Froomkin's opens his column today with these paragraphs:

There is a popular sentiment among the Washington elite that what went wrong in the run-up to the war in Iraq has been sufficiently examined, and that it's all water under the bridge anyway.

It's popular in the White House and among Republicans for obvious reasons. But it's also remarkably popular among top Democrats and the establishment media, because they aren't all that eager to call any more attention to the fact that they were played for suckers.

I think his analysis is correct, and you can see it in action anytime you watch any debate about the Iraq war between neocons and everyone else. The argument by the "hold-em-accountable-camp" seems to center on not wanting history to repeat itself. But you'll play hell getting much play in the media with this stance as it's label "beating a dead horse".

Froomkin uses this argument as the introduction to a discussion about Iran, and how history may be repeating itself right before our eyes with Democrats, who are trying to look tough on terraists, claiming that Iraq wasn't the problem, Iran is a problem and the administration isn't doing anything about it! It's a good read and I recommend it.

I also agree that accountability is important. Where I'm likely to be more militant is that I don't think accountability simply means taking a beating in the polls or "learning from history". I think it means some kind of legal/financial consequences.

The people who are the architects of the disaster in Iraq are old Nixon folks who got away with murder the last time they held responsible positions. Because there were not legal consequences for them (or financial), they were not substantially repudiated in the world that is Washington or the public at large. Today, those in more junior positions to Rumsfeld, Rove, Bush, Cheney, the Boltins, and other key White House players need to watch their superiors get the hammer.

Hard.

Without such accountability, these times just become old war stories while the tactics go forward into the next conservative "revolution". It's why I think Bush needs to be impeached, no matter how late in the Presidency, no matter who becomes President. It's also why Lieberman must lose, why other Democrats who have not openly recognized and admitted their mistake in supporting the administration must be shoved aside. The consequences of the mistake have been high. The consequences for those who made the mistake must be equally high. Without consequences, it's just politics as usual with Rovian tactics becoming more and more mainstream and the distortions in our body politic institutionalized.