Yesterday’s (May 1, 2015) Real Time with Bill Maher was very instructive in how our politics and foreign policy are being played, by actors within and without the USA. The non cable portion, “Overtime Overseas with Bill Maher” was even more interesting. Dan senor was very loquacious (reaching filibustering levels at times) expounding confidently on his right wing positions and approach to our middle-east policy. DL Hughley stopped him in his tracks with one simple question. He asked Dan how he could be so confident in his positions and predictions of what is happening and/or will happen in the middle-east, considering how spectacularly wrong, he and those propounding his views, had previously been on Iraq. Not only were they blindingly wrong then, they had exuded similarly absolute confidence in their pronouncements while being so wrong. History has now shown us how “off-the-charts” wrong they were. And yet, here was Dan Senor venturing forth with the same vigor and confidence about current and future events in the middle-east. When DL asked him this, Dan Senor for once, was stumped into stunned silence, for a few moments, before getting back on his high horse again.
This is the thing that confounds me about these pundits and the media that cultivates them. If an average Joe goes to buy a car, the dealer checks his credit. If there are any issues on the customer’s credit report, the buyer is penalized either with no sale or increased borrowing costs. But somehow our pundits, such as Dan Senor, Bill Kristol, etc., are entirely immune to such market forces. They continue to spout off confidently and the media does not raise a peep or questions them about their prior spectacular errors on this very topic. Why should we believe these guys now? Why should we take what they say at face value? Why should we not be skeptical of what they say? How much more wrong do they have to be, to lose their credibility? Hats off to DL Hughley for doing what the media ought to but does not.