New York Times OP-ED supporting the Iraq surge?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Hacp
OP ED=/= Editorial. Anyone can submit an OP ED.
This is the NY fricken Times. Their OP-EDs have more power than most newspapers news stories.
This is HUGE for them to post something with a title like this.
And like most mainstream papers, the NYT regularly publishes Op-Eds from diverse parts of the political spectrum.
 

bGIveNs33

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2002
1,543
0
71
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Hacp
OP ED=/= Editorial. Anyone can submit an OP ED.
This is the NY fricken Times. Their OP-EDs have more power than most newspapers news stories.
This is HUGE for them to post something with a title like this.
And like most mainstream papers, the NYT regularly publishes Op-Eds from diverse parts of the political spectrum.

They normally post two extremely left-wing journalist who have been overly critical of Bush claiming that he is making progress in Iraq?

edit: I'll take a link if you can find one
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Hacp
OP ED=/= Editorial. Anyone can submit an OP ED.
This is the NY fricken Times. Their OP-EDs have more power than most newspapers news stories.
This is HUGE for them to post something with a title like this.
And like most mainstream papers, the NYT regularly publishes Op-Eds from diverse parts of the political spectrum.
They normally post two extremely left-wing journalist who have been overly critical of Bush claiming that he is making progress in Iraq?

edit: I'll take a link if you can find one
OK, that's stupid. How would I provide a link demonstrating they regularly publish diverse op-eds? They must publish over one thousand op-eds a year, maybe two or three times that many. Only a blatant partisan would claim they don't cover a broad spectrum of positions. Perhaps I should just give you a link to the NYT archive and you can count them yourself. :roll:

Your allegation, on the other hand, is relatively specific and defined. You should be able to support it with objective evidence. Please provide your link supporting your claim that these are two "extremely left-wing journalists" and that they have been "overly critical of Bush". All they say in the OP is that they've "harshly criticized the Bush administration?s miserable handling of Iraq". That puts them in the same boat as about 90% of Americans these days. Even many of the Bush faithful are acknowledging this ... finally.
 

bGIveNs33

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2002
1,543
0
71
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Hacp
OP ED=/= Editorial. Anyone can submit an OP ED.
This is the NY fricken Times. Their OP-EDs have more power than most newspapers news stories.
This is HUGE for them to post something with a title like this.
And like most mainstream papers, the NYT regularly publishes Op-Eds from diverse parts of the political spectrum.
They normally post two extremely left-wing journalist who have been overly critical of Bush claiming that he is making progress in Iraq?

edit: I'll take a link if you can find one
OK, that's stupid. How would I provide a link demonstrating they regularly publish diverse op-eds? They must publish over one thousand op-eds a year, maybe two or three times that many. Only a blatant partisan would claim they don't cover a broad spectrum of positions. Perhaps I should just give you a link to the NYT archive and you can count them yourself. :roll:

Your allegation, on the other hand, is relatively specific and defined. You should be able to support it with objective evidence. Please provide your link supporting your claim that these are two "extremely left-wing journalists" and that they have been "overly critical of Bush". All they say in the OP is that they've "harshly criticized the Bush administration?s miserable handling of Iraq". That puts them in the same boat as about 90% of Americans these days. Even many of the Bush faithful are acknowledging this ... finally.

Ok, in the interest of semantics, I'll rephrase. How often does the New York Times op-ed section publish an article written by two people who have been historically harshly critical of Bush and now concede that we might be getting somewhere? I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm asking you to provide links proving the regular diversity, I'm asking for a link that follows that same format. As ProfJon pointed out, this is a rather big deal. The New York times is a huge deal. Just so we're clear on this, because we obviously weren't the first time. How many times has a major newspaper published an article with a "harshly critical" author(of the Bush administration) somewhat recanting and saying, "we actually could win"?

And just you understand me completely, you posted -

"And like most mainstream papers, the NYT regularly publishes Op-Eds from diverse parts of the political spectrum."

Implying that this sort of thing has happened before, and I'm asking for a link of a journalist, harshly critical of the bush administration, conceding that "we could win". Now, I don't want this-

"link demonstrating they regularly publish diverse op-eds?"

