Steve, thank you for linking to these articles, especially the latter.

Steve, for almost four months now I have been a real rarity in American society. Six months or so ago the local cable TV company that ran the ONLY cable line out to my small rural community went belly up due to mismanagement, and our TV "went black" as they say in the Cable industry. So, for that time period my entire intake of daily news has been due to INTERNATIONAL internet news sources, blogs, and search engines. It is the FIRST time in my life that I allowed myself to be separated from what has become such a seemingly essential appliance in every American living room.

Well, I just had a dish put up yesterday, and have rejoined the rest of my countrymen in allowing that noisy and captivating object back into my life.

And, by God, I am appalled. Just moments ago I finished allowing myself a full one hour of morning news programming on Fox News. GOOD GOD. Things are FAR FAR WORSE than I could even imagine. WHERE DO THEY FIND SUCH A BROAD BASE OF JOURNALISTS THAT ARE SO WILLING TO LIE, SPIN AND WEAVE EVENTS TO THE BENEFIT OF A POLITICAL PARTY??? Are people just innured to such blatant propaganda?? Is it a PROCESS, that over time has just insidiously become believable and acceptable? Did my absence make the surreal experience of Fox News more recognizable for what it is, or has it truly gotten WORSE, and Fox News has become one long fiction written by Rovian spinmiesters in some RNC basement Lie Mill?

I gotta tell you Steve, it knocked me for a loop. No wonder this country is in such deep shit. If just 15% of our citizenry cannot recognize blatant propaganda when they see it, then we have a huge problem. Apparently, the percentage is much higher, if one considers the ratings.

Damn.

We're in trouble, man.

Fisk himself uses some interesting constructions in these articles.

Many times he uses "Arab" or "Jewish": Arab land, Jewish settlements, etc. That's curious, because Arab doesn't equal Palestinian and Jewish doesn't equal Israeli.

It's weird too, because, as even he recognizes, in some places the security barrier is a wall, and other places it is a fence.

As always, I think Fisk is trying to make too many points at once here. Yes, there are efforts to change language to suit political objectives. But I don't think that is the same as concealing the costs of war visually. These aren't all the same thing, and probably should be treated differently.

Pissed Off American

The answer, most likely, is that greed and self-interest is so overwhemingly woven into the fabric of this country that a large chunk of our citizens will do just about anything for the right $$. They want the benjamins, need the benjamins and are willing to do anything for the benjamins. They most likely think that lying for political purposes isn't that harmful (more like a game), especially as it really is not hurting them and as they will no doubt be cared for in the process. They fail to see the longer term negative affects of their actions, blinded by their own self interests.

I want to thank Mr. Fisk for articulating what I've felt since I started reading newspapers, way back when.

And, of course, I thank you for presenting it!

Bubba....

the greed doesn't suprise me, nor is it a new phenomena. However the immense numbers of ignorant Americans, as evidenced by the success of Fox News, suprises the hell out of me.

Fisk has been marginalized by attacks from the right wing. His columns in The Independent used to be for free but now sit behind the pay for view wall. Fisk is merely highlighting the propaganda that all govenments use to spin world opinion in their favor. Newspapers have often been tools for the govenments of their home country. It is only jolting to read his reminders because propaganda is so effective. Corporate owners of American newspapers make sure their papers deliver the corporate line.

Haass writes, "U.S. options are essentially two: maintaining the U.S. presence until Iraqi government forces can handle the lion's share of the burden of maintaining security, or setting an arbitrary exit date, in six or 12 months, for all U.S. troops."

Quite frankly, I think that Haass mischaracterizes both options.

Bush stay the course is a long term occupation by US military in order to enforce the political solution Bush wishes to impose on the Iraqis. It is not a "leave as soon as Iraqis can handle it" policy as Haass mischaracterizes it. The reason why stay the course is not a "leave as soon as stable" policy is that Bush is intentionally not engaging in the political discussions (especially with ex-Baath partisans) that would improve stability.

Those in favor of withdrawal are all over the map in terms of timeline. Withdrawal means 1) acknowledging that the US must withdraw, 2) having President Bush committed to withdrawing ASAP (instead of a 10 year stay the course) and 3) start making the necessary political concessions that can make withdrawal a possibility. Most who support withdrawal want it done in an orderly way and would be willing to give a few months extension in order to do it safely and the right way.

