Beltway Amnesia: What O'Hanlon Was Ripped For

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:45:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Kevin Drum and his Beltway correspondent have very bad memories:

A member in (extremely good) standing of the VSP community emails to suggest a delicate topic for the liberal blogosphere to take a second look at:
One thing you might write about — if only because nobody else has, I think — is how that whole dust-up over the O'Hanlon/Pollack op-ed looks in retrospect. I mean, clearly they were on to something — the relative quieting down of stuff that has taken place in Iraq over the last several months, etc. -- it's not like the caricature of them put forth in the blogosphere at the time . . . holds up, does it?
Hmmm. Yes.

Hmm, no. O'Hanlon and Pollock were ripped for LYING that they were critics of the Iraq War and Surge. I wrote this:

[G]ive [Congressman Brian] Baird his due, he is not lying when he says he was a war and Surge critic. Michael O'Hanlon IS lying when he says he was an Iraq war and Surge critic. One argument merits respect. It is not the one made by the dishonest Michael O'Hanlon.

Kevin Drum and his Beltway friend have very poor memories. On the merits of course, they are also wrong. But I will leave that for another post.

< Ken Richey to Be Freed After 20 Years on Ohio's Death Row | Tom Tancredo's Out, Gives Support to Mitt Romney >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Beltway Amnesia: What O'Hanlon Was Ripped For | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Why can't some of the O'Hanlon critics admit: (1.00 / 0) (#8)
by Green26 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 05:01:51 AM EST

They focused on a relatively small point in order to try to undercut the op-ed piece.
They overstated the situation by saying the authors had "lied" about their prior war views.
They, or at least most, refused to address the substance of what was said in the op-ed piece.
The op-ed piece assessment turned out to be correct, or largely correct.
They, or at least some, are still trying to defend their original position--even though it almost looks silly that they are still clinging to their original small point of criticism.

P.S. To anyone who may recall from last summer when I was posting a bit, and when I said my son, an Army Ranger, had been wounded in Iraq, his unit is now back on US soil and he will be home next week for the first time since Feb. After surgery in Qatar (to fix a 4-inch shrapnel hole in his back and remove a piece) and a couple months of rehab, he recovered enough to get back in action before his unit left Iraq.

: I'm happy for your son and his family. (none / 0) (#10)
by oculus on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:29:39 AM EST

And isn't O'Hanlon a consultant to (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:23:53 PM EST

Hillary Clinton's campaign, I'm sorry to recall?

She dropped him (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:20:27 PM EST

Glad to hear it. Was this publicly (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:27:31 PM EST

announced?


Yes (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:32:18 PM EST

Saw it somewhere.


I checked Wiki, Greenwald interview, (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:35:12 PM EST

and Hillary Clinton campaign webpage. Nothing.


Check Yglesias (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:45:15 PM EST

: Pfft. Clinton campaign should announce it, as (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 06:17:09 PM EST

as should MY newspaper, which ran that deceitfull op ed.

Some on Left wrong; Surge basically worked (none / 0) (#11)
by Green26 on Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 11:42:02 PM EST

I believe this is the phrase that Big Tent and some others criticized so harshly:

"As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq,...."

Above Big Tent says: "Michael O'Hanlon IS lying when he says he was an Iraq war and Surge critic."

It seems to me that bloggers, of all people, should be able to see some difference between someone saying they were critical of the handling of the war" and someone being an "Iraq war and Surge critic".

To me, these things are not the same. Also, to me, the essence of the article was far more important than the phrase that BT and others seized upon.

Again, I think BT and others may have realized the article might have some impact contrary to their own views, and they seized upon this (small) opportunity to try to undercut the article.

I'm not saying the war is going to be won, or was a good idea, but the Surge appears to have been a good idea, and it has been largely successful in the military sense.

Some of the Left said the Surge wouldn't work. Now, with it having worked, those same people can't admit it's worked. They have moved on to attacking something else.

I don't have a big problem with them moving on to say that we're still not going to be successful in Iraq, but I would have more respect for them if they would admit that they were wrong on the Surge.