I'm not sure where you got that idea, I just want one. You seem to think that this is a normal thing, so you should have no problem finding at least one.

Thanks!
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I think the most important aspect of this entire OP-ED is the nature and history of the reporters involved. Do a little search on their older stuff, and this new piece becomes much more profound.

Then again, this is old news for those of us involved...

The OP here had two great points, but he forgot one. I added #2 below:
1) Plenty of military gains
2) Plenty of small gains in local governance.
3) Not enough political gains - either here or in Iraq - at the National level. (read: too much hate and too much time spent playing the blame game!)

Our eventual success in Iraq truly depends on all three of the above being in the green. Until that time, we need to keep our heads up, and we need to keep working hard!

Just because the Left has already given up, and will try with their every breath to convince you that we've already lost, doesnt make it so. Americans are very resourceful and tenacious when they need to be... so we shall see!
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Some interesting stuff about the guys who wrote this piece. Should put an end to the ?it?s only an OP-ED? BS being tried by a few on here.
KENNETH M. POLLACK:
Education
Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996; B.A., Yale University, 1988
Background
Previous Position(s): Director for National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations (2001-2002); Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, National Security Council (1999-2001); Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs, National Security Council (1995-1996); Senior Research Professor, National Defense University (1998-99, 2001); Iran-Iraq Military Analyst, Central Intelligence Agency (1988-1995)

Notice that all the National Security Council stuff took place while Clinton was in office.
He has also written some pretty negative things about the Iraq war for magazines such as The New Republic. Check out this gem of a line:
?The primary cause of our current problems in Iraq is the reckless, and often foolish, manner in which this administration has waged the war and the reconstruction.?

MICHAEL E. O?HANLON:
Education
Ph.D. (1991), M.A. (1988), M.S.E. (1987), A.B. (1982), Princeton University
Background
Current Position(s): Visiting Lecturer, Princeton University

Previous Position(s): Defense and Foreign Policy Analyst, National Security Division, Congressional Budget Office (1989-94); Research Assistant, Institute for Defense Analyses; Peace Corps Volunteer, Congo

Among O?Hanlon?s published work is one titled ?Clinton?s Strong Defense Legacy? not exactly the title of a neo-con written piece now is it?
He also wrote a piece called ?Iraq Without a Plan?

If these two had written an article calling the surge a failure and advocating that we give up and pull out the left wing of P&N would be referring to them as geniuses.

The left on P&N, like their counter parts in congress, are still debating Iraq as if it is the fall of 2006 and are ignoring the changes that have taken place in the past six months.
If things continue to improve and the September report is fairly positive the anti-war wing of the Democrat party will find itself cut off at the knees. Read the comments of House Majority Whip James Clyburn for proof of this.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
the surge idea (the actually plan behind it not just the throwing more troops into iraq) isn't bad, and is pretty much what sould have been done from the start. The question I have is who/what/when is going to muck it up, and whether they are doing it right in the first place.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: umbrella39
:roll:
Is that the best you can do? :)

It's a hell of a lot more than your tripe deseves, I'll give you that and a :cookie: to think about how far your head is up your ass.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: umbrella39
:roll:
Is that the best you can do? :)
It's a hell of a lot more than your tripe deseves, I'll give you that and a :cookie: to think about how far your head is up your ass.
So your telling me that the opinion of these two Democrats is tripe?

I suggest you re-read the Op-Ed and then Google the names of the two guys who wrote and read what they wrote previously about the war. These are two people who have been very tough on Bush and the war and now they see reason to be optimistic that is HUGE.
 

DangerAardvark

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2004
7,581
0
0
Do you realize how retarded blaming the left for the mess the right got us into sounds?

Hint: It sounds real retarded.

All the opposition to Bush, all the "defeatist" attitudes and all the skepticism is completely justified. You guys act like people are anti-Bush because just to spite him. Reality is we were burned about ten too many times.

Experience tells us that the Surge is just another step in the never-ending line of fuck-ups. But until the September proves us wrong don't act like we're the ones that are being unreasonable by doubting it.

