Neocons are know nothings:

Man, the neocons are on a tear with this ISG report. Jonah Goldberg in the Inquirer today writes that Baker & Co. aren't interested in winning the war in Iraq. "Indeed, former Justice O'Connor was a perfect choice given her preternatural gift for reaching decisions with no discernible principle to them other than the need to please everybody a little. Yogi Berra once said, 'If you come to a fork in the road, take it.' That, it seems, was the commission's approach."

See, the neocons have been trashing the report for months. Jim Lobe in the Atimes, "from having read the neo-conservative press in the US over the past month, one would think that former secretary of state James Baker poses the biggest threat to the United States and Israel since Saddam Hussein. . . The specific aim of the campaign - which has been waged virtually daily on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times and the online and printed versions of The Weekly Standard and The National Review - has been to discredit the ISG's presumed conclusions, even before they are published."

You can see why they don't like Baker's recommendations; they directly contradict everything the neocons have been saying all along about the Iraq war. My question is, why is the media still giving these guys the time of day? I heard Michael Rubin on Talk of the Nation last week. He was invited on because he had been asked to be on the commission. He didn't participate because he thought Lee Hamiliton had "gerrymandered [the] advisory panels to ratify predetermined recommendations."

So, even though he wasn't actually in the ISG, he gets on TOTN. Why? He and Goldberg and the rest of them have been wrong about every single thing about Iraq. At this point, why bother having them on any talk show to comment on something they obviously know nothing about?