Putz revisits 2003.

As I mentioned below, Putz has looked back on 2003 to see where he got things wrong. Talk about cherry picking.

Among the items he left out (from the "Timeline" -- plus some others):

3/26/03
Begins series of "they're not antiwar--they're just on the other side" posts.

4/10/03
Argues that the fall of Baghdad has inspired "impotence and fear" around the world and that 1991 concerns of the Arab reaction to an American sacking of an Arab city were "misplaced."

6/1/03
Argues that things look "pretty good" in Iraq despite the press's "bogus looting stories" that were attempts to "hurt Bush."

7/11/03
Promotes connection between Saddam and Osama.

11/12/03
Insists that attacks in Iraq are akin to the Battle of the Bulge and not an indication things are going "badly." Claims that "anti-war types" want "America to lose" and "dance on our soldiers' graves" but doesn't name any.

And yet he has the audacity to ask,

Was my big mistake underestimating the dishonesty of the people who disagreed with me about the war?

Wrong about the looting. Wrong about Rumsfeld. Wrong about villifying those who opposed the war as "objectively pro-Saddam." Wrong about al Qaeda and Saddam. Wrong about the insurgency. Wrong about troop levels. Wrong about the objective of the war. Wrong about the occupation. Wrong about the civil war. Wrong about the Arab reaction to the war. Wrong about the Bush administration's prosecuction of the war.

Pretty much wrong about everything.

I can't possibly pick out the most nauseating and wrong post from 2003, but was this smug attack on the "Left" should make the Top 5.

ANDREW BOLT:

But when we say the Left got this war wrong, we must be clear that this was no innocent error of judgment. Too many wilfully let a self-indulgent loathing of capitalism, or the US or John Howard blind them to the real truths and the real evil.

NOR can we let the myth grow that the Left always knew the war would be won easily, and was worried more by the peace.

Not true. Below, I will recall just some of "peace" activists' predictions to show how they dreamed of a war in which millions died, and Iraqis greeted our soldiers not with kisses but bullets. Overseas, too, anti-war propagandists luridly dreamed of American honour drowning in Iraqi blood.

These are now many of the same people sneering that Iraq has plunged into anarchy, and will forever be a sleazy "puppet state" of the US. How lovingly they linger on news of looting.

Iraq may indeed go sour, although with effort, help and much time, it probably won't. But however Iraq turns out, we at least know it is no longer a threat. And whatever troubles it faces, they will not be greater than the horrors it has endured.

Iraq's future we cannot tell, but one thing we do know is that most of those now preaching doom were spectacularly wrong about the war itself. Why would they be so right now?

It is time we held them accountable. No more must they lightly skip from one disreputable cause to another -- preaching woe in the first Gulf War, disaster in Afghanistan, apocalypse in Iraq -- and always warning of the catastrophic consequences of resisting evil.

Read the whole thing. (Via Tim Blair).

It's time someone was held accountable, and it isn't "the Left."