Until then, keep crowing about every scrap of evidence that comes in that Iraq is less of a shithole today than it was yesterday. I'm glad that Iraq is slightly less on fire today, don't get me wrong. But have some perspective here. The surge was a last minute longshot, and even if things improve there, it doesn't absolve anyone of the blame of getting us into that position to begin with.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: umbrella39
:roll:
Is that the best you can do? :)
It's a hell of a lot more than your tripe deseves, I'll give you that and a :cookie: to think about how far your head is up your ass.
So your telling me that the opinion of these two Democrats is tripe?

I suggest you re-read the Op-Ed and then Google the names of the two guys who wrote and read what they wrote previously about the war. These are two people who have been very tough on Bush and the war and now they see reason to be optimistic that is HUGE.

I suggest you start keeping better score of who cares about your political opinions. Your silly rant is dependant upon me giving a shit about these guys opinions yesterday, today, or tomorrow for that matter after a whole 8 days. You act as though some OP-ED piece is the Gospel simply because it fits your myopic view of a war you are too scared to fight in. Again, here is your :cookie: you are a quick eater I can see.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: Deudalus

Well this is kinda interesting.

I know this wont make our resident knee jerking trolls happy, but it is interesting none the less. I will be waiting with anticipation for one of you to chime in saying that the NYTimes is a conservative mouthpiece now :)

I think the report is fairly accurate though:

Plenty of military gains
Not enough political gains either here or in Iraq

Thoughts?


I think what is going on is that people in the know know that the surge is having an effect so they need an escape from their more rabid get out of Iraq supporters.

Congress and the Press are so intertwined at times its hard to tell who is talking. Guarantee someone in Congress is making sure this gets out as a "trial balloon" or an attempt to mitigate negative response if a positive report gets out. In other words, its a "get out of jail free card". don't put it past many to manipulate public opinion using the press.


Do I think we should leave. Yep. Still I also believe that many in Congress who are clamouring for us to leave really don't want to. If they cannot get Bush to withdraw do you honestly think the next President, if a Democrat, will?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: Deudalus

Well this is kinda interesting.

I know this wont make our resident knee jerking trolls happy, but it is interesting none the less. I will be waiting with anticipation for one of you to chime in saying that the NYTimes is a conservative mouthpiece now :)

I think the report is fairly accurate though:

Plenty of military gains
Not enough political gains either here or in Iraq

Thoughts?


I think what is going on is that people in the know know that the surge is having an effect so they need an escape from their more rabid get out of Iraq supporters.

Congress and the Press are so intertwined at times its hard to tell who is talking. Guarantee someone in Congress is making sure this gets out as a "trial balloon" or an attempt to mitigate negative response if a positive report gets out. In other words, its a "get out of jail free card". don't put it past many to manipulate public opinion using the press.


Do I think we should leave. Yep. Still I also believe that many in Congress who are clamouring for us to leave really don't want to. If they cannot get Bush to withdraw do you honestly think the next President, if a Democrat, will?

For all we know any progress made could be atrtributed to the fact they the Iraqis have the threat of a timetable and withdrawl hanging over their heads if they don't start showing results.

They needed that several years ago but instead we got lies and deception from the WH so he could get re-elected. Remember all the troops they tried to claim were trained or Cheney and his "last throes"?

It also could be a combination of the threat of withdrawl coupled with the surge. In any case I hope it's true and that the progress continues.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Your allegation, on the other hand, is relatively specific and defined. You should be able to support it with objective evidence. Please provide your link supporting your claim that these are two "extremely left-wing journalists" and that they have been "overly critical of Bush". All they say in the OP is that they've "harshly criticized the Bush administration?s miserable handling of Iraq". That puts them in the same boat as about 90% of Americans these days. Even many of the Bush faithful are acknowledging this ... finally.

After reading the article, but before reading your post, I googled these guys. Just go check out wiki.

They are not "lightweights" and they are not conservatives. Nor can find anything where they were "war" supporters etc.

While this may be called an Op/Ed, it does contain quite a bit of reporting. They were there, they traveled and they investigated. This is more like investigative journalism than Op/Ed.

Nor are they alone in their assessment. ATM I can't remember the guys name (older gray headed bearded fellow), a famous anti-war journalist who's opinion on the surge and progress in Iraq is the same as the above authors.

There appears to be a developing concensus, even among the lefties, that progress is occuring.

