War pundits backpedaling as fast as they can

The honest ones like John Cole, just flat out admit they were wrong and take their lumps. Some, like Thomas "just give it six months" Friedman, simply switch positions and ignore their previous cheerleading. But you have to at least give Friedman credit for coming out swinging. And then there's the pundits that are apparently suffering from Busheimer's disease and forget that their previous works are widely archived across the internets.

We'll call these the flat out liars, like Michael Ledeen. Frankly, I rarely read Ledeen myself. At best he bores me comatose and at worst he raises my blood pressure with his convoluted pronouncements. But he is an Important Pundit, that people inexplicably take seriously, so it's no small matter when he pretends to have been against the invasion of Iraq from the git go when, as history records, he was one of its biggest and loudest supporters.

But such is the paucity of right wing ethics, that instead of being called on it by his wingbut peers, they ignore it or worst, praise his political acumen. But then I suppose one can expect no better from that final group of self important pundits who decided to stay the course with our Great Decider and simply descend into third rate hackery.

Sometimes, I wish I had gone to the dark side. How much simpler it would be to avoid all that time consuming research and simply make shit up as you go along, or even easier, just approvingly link to other people who invent it for you.

I understand why the pundits do it. What the hell, they're making gobs of money on their gullible fan base, but I don't understand how their fans allow themselves to be so easily taken in. I mean why would anyone willingly take on the role of useful fools? Don't they get that the deceivers are laughing at them, all the way to the bank?