Why Michael O'Hanlon Can Never Be Allowed In A Democratic Administration

Via atrios, Think Progress has the video of Iraq war "critic" and proven liar Michael O'Hanlon criticizing the GAO's Iraq report because it does not jibe with General Petraeus' conclusions:

“I have to be quite critical of the GAO. . . . Gen. Petraeus just gave an interview, I think yesterday, to an Australian paper, in which he said that there could be a 75 percent reduction in sectarian killing since the winter time. Now let’s allow for the possibility that Petraeus’ data isn’t quite right. . . . I hope it’s a flaw in the draft that will be improved in the final result.

Michael O'Hanlon is a dishonest person.

He says he supports Hillary Clinton. She needs to immediately disavow any connection with Mr. O'Hanlon.

< Friday Diary Rescue | Goodbye, Karl Rove >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Nebulous Comment... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by garyb50 on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 03:33:12 PM EST
    I just happened to catch a different part of this O'Hanlon CNN segment and what struck me was that he's a master of saying almost nothing. I don't know how else to describe it. He somehow manages to say nothing conclusive at all. Maybe it's an art or something taught in universities (back in 2002 a niece I dearly love(D) who has now gone big time into  PR told me there is no such thing as 'truth' - I've never been able to get over that and we now have a strained relationship.

    O'Hanlon will say to you murder is bad but maybe murder isn't bad.

    The word that popped into my mind watching him was weasel. O'Hanlon is very very weaselly.

    Truth (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Peaches on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 04:34:44 PM EST

    make up with your niece. You're niece may be confused or taken some PR philosophy the wrong way. There is such a thing as truth. There is just no such thing as Truth. Truth is something that can be proved and nothing can ever disprove it, such as the philosphical example all bachelors are single. We don't need to get into philosophy and I don't want to go over Post-modernism and all the confusion that comes out of that, of which there is no Truth is one example, but the truth is truth can only be reached through social consensus and this means that truth is often manipulated through those that write the history or tell the stories. what really happened is often beyond most people grasp and what we are left with is only what we can verify through our own experience informing our common sense.

    O'hanlon is one of those that muddies the attempts to reach consensus on truth. There are many of these types and it is difficult not to be confused from their attempts, even for those who are rational. If O'halon is successful, eventually one feels he or she is isolated and not really in grasp of truth, such as myself who never believed there were WMD's in Iraq pre invasion. We were not in the majority and out of touch with truth (although closer to Truth) due to a PR campaign.

    Sometimes it helps to understand the campaigns and those who attempt to manipulate truth, so make up with you niece.


    Thank you so much... (none / 0) (#8)
    by garyb50 on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 04:49:04 PM EST
    You have flipped right over my angry, unforgiving, cynical heart to my loving, understanding, & gentle one.

    I can't do it for George & posse but I can definately do it with my niece.

    Again, thank you Peaches.


    There could be a 75% reduction in (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 08:54:30 PM EST
    sectarian killings since the winter time and then there could not be a 75% reduction in sectarian killings since the winter time.  There could be a 75% increase in sectarian killings since the winter time or maybe since the spring time with a 75% reduction of a 75% reduction in sectarian killings in the fall......lucky numbers 12, 17, 35, 39, 42

    Since there is no independent ... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Meteor Blades on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 10:33:29 PM EST
    ...verification of civilian death numbers, how can any 75% figure mean anything at all?

    The investigators of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq discovered when they were putting together their report for the January-March quarter of 2007 that, since the splurge began, the Iraqi government was no longer sharing its raw data on civilian deaths, making verification of ANYbody's figures more difficult, at best. The reason for this, a UN spokesman said in late April? Because the numbers of dead might be construed to indicate that the splurge wasn't working.

    Dear Hillary Rodham (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:13:49 PM EST
    Clinton: Please read and heed. P.S. Perhaps President Bush should appoint this "expert" to Tony Snow's job. P.P.S. How could anyone say this w/a straight face?
    Now let's allow for the possibility that Petraeus' data isn't quite right. . . .

    parasite (none / 0) (#2)
    by manys on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:55:19 PM EST
    Are there people like O'Hanlon who are like remoras, attaching themselves to things that would otherwise eat them in hopes of feeding from their enemies' scraps and having some influence if they're lucky?

    Has H. Clinton disclosed (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:37:39 PM EST
    which Republicans she may appoint to her cabinet if she is elected?

    Rockefeller Republican Democrat (none / 0) (#7)
    by koshembos on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 04:37:41 PM EST
    O'Honlan and Peter Fenn are two examples of a variant that usually requires a sex operation. They are both Democrats, although with a microscoping D, and Republicans. You say, let's treat them as Republicans; I agree.

    Influential (none / 0) (#10)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:34:00 PM EST
    I think it's too late.

    There's been a lot of wavering on the Democratic side since O'Hanlon and Pollack made their reports. I don't think these were targeted at the general population but at Democratic insiders. I think these guys basically control Democratic Party foreign policy thinking.