Letters to the Editor

• Whatever became of Jim Hoagland's vouching for the Pro-War case on Charlie Rose?

  [Read the article: The ongoing exclusion of war opponents from the Iraq debate]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Something has been stuck in my figurative "craw" since the days running up to the start of the war and occupation. At the end of one of his last shows featuring Washington pundits supposedly sharing their "inside" information about the strengh of the case that was being made for the invasioon in 2003, Charlie Rose asked the WAPOs own Jim Hoagland if he could confirm that he had had seen or knew believable evidence that backed up the claims of War Hawks, evidence that average Americans were not privy to. Hoagland firmly nodded while, without condition, saying "yes."

  I'm no expert on these matters, but I did consult a variety of critical sources in those days, and even in my corner of the USA, I knew that there was no "there" there. I was confident back then that Hoagland wasn't privy to anything new or excitng. And nothing has emerged to change my take on the matter. His nod and confriming words must have reflected the end result of lots of one-on-one salesmanship from the spinners of the war effort. He was acting as a stand-in for all the neo-cons and others who had been whispering in his ear for many a month by then.

  I have not seen Jim Hoagland on many subsequent Charlie Roses, and when I have seen him, it is in his capacity as the WAPOs man on Europe. Did he ever fess up to being had? Or is he a particpant in the great game of claimig victory by default by pretending that there was never another side to the argument. Has Rose ever called out any of these mouthpieces for repeating falsehoods to the public?

  Permalink Wednesday, March 26, 2008 01:57 AM