Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. Full Story »
Posted by Kaizar Campwala
This story is the latest version of The New York Times' pro-administration propaganda posing as journalism (remember Judy Miller?). O'Hanlon and Pollack call themselves, "two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administrations miserable handling of Iraq." That is nonsense and their editors at the Times should not have let them rewrite their own history. Both authors have a long Neo-Con history of agitating for the war, and then supporting it. Pollack's 2002 book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq was a pro Bush, pro war propaganda piece. During this same period O'Hanlon argued that, " there is a case for overthrowing Mr. Hussein...[that] has more to do with the regions security than with any unlikely Hussein-al-Qaeda link. [Baltimore Sun, Sept. 26, 2002]. In January of this year O'Hanlon wrote a Washington Post op-ed entitled, "A Skeptic's Case for the Surge." Though written as a straight news story, at least the Times had the grace to put it in the Opinion section. Reader beware!
