Excellent analysis.
For me he exposed himself way back when he lectured us on our "war for oil". This would be when he first came on the public scene. He somehow failed to notice that we drew our "no fly zone" boundaries to leave the oil in Saddam's hands all those years, even though we could easily have justified occupying the south, and the north too, which would have put all of Saddam's oil in our hands.
If we were all about warring for oil, how is it that at the end of our 100 hour war, in which we smashed Saddam's military, we failed to actually get our hands on any of it?
And even now, we take criticism from Dems for not using Iraq's oil to pay for the war. Again, we managed to fight a war for oil without getting any of it.
Baer is smart enough to notice that Al Qaeda has taken refuge in Iran, at least some of Bin Ladin's inner circle have, and they (with Syria) are the powers behind the insurgency in Iraq. He didn't notice the continuous contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda, or fails to mention them because it doesn't serve his case. Yes, with the fall of Saddam, Iran becomes Al Qaeda's new sugar daddy. Good job you noticed that, Robert. Too bad he didn't notice anything prior, like Ramsi "the iraqi" or Yasin the "other" iraqi.
But we also find ourselves with a ring of airbases all around Iran, should we decide to get jiggy with them. A policy he does not endorse. He wants us to set "serious" with Iran, but not "serious-serious".