing is to ask why anyone should pay any attention to this idiot--who in any co-paternity test would have to be regarded as one of the fathers of
what we all know now as an extremely bad idea---the entire Iraq war and its past conduct--and hence Steven Hadley may be the go to guy if you happen to have a truck load of manure to dump on someone---but is now so clearly discredited that his ideas are extremely unlikely to be worth anything---there is a pattern here folks---people who have bad ill considered ideas in the past are extremely likley to repeat the behavior in the future. And there is also a revisionist history motive operating also in the Hadley is unlikely to blame himself even when everyone else does and quite rightly so---so all you get is mea not culpa rant that is totally irrelevant to anything of current value.

So in short folks like Steven Hadley, Donald Rumsfeld, and the like should not be listened to or given a soapbox---they are only the ghosts of an unpleasant past---and we need to give them the old heave ho---and move on towards solving the problems they created.
Having proved unworthy of any public trust, these people do not need soapboxes to again trumpet their already discredited ideas, they need paper bags to hide their ugly continence
which should be bright red in embarrassment from the American public---and for once show some wisdom---but removing themselves from a public debate they can only prove counterproductive in engaging in---and let wiser people with proven track records help get us out of the problems they created.

 

[Termagant]

Someone in another thread mentioned that history will not be kind on Bush. In response to that sense the bad actors from this administration may do a full court press to shift the blame for failure off of the administration and to scapegoats that their true believer base is ready to blame. We failed in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan because....

Chalabi lied to us, Clinton reduced American intelligence gathering capability and left our military in shambles, Democrats undermined Bush's war effort, liberals gave aid and comfort to terrorists and prevented Bush from fighting the war with the gloves off, other nations most notably France gave the enemy aid and comfort, the UN didn't take an active role, Iran undermined the war, Syria aided the insurgents, the wider Middle East and Muslim world didn't accept Bush's push for change, the New York Times and other papers revealed misconduct at Abu Graib, Guantanamo, secret CIA prisons, warrant less wiretapping, etc., all vital to our war effort, hybrid car drivers reduced the demand for oil and so there was less incentive to get Iraq's oil fields working at full speed, etc...... ad nauseum for the next five years from Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

 

[d3n]

I see nothing to be gain from sticking our heads in the sand or screaming 'lalala' with our fingers in our ears every time one of these people says something. Disregard it, read between the lines, do whatever you'd like. I can think of so many more entertainment types that are much less qualified to get on the soap box.

 

[conjur]

Hadley was the one responsible for re-inserting the debunked Niger/yellowcake claim into the SotU address.

The only explanation I have is that the WH is just desperate for bodies to spew their spin.