Sunday, August 12, 2007

Greenwald on O'Pollack.

Remember that NY Times op/ed the Republican candidates, and the wingnuts and corporate media got so excited about? It was pure bunk.

Just devastating.
With the possible exception of their observations about U.S. troop morale and the McCain-like claims about the isolated, peaceful strolls they were led on by the military, Pollack and O'Hanlon could have just as easily stayed at home, spoken on the telephone with U.S. military commanders, written down what they said, and then "reported" everything exactly as they did in their Op-Ed. The trip to Iraq part was just a prop in the argument, something to bestow unwarranted and artificial credibility on their war cheerleading claims.
And make sure to read the interview transcript. I love this exchange:

Greenwald: You said that Weapons of Mass Destruction was a significant part of the conclusion that you reached that we ought to invade Iraq. There were people, of course, like Howard Dean and Jim Webb, who were saying that we don't actually know with enough certainty and ought to let the inspectors find out. Then there were other people like Scott Ritter who were saying: no, there's actually no convincing evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and plenty of evidence that they don't.

Would you agree on that question that that group of individuals expressing those views exercised better judgment than you did?


O'Hanlon: Um . . . . well, it's hard to disagree when somebody got it right and you got it wrong.
Ouch.

No comments: