National Review's Mark Steyn is a horrible liar

Syndicated columnist, warmonger, and racist Mark Steyn has a new column defending his Iraq war support. He tries to claim some sort of bizarre vindication by selectively evaluating a series of predictions he made in 2003:

What of the rest of the country? Iraq, I suggested, would wind up “at a bare minimum, the least badly governed state in the Arab world, and, at best, pleasant, civilized and thriving.” I’ll stand by my worst-case scenario there.

Leaving aside his decision to stand by his worst-case scenario, its worth looking at how Steyn actually phrased this prediction when he originally made it in April 2003:

In a year's time, Iraq will be, at a bare minimum, the least badly governed state in the Arab world and, at best, pleasant, civilised and thriving. In short: not a bad three weeks' work. (emphasis mine)

I'm going to suggest that he actually got this completely wrong. Lets see what else:

Overcompensating somewhat for all the doom-mongering, I wrote in Britain’s Daily Telegraph that “a year from now Basra will have a lower crime rate than most London boroughs.” Close enough. Major General Andy Salmon, the British commander in southern Iraq, eventually declared of Basra that “on a per capita basis, if you look at the violence statistics, it is less dangerous than Manchester.”

"Eventually" is the crucial word here. General Salmon would make this statement in 2009, so Steyn was only 5 years off. In actuality, one year after Steyn's prediction a series of terrorist bombings took place in Basra killing over 65 people. This would kickstart a wave of violence in the region lasting until 2008. Here is how a report by the neo-conservative Institute for the Study of War described the situation from 2004-2006:

By late 2004, violence in Basra was steadily increasing. In the wake of the uprising by Sadr’s Jaysh al-Mahdi militia in Najaf and Karbala earlier that year, many of the fighters moved to Basra. The influx of Jaysh al-Mahdi militiamen fueled the increase in violence, as the fight between the Shi’a factions for control of the city’s lucrative resources intensified, particularly during the period surrounding the January 2005 elections. The Sadrist Trend, ISCI, and Fadhila all vied for control of the oil infrastructure and smuggling network; the security forces; and the provision of public services and state resources.

Targeted assassinations, kidnapping, sectarian violence, gunfights, and widespread criminality accompanied this struggle, which persisted throughout 2005 and 2006.

In 2007, 85% of Basra residents believed that British troops had a negative on the province. Even though Basra is more stable now than during the 2004-07 period, terrorist bombings continue. But sure, "close enough".

In a smart decision, he chooses to ignore some of his predictions that were so clearly wrong he couldn't salvage them through selective quoting and intellectual dishonesty:

"Weapons of Mass Destruction. Remember them? Not a single one has yet been found" (Bill Neely, ITV, April 10). MBITRW: Actually, I almost wish this one were true. Anything that turns up now will be assumed to have been planted. If I were Washington, I'd consider burying anything I found. After all, an America that feels no need to bother faking justifications for invasion would be far more alarming to most Europeans. Instead, horrible things will turn up, but will never be "conclusive" enough for the French, who've got all the receipts anyway.

Nope.