Yglesias reminds us of this 2004 TNR article of how retribution in the foreign policy establishment works:

For many in the Democratic foreign policy establishment, Dean was seen as dangerous. . . . No one was more concerned on this score than Daalder's Brookings colleague and occasional co-author, Michael O'Hanlon, who penned scathing op-eds in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times attacking Dean. O'Hanlon, who advises several of the candidates--including Kerry--told me, "More Democrats should have recognized [Dean's] danger and spoken out against him." . . . [N]ow that Dean is done, Rice and especially Daalder may find their career prospects also dimmed. When I spoke with the foreign policy gurus who would likely stock a Democratic administration, they seemed to regard the Dean campaign as a debilitating black mark on one's resumé. . . . "This whole campaign causes me to question [Daalder's and Rice's] judgment . . ."

Now O'Hanlon and Pollack dishonestly claim to have been critics of the war and the Surge. So they are dishonest AND wrong. There should be repercussions for such behavior. No Democrat should consider having them in their Administration. Their judgment AND their word can not be trusted.