Fair enough, Whatfur. I think the problem arose out of what someone called your word salad. I am use to picking things out of salads, but grapes and olives can look deceivingly similar in low light. Still, if you reread your post quoted below I think you'll at least see what I was seeing, even if it was not quite what you meant.
Originally Posted by Whatfur
In arenas as important as this I would certainly want to look at the current situation particulars and not add to the opaqeness by calling into question the credibility of someone based on an opinion that was hardly unique at the time.
The bold line implied the following to me: It's wrong to count otherwise credibility-ruining opinions when they're widely held; and his Iran position is comparatively unique (and therefore held to a higher standard?).
it would be folly to dismiss Gerecht arguments because someone found an article written a decade ago where he also advocated intensely and along with many others was not entirely correct.
I agree completely. That would be an ad hominem. This is slightly different, however, because he's not simply making arguments
to be taken on their merits. He's asking for a level of trust. There is no silver bullet evidence proving Iran's intentions, or what the fallout of an air-strike would be. He's to an extent 'feeling out' their intentions and the fallout based on his knowledge and experience. Geo-politics is art, not science. It would be like if someone kept saying "feels like rain!" and it never rained. The Iraq essay he wrote is evidence of his broken barometer, so to speak.
Also, I enjoyed the puns.