Letters to the Editor
-
This is one of those...
"I believe monkeys will fly out of my ass" kinda statements. People "believe" all kinds of crazy batshit things.
-
Floored
I am floored by this! He cannot be serious, proven right by events???? Wow. Talk about head in the sand.
-
You have a right to be proud, Glenn
A principled opposition; the bloody minded fools of our Imperium have been too long without one. I very much appreciate your shots across their bow, Glenn, and it's a pleasure to see that them beginning to fear for their mainmast. I won't push the metaphor beyond saying that I look forward to the day when we start putting some holes below their waterline as well.
-
Ken Pollack has been . . .
. . . pretty much wrong about everything he's ever written about the ME. He is neither an Arabic or Farsi speaker. He has spent little time in the region. So, if O'Hanlon's bestest buddy is wrong, then O'Hanlon's not only wrong but stupid.
-
One analogy I've occasionally used...
And I think is appropriate here is that of an alcoholic awakening from a bender.
March 2003 wasn't just notable for the number of people who were flat-out wrong about Iraq and the WMD's, it was astounding and unprecedented for the amount of energy devoted to maintaining the illusion and shouting down anyone who dared to question the conventional wisdom.
I always like to remind everyone of what happened to Natalie Maines because its incontrovertable evidence that we were collectively insane.
Given the energy that went into the War-whooping, it is unsurprising that the morning-after effect would include a strong tendency to downplay the importance of the experience. Who, after all, cares to admit that they had lost control of themselves? Certainly not Michael O'Hanlon.
-
I think what he meant was...
"I WANT to believe Ken Pollack and I have been generally proven right by events." Now, that statement I think he could stand behind. The reality? Probably not as comforting as he's writing.
Good job Glenn. These guys squeal the loudest when faced with a little truth.
-
"The National Interest is published by the Nixon Center"
The article's disclaimer is more relevant and informative than O'Hanlon's sorry, defensive whine.
-
You ought to be proud
And I'd wager O'Hanlon isn't the only one who recognizes the truth in your barbs. Screw 'em.
O'Hanlon: "Sure, I was wrong about the war, but other than that, Mrs. Lincoln..."
-
Are you sure about the accuracy of this quote?
"I believe Ken Pollack and I have been generally proven right by events."
Isn't this more accurate?
"I can't find a single recent instance where Ken Pollack and I have been generally proven right by events."
-
Taking Responsibility
I thought that the Republican ethos supposedly turned on "taking responsibility for one's actions." Guess that doesn't apply here, there must be some corollary to the rule I don't know about. I would assume they want me to take responsbility for my actions though. That is what rankles the most, these guys can't just come out and be intellectually honest with themselves (or their readers). "Yes, we reached the wrong conclusion, the Iraq war was a mistake, we're really sorry and will try to help figure out a way to salvage the situation we have brought about." Something that we'll never hear from these people, they are exactly that self-deluded and dishonest with themselves.
-
this is exactly the mindset...
...that these "serious" policy wonk thumbsuckers have, that these forever wars are merely the extension of academic parlor games in thinktanks. the atrocities that are unleashed? those have nothing to do with them. please pass the chardonnay, would you?
so here it is:
being right on analysis of the consequence of national actions -- not important.
giving cover to the monied interests that seek to profit from the chaos and suffering of others -- all important.
being proven wrong, laughably, dismissively not important.
and all those folks who think such things as the truth matter, that opposing fearmongering and preemptive war matter, that trying to save the country's soul matters, -- well, such people who care so urgently are hideously naive and boring to boot.
-
Pundits = Meteorologists?
Glenn, In your National Interest article, you wrote:
"Yet they never learn their lesson, are never held accountable and virtually never acknowledge their errors. Political punditry is the ultimate accountability-free profession."
Sure sounds like the weathermen and women I see here in the good ol' heartland: Always wrong, never apologetic, move seamlessly to the next (wrong) prediction.
-
Weathermen are never wrong
Sometimes their timing is off.
-
Scalding criticism...
...and the kettle stays on the fire, O'Hanlon, until you pull your head out of your GOP conference room once and for all!
Congratulations, Glenn.
-
O'Hanlon kinda reminds me of Bonds, or Clemens
They cheat to get theirs during the good times, and still want their reputations intact afterward.
It isn't enough that no one stands up to them while they are making hay, they still want our respect. Well you can't have it both ways. You play dirty and win dirty... you are dirty. Everybody knows it.
Naturegrrrl has got it right. The actions of these scumbags (going all the way to the top), turn the whole Republican mythology of personal accountability on its head. These people are the total antithesis of accountability.
The attitude is "oh, sorry, not our fault you didn't realize this is a dirty business. But hey, no hard feelings, right?"
Well, whether there are hard feelings or not is irrelevent; you've been exposed for what you really are, and since your career is built on the public perception of your credibility, you are essentially sunk.
The only fitting response is to pillory them as publicly and perpetually as possible. (alliteration unintended!). Make their names synonomous with deceit. The root of all their motivations is nothing more than the most vulgar of sophistry - profit through violence - and Glenn's comparisons to the schoolyard bully are therefore all too apt.
-
Right About One Thing
As O'Hanlon's fellow war "scholar" Anne-Marie Slaughter petulantly protested a couple months ago: "The debate is still far too much about who was right and who was wrong on the initial invasion."
This much is certainly true. That debate should have been over long ago.
By 2004, at the latest, we should have clearly identified who was right, who was wrong, and readjusted accordingly. The fact that war critics are still in the wilderness and war supports still rule the roost is entirely of a piece with the corrupt process that brought us the war in the first place. The fact that such a reckoning never took place is emblematic of everything wrong with our country's foreign policy and democratic process.
Of course, there is nothing new about this. Go back to the 1980s, and you'll see that the folks who were right about the terror war we were waging in Latin America (carried out with a goodly helping of drug smuggling on the side, as the CIA itself finally admitted in the late 1990s) had their careers destroyed, while the Reagan/Bush apologists ascended to the higher ranks, blazing the way for the pundit class we suffer from today.