home

The Credibility (Or Lack Thereof) of O'Hanlon and Pollack

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 01:42:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

As an "Evil Democrat", wishing us defeat in Iraq, let me further undermine the troops by pointing to posts that demonstrate why Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack have lost all credibility on Iraq:

Glenn Greenwald

Think Progress

Greg Sargent and . . . .

Joe Klein. Yep, that Joe Klein.

See also Robert Farley:

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack's New York Times op-ed is a litany of utter dishonesty and misrepresentation; like Matt, I'm wondering whether any of the Democratic candidates will step up and try to win the "O'Hanlon primary" by publicly rejecting his strategic advice. O'Hanlon and Pollack insist that this is "a war that we just might win" without pausing to indicate what "victory" means in this context; at best, it seems, we could hope for some temporary stability. They seem to define stability as a reduction of civilian casualty rates by "roughly a third since the surge began". I've written before about the nonsensical efforts of surge advocates to claim success by pointing to Iraqi government casualty figures; no one believes that those figures are accurate, including the US military, the Iraqi government, and any sensible analyst. . . .
< Leveraging Iraq | Cheney Expresses Support for Gonzales and Libby >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Credibility (Or Lack Thereof) of O'Hanlon and Pollack | 7 comments (7 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Explain why (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by SoCali on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    The NYT gives space to these discredited "experts" to publish more of the same rhetoric and what has in the past turned out to be thinly veiled propaganda.
    The pundits, "experts" and cheerleaders of the war, who have been proven wrong about going into the war, the next corner, next six months, next elections, next benchmark, fall, 2008 and on and on, should be utterly discredited but instead we find them constantly on the MSM and in major news outlets like the Times without an admission of how wrong they have been in the past.

    If one did not believe in conspiracies prior to this war, the propaganda campaign during the run up to the war should have made you waiver.  Then during the last few war years we seen every possible excuse used to explain away what seem to be obvious truths  and that should have crumbled whatever foundation was left. Yet the propaganda continues unabated and it is time to understand where this war drumbeat comes from.
    It seems clear that our foreign policy and this war in particular is being directed by interests that are at odds with our national interests and it is being channeled through our media outlets.
    If someone can explain how that is happening, I would love to hear a non-conspiratorial explanation.

    drum roll...... (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by RedHead on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:41:48 PM EST

    I do fear, however, that those who are politically committed to ending the war will resist evidence of good news, that it will take an unusually strong dose of good news to see good news as good news.

    I'm surprised she didn't label the post, "Mission Accomplished"

    Very nice (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 02:19:02 PM EST
    Good warm up for my gearing up to take on the Cheerleaders From Hell!

    Ewwww you made Althouse's comments (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 02:23:53 PM EST
    section.....THOU ARE AN EVIL AD HOMINEMER.  Try saying that five times fast ;)

    I noticed the entirety of TalkLeft's argument consisted of ad hominems against the two authors.


    [ Parent ]
    Ewwww! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 04:45:31 PM EST
    You read outhouse!? ;-)

    But thanks, it saves my beautiful brain from being exposed to such hateful nonsense.

    [ Parent ]

    It's a question of (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 02:59:47 PM EST
    reading comprehension.


    [ Parent ]
    "Committed" as in Creedmoor ?? (none / 0) (#7)
    by RedHead on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:44:29 PM EST
    politically committed

    yeah, politicos like General Odom

    The Credibility (Or Lack Thereof) of O'Hanlon and Pollack | 7 comments (7 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment