Liberal bloggers have professed a previously undocumented fondness for the McClatchy Company's Washington bureau every since Bill Moyers' PBS special last year documenting that the news organization provided skeptical investigative reporting that was largely ignored during the run up to the war in Iraq.
Today, McClatchy offers evidence that the cease-fire between U.S. forces and Muqtada al Sadr is coming to an end. McClatchy's headlines places the word "success" in scare quotes when referencing the surge of U.S. forces. That's arguably responsible journalism, but also arguably seeking to editorialize against something that has to some extent become accepted as fact, even by many war opponents. But the larger question of intellectual consistency is: can anti-war bloggers herald a downturn in Iraqi security when they have previously rejected out of hand any evidence of the surge's possible success?
Riding the McClatchy Bandwagon
It's a consistent argument if you believe the "surge" was only
producing a pause in violence. But if you've argued that the success
figures were fabricated, or taken out of context, it's not really
honest to now argue that a forthcoming uptick in violence is coming
because the surge has only now "failed."
Firedoglake's Attaturk is a prime example of the McClatchy bandwagonism, arrogantly declaring:
Andrew Sullivan offers an equally critical, but more honest assessment, essentially acknowledging the temporary gains the surge has provided, but only as a "pause":
Some conservatives are taking their own partisan take on events, like Jennifer Rubin, writing for the American Spectator. Probably not the best time to be accusing your political opponents of living in a "fantasyland":
Firedoglake's Attaturk is a prime example of the McClatchy bandwagonism, arrogantly declaring:
But if you actually read articles from McClatchy, easily the most accurate of sources in this country on Iraq the last five plus yearsI'm curious where were Attaturk's praising posts on McClatchy's work prior to the Moyers documentary?
Andrew Sullivan offers an equally critical, but more honest assessment, essentially acknowledging the temporary gains the surge has provided, but only as a "pause":
Iraq's eternal return to torture and brutality may be resuming its usual pace after a pause. The difference now is that America has now also done some of the torturing itself and is now paying others to do the same.
Some conservatives are taking their own partisan take on events, like Jennifer Rubin, writing for the American Spectator. Probably not the best time to be accusing your political opponents of living in a "fantasyland":
To change course would mean that Bush and McCain were right and they were wrong about the surge's success. They therefore continue to tell us that all is lost and nothing has changed. They have every right do so, of course. And voters have every right to pick a president who does not live in a political fantasyland.Jeff Fecke also has a reasonable take on what the facts on the ground represent:
Now, this incident might be the start of the great unraveling, or it might happen a bit later. Things may get back under control in the short-term, although it's entirely possible that they won't
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Post A Comment