…. and that neutral observers might not be able to tell the difference, here’s an interesting discussion by McQ, on Greenwald, on Lieberman. Contrasting Lieberman’s 2005 WSJ op-ed on Iraq with his most recent effort, Greenwald purpored to find dishonesty in the Senator’s argument. But as McQ points out:
There is nothing factually incorrect about what Lieberman says here. But what he doesn’t say is what Greenwald claims, that “we” were on the “verge of success”. Any reasonable person would read what he said as a report on progress not a claim of being on the “verge of success”.
Secondly, and this is key, at the time it was written, Operation Forward Together (sic) hadn’t begun in Baghdad. That was the operation in which “clear, hold and build” was to be initiated in Baghdad. As we all know, OFT was deemed a failure for a particular reason. And that reason is “there weren’t enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias”, just as Lieberman said “today”.
Thus the reason for the surge.
Got that? It is that failure alone, not failure in other parts of Iraq to implement “clear, hold and build”, that prompted the surge.
In 17 of 18 of Iraq’s provinces (excluding al Anbar and Baghdad), the Iraqis were taking the lead and “clear hold and build” was being implemented. Tall Afar, as I note, was the first US example, but, as Lieberman reported, other examples in other areas of Iraq were evident in 2005.
Baghdad, however, continued to defy those efforts prompting the surge in which both the US and Iraq are to send in more troops in order to successfully implement “clear, hold and build” there. Thus there is nothing dishonest, corrupt or disgraceful in any of this except in Greenwald’s mischaracterization of the Lieberman quotes in order to smear him.
A growingly familiar tactic, this taking of umbrage at something a person hasn’t said.
Not particularly effective. But familiar.
Update: Potentially related?
There you have it: an admission by Greenwald(s) that he is justified in using whatever bad faith arguments he must to ‚Äúundermine‚Äù the Bush administration and to demonize those who support its policies.
Which makes Greenwald(s) an admitted demagogue‚Äîand explains, in large part, why his jeremiads are so transparently disingenuous. Those who cite him approvingly, it follows, are either complicit in his goal of undermining this administration, or else are his (willing?) dupes.
Either way, he‚Äôs a fraud, and his supporters either frauds or dullards.
That he spent his time today giving cover to those who essentially cheered on the Taliban marks him as someone whose hatred of Bush has, at long last, shown him to be among those whose love of country is provisional‚Äîgranted on the condition that policies he likes are in place, and leaders he favors are in power.
Update 2: Potentially related? Patterico looks at the anguish of Greenwald(s) and finds it potentially – wait for it – hypocritical. Which, as anyone should know, is the worst possible offense in the progressive moral universe:
These comments are staggeringly hypocritical, viewed in the light of Greenwald‚Äôs extensive history of spotlighting anonymous comments at conservative blogs to reach broad-brush conclusions about the entire conservative movement. Greenwald is a prime practitioner of this ‚Äútransparently flimsy and misleading method‚Äù of tarring the other side. And, in marked contrast to Greenwald‚Äôs tender concern today for whether ugly leftist comments ‚Äúare representative of the blog itself,‚Äù Greenwald is famous in conservative circles for highlighting extreme comments on conservative blogs ‚Äî comments that in no way represent the views of the posts to which they are responding, or of the bloggers generally.