THE DEAN OF (GREATER) PRESCIENCE. I concede Matt's point that alleged crazy moonbat Howard Deanforesaw the consequences of the Iraq War and -- more importantly -- the exceptionally weak case for the war with considerable (and consistent) accuracy and detail, more so than Gore.
ARGUMENTS THAT WERE MADE. Ezra points us to Julian Sanchez's excellent rebuttal to Megan McArdle's claim that critics of the war were just a wrong as the supporters. For my part, it's somewhat difficult to respond to McArdle's post, since not only does she argue strictly from anecdote but she also declines to specify most of the allegedly erroneous anti-war arguments. Adding on to Sanchez, it's worth identifying some arguments that were, in fact, in circulation at the time:
"FIRST YOU DIDN'T WANT ME TO GET THE PONY, NOW YOU WANT ME TO TAKE IT BACK, MAKE UP YOUR MIND!" Via Yglesias, we see that "liberal hawks" (at least as defined as liberals who think that replacing a bad dictatorship that posed no security threat to the United States with an Islamist quasi-state was a great idea) are as capable of being pathetic Bush dead-enders as any conservative. Michael O'Hanlon:
THE DREAMLIFE OF DEAD-ENDERS. Via K. Drum, I see that Jonah Goldberg (just like Josh Trevino) asserts that Bush is superior to his critics because at least he's "forthrightly trying to win a war." Kevin deals with the first problem with Goldberg's argument, which is claiming contradictions in the Democratic position that don't exist.