Withdrawal based on political settlement is what Haass mischaracterizes as Bush policy. That is not Bush (stay the course for 10 years) policy. Haass characterizes a version of a withdrawal policy that Bush has rejected.

Bush is intentionally fuzzy (not honest) about his timeline, because support for his position might go to single digits. The American public senses that Bush wants US troops to stay in Iraq for a longer time than the public is willing to give him. Unless Bush can be persuaded to start getting out of Iraq now, the real danger is that the bottom will truly fall out for support of his Iraq policy and we will be unconditionally leaving Iraq Dunkirk style.

Citizens,

May the quaking timbers of our Constitution withstand these loons and their handywork. In seeking to reassert the tedious, tendencious, and tyrannies of a previous era, they do confirm their notions of themselves as greedy, self-serving rulers.

May justice determine the rule of these graspers, lyers, and fools to be short and their sentences be long. This is not a question.

It is only jolting to read his reminders because propaganda is so effective. Corporate owners of American newspapers make sure their papers deliver the corporate line.

Posted by bakho

Never, though, have untruths been so blatantly nurtured. Never HERE, in the U.S., at least. Fox News is, quite simply, unbelievable. Not in the sense of the word that implies awe or amazement, but unbelievable in the true context of the term.

I was pondering the state of our newspaper media the other day, and it occured to me that that readership is no longer an issue of profitability. The corporate giants that own the newspapers do not NEED the profits of their newspaper holdings, as their diversity in holdings assure the profits of their WHOLE entity, and can easily assimilate any losses their newspaper holdings suffer. In such a state, the PROFITS gained by "carrying the message", (in political favors and legislation that benefits their corporate holdings), far outwiegh the costs of a loss of readership. I have watched the LA Times morph, in a very short time, from a fairly liberal and progressive newspaper, to just another mouthpiece for the right, bringing in relocated Ney York Times executives, and dumping people like Robert Scheer. In a liberal stronghold, such as Southern California, one would think such a move would be suicide. But, number one, they are the only game in town, and, number two, they simply don't care. Their role is no longer that of reporting the news, but instead is one of CREATING the news. How can one honestly evaluate the pure unconcealed propaganda presented by Fox News, or watch the Los Angeles Times "market" Max Boot as they send Robert Scheer packing, and fail to recognize the great lie we are fed ad nauseum about a "liberal biased media"?

bakho,

The risk is that Americans in position of power will continue to be fooled into believing that the war was necessary in the first place. That is where the root of this evil comes from and where the resistance in the body politics devolves.

The lack of polling on the question of impeachment has a lot to do with precisely who does and does not have power. And a complete and utter lack of faith in basic principles by the Congress, of course. Or is it an orgiastic faith in principals that motivates them? May that question not be moot.

America has gotten fat and lazy and now it is turning rotten. The rot has become clearer and clearer as the flabby intellects in charge have become grosser and grosser. As their momentum increases, they become less caring about others around them. Seemingly, they don't have to. However, it never bodes well when one can no longer see ones feet while doing battle with the bothersome pipsqueaks the average citizen has become. Yes, we are bothersome...but if one is no longer even capable of watching where one steps, one is bound to take a fall. May that fall be short and hard and permanent for the Fascist-in-Chief.

Bush is intentionally fuzzy (not honest) about his timeline, because support for his position might go to single digits. The American public senses that Bush wants US troops to stay in Iraq for a longer time than the public is willing to give him. Unless Bush can be persuaded to start getting out of Iraq now, the real danger is that the bottom will truly fall out for support of his Iraq policy and we will be unconditionally leaving Iraq Dunkirk style.

Posted by bakho

The current power of the Shiite majority was NEVER the intent of this Administration. It is a REAL clusterfuck, and is beginning to set traps for the democrats that will undoubtedly be capitalized upon by the Bush Administration. It is obvious to all but the most naive that we are seeing the birth of a Shiite theocracy that will inevitably be closely allied with Iran. Bush needs to "stay the course" if he is to turn around a situation that has spiraled WAY off course from what he and his neocon masters originally invisioned when they drew plans to install Chalabi and loot Iraq. However, domestically, his rationales and justifications for our presence there are falling on increasingly deaf ears. If we pull out there will BE NO reversing of the current power trend in Iraq, and the Shiites will enevitably swallow up the Sunni oppposition through both bloodshed as well as political means. So, if there is to be a pullout, the blame for the resultant Shiite Theocracy will be placed squarely in the laps of those that advocated "cutting and running", namely Murtha and the Dems.