Fern
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Your silly rant is dependant upon me giving a shit about these guys opinions yesterday, today, or tomorrow for that matter after a whole 8 days. You act as though some OP-ED piece is the Gospel simply because it fits your myopic view of a war you are too scared to fight in. Again, here is your you are a quick eater I can see.
So OP-ED pieces are only relevant when they cater to your myopic worldview...we will keep that in mind for future threads.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
It also could be a combination of the threat of withdrawal coupled with the surge.
I think you're correct in that analysis.

In any case I hope it's true and that the progress continues.
I'm with you on that. :beer:

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Your allegation, on the other hand, is relatively specific and defined. You should be able to support it with objective evidence. Please provide your link supporting your claim that these are two "extremely left-wing journalists" and that they have been "overly critical of Bush". All they say in the OP is that they've "harshly criticized the Bush administration?s miserable handling of Iraq". That puts them in the same boat as about 90% of Americans these days. Even many of the Bush faithful are acknowledging this ... finally.
After reading the article, but before reading your post, I googled these guys. Just go check out wiki.

They are not "lightweights" and they are not conservatives. Nor can find anything where they were "war" supporters etc.

While this may be called an Op/Ed, it does contain quite a bit of reporting. They were there, they traveled and they investigated. This is more like investigative journalism than Op/Ed.

Nor are they alone in their assessment. ATM I can't remember the guys name (older gray headed bearded fellow), a famous anti-war journalist who's opinion on the surge and progress in Iraq is the same as the above authors.

There appears to be a developing concensus, even among the lefties, that progress is occuring.

Fern
Sorry, what's your point? I did not say these guys were "lightweights" (even though you put it in quotes, as if attributing it to me). I did not say they were "conservatives". I did not say they were "war supporters". Right off the bat, it appears you've stuffed a nice straw man.

If you re-read my comment, you'll also note I said nothing to suggest their opinion was wrong or that there weren't others who believe progress is occurring in Iraq. All I did say is that it's hardly remarkable or significant that the NYT published an Op-Ed favorable to the BushCo position on Iraq. The Times publishes Op-Eds covering a broad spectrum of opinions, and don't forget they were initially a vocal cheerleader for the Bush's attack on Iraq.

I also asked bGIveNs33 to support his claim these guys are (or were) "two extremely left-wing journalist [sic]" and that they have been "overly critical of Bush". You'll note he has failed to support either claim with links or quotes.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I also asked bGIveNs33 to support his claim these guys are (or were) "two extremely left-wing journalist [sic]" and that they have been "overly critical of Bush". You'll note he has failed to support either claim with links or quotes.
I believe that your favorite poster, PJ, answered that challenge further back in the thread. Here's the info he provided:

KENNETH M. POLLACK:
Education
Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996; B.A., Yale University, 1988
Background
Previous Position(s): Director for National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations (2001-2002); Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, National Security Council (1999-2001); Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs, National Security Council (1995-1996); Senior Research Professor, National Defense University (1998-99, 2001); Iran-Iraq Military Analyst, Central Intelligence Agency (1988-1995)


Notice that all the National Security Council stuff took place while Clinton was in office.
He has also written some pretty negative things about the Iraq war for magazines such as The New Republic. Check out this gem of a line:
?The primary cause of our current problems in Iraq is the reckless, and often foolish, manner in which this administration has waged the war and the reconstruction.?

MICHAEL E. O?HANLON:
Education
Ph.D. (1991), M.A. (1988), M.S.E. (1987), A.B. (1982), Princeton University
Background
Current Position(s): Visiting Lecturer, Princeton University

Previous Position(s): Defense and Foreign Policy Analyst, National Security Division, Congressional Budget Office (1989-94); Research Assistant, Institute for Defense Analyses; Peace Corps Volunteer, Congo


Among O?Hanlon?s published work is one titled ?Clinton?s Strong Defense Legacy? not exactly the title of a neo-con written piece now is it?

He also wrote a piece called ?Iraq Without a Plan?
So please, feel free to admit you were pretty much wrong... it's OK. We'll forgive ya, I promise! ;)
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76

Bush officials subpoenaed in AIPAC trial
By NATHAN GUTTMAN
WASHINGTON
JPost

Attorneys for former AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) employees Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman are asking to subpoena US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and several other high ranking administration officials to testify in their trial that is scheduled to begin next month.

