Interesting Statistics

Another Grim Milestone...

US losses in Iraq and Afghanistan today (3525) are approaching the half way mark (3750) of the military losses during the Clinton years.

It's quite an expansive post with sources and history. Very worthwhile.

What? No Outrage from the Editors?

John Burns, foreign correpondent for the NYT, offers his opinion on Iraq.

And my guess is that history will say that the forces that we liberated by invading Iraq were so powerful and so uncontrollable that virtually nothing the United States might have done, except to impose its own repressive state with half a million troops, which might have had to last ten years or more, nothing we could have done would have effectively prevented this disintegration that is now occurring.

No outrage from the editors at the NYT??? I mean, sure, he didn't say the US could win but, he didn't Blame Bush.

Previously: Post-Pretense

NY Post: A Ban on 'Victory'

What timing: NY Post - A Ban on 'Victory'

Consider correspondent Chris Hedges' infamous 2003 commencement address at Rockford College, where he charged that Americans were becoming "tyrants to others weaker than ourselves," and linked Bush to Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon - whom he said were "carrying out acts of gratuitous and senseless violence."

Nor, as the Web site Timeswatch.org points out, was there any reprimand of correspondent Neil McFarquhar, who last summer also appeared on Charlie Rose's show and at tacked the Bush administration for "rush ing bombs to this part of the world."

"It just erodes and erodes and erodes America's reputation," said McFarquhar - who, unlike Gordon, did not even offer the disclaimer that his was "a purely personal view."

From the Times, silence.

Sigh

Post-Pretense

Some of us have, apparently, moved beyond the pretense of supporting the troops but not the mission.

William Arkin (via his WaPo blog):
The Troops Also Need to Support the American People
The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out
A Note to My Readers on Supporting the Troops

Arkin, the Greenpeace activist turned Military affairs correspondent claims, among many other things, troops receive "obscene amenities", are mercenaries, and owe us. Anybody who disagrees with him is apparently arrogant and intolerant. And now, in his last post, he didn't really mean it we're to believe.

But others, like Kos, buy it "lock, stock, and barrel" so-to-speak.
Arkin Was Right - We Do Have a Mercenary Army and They Do Owe Us!

Interestingly, with Arkin expressing what is clearly a personal view...one has to wonder what the folks at WaPo think about all this. Especially in light of recent events over at the NYT regarding Michael Gordon. What that about? Michael Gordon was asked for his opinion. Unlike William Arkin.

Drawing a Line

Times editors have carefully made clear their disapproval of the expression of a personal opinion about Iraq on national television by the paper’s chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon.

The rumored military buildup in Iraq was a hot topic on the Jan. 8 “Charlie Rose” show, and the host asked Mr. Gordon if he believed “victory is within our grasp.” The transcript of Mr. Gordon’s response, which he stressed was “purely personal,” includes these comments:

“So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it’s worth it [sic] one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we’ve never really tried to win. We’ve simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it’s done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something.”

I raised reader concerns about Mr. Gordon’s voicing of personal opinions with top editors, and received a response from Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief. After noting that Mr. Gordon has “long been mindful and respectful of the line between analysis and opinion in his television appearances,” Mr. Taubman went on to draw the line in this case.

“I would agree with you that he stepped over the line on the ‘Charlie Rose’ show. I have discussed the appearances with Michael and I am satisfied that the comments on the Rose show were an aberration. They were a poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points about the military and political situation in Baghdad that Michael has made in the newspaper in a more nuanced and unopinionated way. He agrees his comments on the show went too far.”

It’s a line drawn correctly by Mr. Taubman — and accepted honorably by Mr. Gordon

I haven't seen anything in the NYT from Gordon since this. Disturbing to say the least.