An inteview by Glenn Greenwald with Michael O’Hanlon, wherein Mr. O’Hanlon has the decency to admit that characterizations of himself as a “vocal critic of the war” are utter and complete bullshit.
Which he does. He also goes on to describe the circumstances of his trip, and how each and every contact was arranged and controlled by the Dept. of Defense. If you are interested in seeing this bit of horseshit thoroughly debunked straight from the horse’s, ah, “mouth”…go to this interview.
Response to elucidator’s link to the O’Hanlon interview: I understand that Pollack has a similar level of decency and intellectual honesty.
I need a cite if you are claiming that Powell and Rice claimed in 2001 that Iraq had no WMDs. (Later, after the invasion, they presumably have confirmed that, but we’re talking about pre-war public information here.)
Ritter, Hans Blik, foreign press: Been there, done that. Actually, I did better than that by posting my opinions on this board, thus exposing my take on hundreds of extra eyeballs.
Rough drafts of some of my posts are sometimes saved to my hard drive. Let’s turn back the clock. (The actual post probably differed somewhat, but I’d rather not deal with the board’s wonky search engine):
My arguments heavily depended upon the book by Kenneth Pollack. So I’m back on topic!
Well, then it’s a good thing I didn’t characterize him as such, huh?
Elsewhere I noted that both of them initially supported the war. Greenwald’s ‘big expose’ appears to be that Hanlon and Pollock have only opposed the administration’s conduct of the war for 3 years instead of four or five.
BTW, just to refresh your memory in case you think I’m a ‘rah rah cheerleader’ for the administration or painting a rosy scenario of what’s going on in Iraq, I finished my OP like this:
By the way, how come a person’s views are automatically dicredited if they ever supported the war, but if a person has always vocally opposed the war their views are taken as gospel? If one side is to be dismissed for bias, shouldn’t the other? Glenn Greenwald is an extremely anti-war pundit, who has been leveling all kinds of accusations at the military and others with wild abandon. I fail to see how a guy like Greenwald is a valid cite, while if I posted the opinions of say, Bill Kristol I’d be savaged. But it’s always easier to swallow the accusations and claims of someone you agree with, and that works for both sides.
So maybe, just maybe, we should stop trying to carry out ideological purity tests on the messengers and instead just debate the message? At this point, I conclude the following:
As a military operation, the surge is working so far.
The surge is only half of the solution. The other half, the political process, is broken and not improving at all.
FTR, here is Glenn Greenwald’s position, from the article:
I don’t dismiss Kristol for bias. I don’t dismiss Fox News for bias. Having an opinion doesn’t bother me.
No, it’s intellectual honesty and a concern for getting the argument right that concerns me. Those who paint O’Hanlon and Pollack as war-opponents-who-have-changed-their-mind are being grossly misleading, whether by intention or otherwise.
No, mostly because the political process isn’t, “The other half”: it’s all of it. Furthermore, as of May 2007, Iraqi civilian deaths were the same compared with the previous year. Other year-on-year measures of process are either flat or declining (with the exception of telephone service, which has gotten better). Here’s my data, by the way. Let’s hope the year-on-year August numbers are better.
(Those who want more recent figures can visit the Brookings website and slog through the tables.)
Well, yes you did, Sam after a long and detailed recitation from the, ahem, “article” of truly splended progress that seems to have escaped the attention of many, many people. Did you note wherein Mr. O’Hanlon admits that everything he saw, everyone he talked to, was stage-managed by the DoD? Did that escape your attention?
Working? In what regard is it “working”? The idea, as I understand it, was that the surge would provide stability and security such that the political process could proceed. On the assumption that the political process was stalled due to a lack of security in Baghdad, which the surge would fix. So either the surge did not suceed, or the wrong cure was applied.
Is it not entirely possible that political reconciliation is not proceeding because none of the principal players want it to? The operation was a complete success, but the patient died.
Here you go, Sam, more vitriol from America-hating, pinko-commies who appear, none the less, to have been “right” (as was the “left*” in general worldwide) from the get-go:
Would that the warmongers finally put-down their pom-poms and realize just how fucked-up their rationalizations were from before Day 1.
That, of course, would entail dealing with reality. Is that an even possibility amongst the last of the hardcore – or are they going to have to go the way of the Mohicans?
ETA= *“left” as in anyone who dared disagree with The Decider.
Because the first person’s informedness and judgment have been shown generally sound, and the second person’s have been shown to be generally unsound. Now does that *really * require an explanation? :dubious:
No. They aren’t two “halves” of anything. One is the alleged precondition for the other, as you should have understood when Bush first announced it. Now, *given * that the political process is not improving, and given that there is no basis for belief that it will, what does that mean for the usefulness of the military operation to allow it to happen? Class?
Sure did, bud – busting chops that’s all. Just making sure 'luc wasn’t the only willing to eat their own. What? He thinks he’s got the leftyy cannibal franchise all of his own? Bah! Tex-Minnesota wannabe Leckter puss
Puppies with Corn Pops, fried eggs, a stack of flatcakes with hot maple syrop, hash-browns and a side of (pink obviously) T-bone. Now there’s an unbeatable mans’ man brunch-- just wished those pinko-commies at IHOP would hurry-up and put it on their menu. 'nuff with the “little piggies in a blanket” Conservative cop-out.
I don’t know if Powell or Rice ever explicitly stated that Saddam had no WMD but prior to 9/11 they most certainly were downplaying the idea and publicly dismissed any idea that he was a threat to either the US or his neighbours.
Thanks for digging up that link Eolbo: I think I understand now.
It’s true that Saddam was in a box in 2001: neither Powell, nor Rice nor even Pollack said otherwise. The fear though at the time was that he was developing WMDs, not that he had them (aside from some possible chemical arsenals). Strictly speaking, Marshmallow’s initial statement was correct though – Saddam was not believed to actually possess nukes or weaponized bioweapons IIRC during that period.
So was it just faulty intelligence? Not in my opinion. In at least 3 instances (yellowcake, aluminum tubes and supposed biovans) , the evidence was cooked and the behavior a disgrace.
Not in my opinion either. With everything that’s now known I think it’s abundantly clear that the intelligence wasn’t so much faulty as it was flagrantly distorted and manipulated. In my view the publication of the Downing Street memo comprehensively and utterly demolished the “it was all just a mistake” theory.
