August 03, 2007
All Conclusions Are Not Created Equal
Beinart mentions that the Council for Foreign Relations' Senior Defense Fellow Stephen Biddle has argued and testified against leaving any residual forces in Iraq. Biddle's as credible and seasoned an expert as Michael O'Hanlon, and he works at the most establishment-oriented think tank in the country. Yet his testimony on the subject was never mentioned by the media, while O'Hanlon and Pollack, whose research in Iraq consisted of a tour planned by American officials and babysat by the American military, become a multi-day, critically important story. Again: Why? Why does O'Hanlon and Pollack's tepid shift towards support of the surge after a military-guided tour so vastly outweigh Biddles tough conclusions?
Anyway, read Biddle here.
August 3, 2007 | Permalink
Why does O'Hanlon and Pollack's tepid shift towards support of the surge after a military-guided tour so vastly outweigh Biddles tough conclusions?
Hmmm. Off-hand I'd that it was because of "O'Hanlon and Pollack's tepid shift towards support of the surge after a military-guided tour".
The mainstream news producers almost always embrace those complimenting hawkish foreign policies over anyone dissenting from them.
Posted by: El Cid | Aug 3, 2007 12:48:44 PM
I'd say the choice is one based on career pragmatism. citing Hanlon, et al, isn't going to piss off anyone in the power elite to the detriment of their careers. The putative partisan credentials, however irrelevant to the positions such opinators advocate, allow a pretense of journalistic integrity as per the MSM's vaunted commitment to "objectivity" and "even handedness." It's a win-win for them even if it's a lose-lose for the rest of us.
Never assume that people who draw 6 figures for playing information gate keeper are interested in anything more substantial than their own carreer prospects.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Aug 3, 2007 1:01:57 PM
Paging Dr. Freud ... I think you mean "leaving forces in Iraq".
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Aug 3, 2007 1:08:53 PM
Leaving residual forces WHERE????????
Posted by: Mike Toreno | Aug 3, 2007 1:11:05 PM
Why? Easy. Because if you are against the war and occupation, you are against freedom and America.
Posted by: Hank Essay | Aug 3, 2007 1:21:02 PM
It's not shift in the first place, these were supporters of the war, and subsequent supporters of the 'surge'. They weren't there on some fact-finding mission! The trip was arranged and conducted so they could write this op-ed on behalf of Bush. Biddle isn't discussed, because, um, he's not saying what Bush wants to hear.
Posted by: itsbenj | Aug 3, 2007 1:37:26 PM
Same question, same answer, as far as I can tell.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 3, 2007 2:06:47 PM
Why? Pro-War coverage is cheaper and therefore more profitable than anti-war coverage...
Posted by: owlbear1 | Aug 3, 2007 2:45:58 PM
Why? Why Ezra would you even ask that question? You know the answer.
Posted by: Lee | Aug 3, 2007 3:08:15 PM
I just pretend I'm a Russian in the '50's reading Pravda.
Posted by: peggy | Aug 3, 2007 3:39:10 PM
Posted by: judy | Oct 11, 2007 7:58:28 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.