home

The Difference Between Brian Baird and Michael O'Hanlon

Brian Baird opposed the war and the Surge. Michael O'Hanlon supported the war and the Surge. Michael O'Hanlon is dishonest. Brian Baird is wrong. Here is Baird's argument:

He ignores the fact that political solutions are nonexistent in Iraq. He has no real information nor real answers. He says six more months. What he expects to happen in six months is not clear. In short, Baird has no actual argument. But give 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.

< Tom Friedman Is Not Smart | Albany Terror Case May Be Court Test for NSA Wiretapping Program >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I stopped listening (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Maryb2004 on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:39:58 PM EST
    after he used the phrase premature withdrawal twice.     Premature?  When will it be mature?

    I'm glad I don't have cable.


    There was no there (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:40:50 PM EST
    there.

    Parent
    I stopped listening (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:21:52 PM EST
    as soon as he said that we have an "interest in making this mission succeed." If he can come up with a coherent explanation of what the "mission" is, I'll cut him a campaign check.

    (There, I engaged his substance).

    There was no substance (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:28:01 PM EST
    Hope is not a plan.

    Parent
    QED (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 10:31:09 PM EST
    O'Hanlon has a job to do (none / 0) (#6)
    by Donna Z on Sat Aug 25, 2007 at 11:16:04 PM EST
    From Steve Clemons at The Washington Note:

    The zinger -- about which I'm withholding judgment but which I think should be in the public domain -- is that I have just learned that "A War We Might Just Win" co-author Mike O'Hanlon is under contract with America's Middle East propaganda network, Alhurra.

    Clemons

    Since I keep him on mute, I have no idea what O'Hanlon was blathering about today; however, I did note his face on my TV screen. I guess CNN still thinks that O'Hanlon is an expert kinda like David Grange.

    I understand what he's talking about (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 09:47:54 AM EST
    a lot of people who have sacrificed in this would like to see America be morally responsible too.  A lot of soldiers feel this way as well but the only way we can do it is with a draft.  You can't do this with the troops we have left.  We need the national will to do this and the only way I can see that that could even begin to happen is if Bush was removed from office by an angry mob.

    What's the difference! (none / 0) (#8)
    by cmpnwtr on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 02:11:55 PM EST
    Baird and O'Hanlon, what's the difference? Baird is deluded and O'Hanlon is lying to cover his contract obligations with his bosses. They are both sending more Americans to their deaths for no good reason.

    Lying (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 26, 2007 at 02:58:55 PM EST
    is worse no? Being wrong is less problematic to me. I guess not to you.

    Parent
    Lying (none / 0) (#10)
    by cmpnwtr on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:04:13 AM EST
    Baird should know better so his delusions are self-inflicted. However, I am much less concerned about individual moral turpitude than the conseqences of people who make choices to bring greater unnecessary death and destruction into the world for whatever reason.

    Parent