NYT on Iraq

[Copernicus]

This video and

this editorial

(both from ardent critics of the war and Bush) almost make it seem like the NYT has a clue about what is really happening on the ground in Iraq, and the consequences of failure. What, is their circulation falling?

(Like the nearly bankrupt LA Times that thinks its necessary to bemoan the plight of the poor Iraqi gays who can't openly cruise. As if under Saddam they werent subject to execution at his whim.)

Strange the press isn't reporting these more widely....not.

[DVaut1]

Cynics on the left have been rather adamant that Pollack and O'Hanlon, while maintaining the veneer of 'war critics', are nothing but consistent drum beaters for this war.

I won't comment on O'Hanlon, but I read Pollack's The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq back when it was released, and he was a pretty vocal supporter of the Bush administration and their decision to invade Iraq circa 2002. I mean, if the guy writes a [censored] book titled The Case for Invading Iraq, it's probably not fair to call the guy an "ardent critic of the war and Bush" as you do in your OP. It's not exactly surprising he's confident just another surge (or two, or three) will finally 'win' this war. Given what a disaster this war has turned out to be, it's hardly shocking that he's 'confident' things are different now, given that his reputation as a reliable scholar on Middle East and military affairs hinges on the successful outcome of this war.

Greenwald on Pollack/O'Hanlon:

"Hence, today we have yet another Op-Ed declaring that We Really Are Winning in Iraq This Time -- this one in the NYT from "liberal" Brookings Institution "scholars" Ken Pollack and Mike O'Hanlon. They accuse war critics of being "unaware of the significant changes taking place," proclaim that "we are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms," and the piece is entitled "A War we Might Just Win."

The Op-Ed is an exercise in rank deceit from the start. To lavish themselves with credibility -- as though they are war skeptics whom you can trust -- they identify themselves at the beginning "as two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq." In reality, they were not only among the biggest cheerleaders for the war, but repeatedly praised the Pentagon's strategy in Iraq and continuously assured Americans things were going well. They are among the primary authors and principal deceivers responsible for this disaster."


I obviously can't comment on the content of the article -- Pollack and O'Hanlon were ostensibly in Iraq investigating, and I obviously haven't done that. Maybe Pollack and O'Hanlon are right. I can't discount that.

But to prop up this editorial as somehow being indicative of an enormous sea change in the course of events in Iraq ("zomg even those commies at the NYT admit things are going well!" Copernicus cackles) is sheer dishonesty. Pollack and O'Hanlon can hardly be considered war critics, let alone objective journalists, given their historic cheerleading for this war, and their reputations which are now tied to it.

I reject the notion "the press" is ignoring this; Pollack and O'Hanlon have been all over cable news this past week. But if you insist on claiming the press is "ignoring" this, my guess is the press is "ignoring" this because these guys are rather transparent war hawks who are doing exactly what's expected: continuing to support a war they've been beating the drums for all along.