Compare and Contrast

First, there's this Christopher Hitchens article praising Ahmad Chalabi. Just when you thought Hitchens had reached Death Valley like depths, he manages to sink even further. Rotting whale carcasses now share their space with Hitch. In one sentence, he turns a convicted in absentia embezzler into the moral equivalent of Willy Brandt, Bruno Kreisky, Andreas Papandreou, Benigno Aquino, and Kim Dae Jung.

Now, take a look at what Steve Gilliard has to say. Short version: Chalabi is a crook who NEVER could run Iraq--neocons who think otherwise are fantasizing like a daydreaming teenager. Gilliard lends some perspective from an old, but reliable source: Machiavelli.

HOW DANGEROUS IT IS TO BELIEVE EXILES

And it does not appear to me to be foreign to this subject to discuss among other matters how dangerous a thing it is to believe those who have been driven out of their country...

If you have the time, definitely read the entire post.

Hitchens, who I once enjoyed reading, has staked his reputation on Bush's folly, and will pay the price. Oh sure, Slate and other apologists will somehow manage to find a spot for him on the roster, but he's looking more and more like Willie Mays in 1973--a mere shell of his former self. It's embarrassing to watch.

Gilliard, in contrast, did what bloggers do best: he found a good example in the historical record and applied it to present day policy. In doing so, he demonstrates two things--one, there's a reason why history is a worthy pursuit, and two, that those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.