you are still missing the point. this column was marketed as "war critics turned war supporters" and as o hanlon readily admits that is not the case. They were always for the war and were critics only in the boradest defination of the word "critic".
the issue of his methodology and what he actually saw in iraq is more debatable, though O hanlon has given very upbeat assesements before and, like all hawks, has lost alot if not all his crediblity as the war effort has deteriorated.
Very interesting. I listened to interviews on Fox, and O'Hanlon and Pollack were not nearly as positive about the war in the interviews as their article leads people to believe.
I think their opinions are sort of mixed, giving a realistic view of what conditions are ... rather than a hawkish view.
This debate is good though.
Thanks Debbie: I think that any good news, and its messenger, will be attacked by the left. We can't win the war, because that will hurt the Democrats politically.
"Thanks Debbie: I think that any good news, and its messenger, will be attacked by the left. We can't win the war, because that will hurt the Democrats politically."
uhhh. actually here and elsewhere we've given you many many reasons why this particular story was misleading.
and how "good" can any news that isn't us leaving be?
we are still in iraq, people are still dying. that is THE story. if someone builds a school within that context, it's still a bad situation.
Commenting by HaloScan