In a series of motions presented to the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, Rosen and Weissman's attorneys name also National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, his deputy Elliot Abrams, former assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns, his former deputy and now Deputy Chief of Mission in Iraq David Satterfield, former US envoy to the Middle East General Anthony Zinni, former member of the National Security Committee Kenneth Pollack and Larry Franklin, a former Pentagon analyst who has already pleaded guilty to leaking classified information to the two AIPAC staffers.

The court has put the requests for subpoenas under seal and did not disclose publicly the names of the witnesses sought by the defense, but an Associated Press report over the weekend gave the names of those mentioned in the requests.

Rosen and Weissman are charged with receiving classified information from Franklin and passing it on to Israeli diplomats and members of the press.

It is now up to the court to decide whether to permit the defense to subpoenas current and former administration official and there is no indication yet how the judge will react to the requests. Sources close to the case have said in the past that it was expected the prosecution would oppose any attempt to bring administration officials to the courtroom.

Though the requests for subpoenas are under seal, it is assumed that the reason for wanting Rice and other officials to testify is to strengthen the defense's argument that the actions of Rosen and Weissman were common practice in the relationship between administration officials and lobbyists in Washington.

Two of the officials named in the requests - Satterfield and Pollack - are mentioned in the indictment against Rosen and Weissman as government officials who provided information to the two former AIPAC employees.

Pollack is just another US über alles nazi. He has never hidden his support of the invasion.

The fact that Pollack and Hanlon are critical of the mishandling of the invasion does not mean they are not avid supporters of it.







 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I also asked bGIveNs33 to support his claim these guys are (or were) "two extremely left-wing journalist [sic]" and that they have been "overly critical of Bush". You'll note he has failed to support either claim with links or quotes.
I believe that your favorite poster, PJ, answered that challenge further back in the thread. Here's the info he provided:

KENNETH M. POLLACK:
Education
Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996; B.A., Yale University, 1988
Background
Previous Position(s): Director for National Security Studies, Council on Foreign Relations (2001-2002); Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, National Security Council (1999-2001); Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs, National Security Council (1995-1996); Senior Research Professor, National Defense University (1998-99, 2001); Iran-Iraq Military Analyst, Central Intelligence Agency (1988-1995)


Notice that all the National Security Council stuff took place while Clinton was in office.
He has also written some pretty negative things about the Iraq war for magazines such as The New Republic. Check out this gem of a line:
?The primary cause of our current problems in Iraq is the reckless, and often foolish, manner in which this administration has waged the war and the reconstruction.?

MICHAEL E. O?HANLON:
Education
Ph.D. (1991), M.A. (1988), M.S.E. (1987), A.B. (1982), Princeton University
Background
Current Position(s): Visiting Lecturer, Princeton University

Previous Position(s): Defense and Foreign Policy Analyst, National Security Division, Congressional Budget Office (1989-94); Research Assistant, Institute for Defense Analyses; Peace Corps Volunteer, Congo


Among O?Hanlon?s published work is one titled ?Clinton?s Strong Defense Legacy? not exactly the title of a neo-con written piece now is it?

He also wrote a piece called ?Iraq Without a Plan?
So please, feel free to admit you were pretty much wrong... it's OK. We'll forgive ya, I promise! ;)
OK, I'll bite, should be quite entertaining. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see anything above that refutes anything I said. Please Mr. Secret Agent Man (or whatever you claim to be), enlighten me with your extraordinary, finely-honed analysis into what, specifically, I was wrong about. One word of caution. Be very sure you are pointing to things I actually said, and things that actually, factually refute them. Otherwise, if the best you can do is the typical mix of straw men and misdirection, I may suspect you lack the analytical and reasoning abilities one would hope are prerequisites for your alleged line of work. Cheers.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Your silly rant is dependant upon me giving a shit about these guys opinions yesterday, today, or tomorrow for that matter after a whole 8 days. You act as though some OP-ED piece is the Gospel simply because it fits your myopic view of a war you are too scared to fight in. Again, here is your you are a quick eater I can see.
So OP-ED pieces are only relevant when they cater to your myopic worldview...we will keep that in mind for future threads.

Please do, I don't remember citing OP-ED pieces to validate my opinions. Unlike Peejai, I don't toe some party line like his post was suggesting all democrats do being as that 2 democrat journalists wrote it who had previously been critical of the "war". A mindless sheep would do a 180 like that and after having read about their 8 days in Iraq. I don't feel so threatened about my own views that I need to Google until I find a more articulate author who agrees with me then copy and paste their opinion as my own like some here do.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
I am not sure what the beef some posters on here have with the guys who wrote this piece.

In 2002 Kenneth Pollack actually wrote a book calling for the invasion of Iraq.
So you might think he was some war supporter.

But look at what he wrote following the war.
?Mourning After: How They Screwed It Up? which contains the lines: ?The primary cause of our current problems in Iraq is the reckless, and often foolish, manner in which this administration has waged the war and the reconstruction. For that reason, when I think back to the prewar debate, the thought that nags at me most is that I, too, should have foreseen what Bill Galston did?that the Bush administration would not fight the war properly.?

In 2005 he went in front of congress and said the current (2005) strategy was ill suited to the task of quelling the insurgency and called for a chance in tactics to a traditional counterinsurgency strategy.

Then last year he wrote ?The debate is over: By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war. Indeed, the only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into total Bosnia-like devastation is 135,000 U.S. troops -- and even they are merely slowing the fall. The internecine conflict could easily spiral into one that threatens not only Iraq but also its neighbors throughout the oil-rich Persian Gulf region with instability, turmoil and war. ?

Even as recent as May he was writing negative things about the Iraq situation and the surge. Concluding with the statement: ?And that means that, in January 2009, our new president will face the same awful set of choices that confronts us today. Only it will be worse, because, by then, we will have squandered more time, more money, more Iraqi and American lives, and probably our last chance to save Iraq.?

It is very clear to anyone with an open mind that although he called for the invasion at the start this guy has been very hard on the Iraq situation. The fact that he has changed him mind at such a late date is a big deal. This guy has nothing at all to gain by painting a rosy picture in Iraq. He has never done so in the past, why would he start now?
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not sure what the beef some posters on here have with the guys who wrote this piece.

In 2002 Kenneth Pollack actually wrote a book calling for the invasion of Iraq.
So you might think he was some war supporter.

But look at what he wrote following the war.
?Mourning After: How They Screwed It Up? which contains the lines: ?The primary cause of our current problems in Iraq is the reckless, and often foolish, manner in which this administration has waged the war and the reconstruction. For that reason, when I think back to the prewar debate, the thought that nags at me most is that I, too, should have foreseen what Bill Galston did?that the Bush administration would not fight the war properly.?

In 2005 he went in front of congress and said the current (2005) strategy was ill suited to the task of quelling the insurgency and called for a chance in tactics to a traditional counterinsurgency strategy.

Then last year he wrote ?The debate is over: By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war. Indeed, the only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into total Bosnia-like devastation is 135,000 U.S. troops -- and even they are merely slowing the fall. The internecine conflict could easily spiral into one that threatens not only Iraq but also its neighbors throughout the oil-rich Persian Gulf region with instability, turmoil and war. ?

Even as recent as May he was writing negative things about the Iraq situation and the surge. Concluding with the statement: ?And that means that, in January 2009, our new president will face the same awful set of choices that confronts us today. Only it will be worse, because, by then, we will have squandered more time, more money, more Iraqi and American lives, and probably our last chance to save Iraq.?

It is very clear to anyone with an open mind that although he called for the invasion at the start this guy has been very hard on the Iraq situation. The fact that he has changed him mind at such a late date is a big deal. This guy has nothing at all to gain by painting a rosy picture in Iraq. He has never done so in the past, why would he start now?

To YOU. I read the OP-ED several times to see where this conclusive proof was and it was simply not there. Nothing more than opinion of 2 guys admittedly, only there for 8 days. If posters here in the past were pulling these guys OP-ED's out to support their non-support of the Iraq "war" then you might have something, the fact that they NOW suit YOUR agenda is not remarkable in the least way to anyone other than you. Zzzz In fact, you sound silly claiming otherwise, it is almost comical. Almost...