But, of course, ALL this becomes mute if Cheney properly choreographs the next act. Imagine, if you will, a HORRENDOUS terror attack on American soil, involving a nuclear weapon aimed at destroying one of our urban centers, THWARTED by the fruits of Bush's circumvention of FISA laws. A thwarted attack, I might add, that points strongly to Al Qaeda involvement, WITHIN Iraq.

That is the gist of the event I strongly felt was being "foreshadowed" by Fox News this morning. We shall see. We tend to forget the rapidity of events that seem to wrench our attentions from issue to issue when we debate the Bush Administration. They truly are the masters of, deception, deflection, and distraction.

"But, of course, ALL this becomes mute.....yadayayadayada......"

Oops....

..."moot".... of course.

POA- The LA Times is owned by the same corporation that owns the Chicago Tribune. The Trib has always been run by corporate Republicans.

Newspapers make most of their money from advertisements (other corporations). Newspapers in the US are for the most part not inherently liberal or conservative. They are corporate and reflect the corporate views of their corporate owners and advertisers. The complaints of bias reflect that newspapers have a conservative bias when conservative positions align with corporate interests and a liberal bias when liberal positions align with corporate interests.

The "newspeak" in the Israeli-Palestinian morass started many decades ago. Palestinian attacks were always called terrorist attacks; and Israeli attacks were always called reprisals (for an attack, no matter the lack of proximity to the supposed Palestinian provocation). It didn't matter if the Palestinians had a spluttering failure of a molotov cocktail, and the Israelis launched a fullout incursion, tanks blasting away a couple of weeks after the fact. Always Palestinian terrorists and Israeli reprisals.

Oh, and to piggyback on Hektor Bim's comment, the constant obfuscation of "Jewish" and "Israeli", which invokes a religious connotation, and symphaties, that does not correspond to the political action.

Thanks, Steve, for two really interesting pieces.

Hektor is right about language. It'll kill us if we're not careful. As for the rhetoric associated with the Israel-Palestine issue, the trap is always anti-semitism, at which point the argument dies.

POA, you haven't been harkening to mamacita here. Get rid of that thing! I did four or five years ago and life has been a lot more tolerable. Finally, during the past year, I've installed both brands of satellite radio (I live in the boonies). One still has to pick and choose, but the Orwellian use of images no longer tolerated in this household!

The possibility that TV customers will finally be able to pick and choose what comes into their set is finally being discussed. It'll take a while, but I think in the long run we'll be able to vote with our $$. That's when I'd consider turning the TV on again.

About Fisk et al and useful, honest journalism, a guest at Digby's posted a wonderful piece about Paul Revere. Very heartening and recommended.

If you like Fisk's article you probably like his most recent book, The War for Civilization. I'm 700 pages in with 300 left.

How much better ABC? NBC? Give the people what they want.

>I have a different view as I believe that U.S. forces and the "brand name of America" have become so tainted in Iraq that we can't achieve our objectives,

What objectives are these? I think that needs to be seriously examined.

Defeating Al Quaeda? They were never in Iraq originally. No matter what happens, they'll be significant in the country now.

Removing WMD's? They never existed, its fairly obvious the administration lied.

Turning Iraq into a Democracy? Not happening.

Rebuilding the country? This is a stew of corruption and incompetence.

Stealing their oil?

Controlling the middle east?

What is America's objective in Iraq?

>have become targets ourselves, and unless we internationalize the face of occupation,

Good luck with that. The problem is that the Iraq effort has destroyed America's brand worldwide. Canadians don't believe you went into Iraq for any other reason than to rape the country. Ditto for Germans, Russians, Egyptians, French, Indians, Chinese, etc. etc. America has no credibility. You cannot simply continue your rule there and paste a few coloured faces and a few extra flags up. No one is volunteering.

The reason no one is volunteering is that in the eyes of the world, you invaded a country under false pretences, using a smokescreen of lies, and your rule has been a wall to wall horrorshow of prisons, torture, secret prisons, political manipulation, mismanagement, incompetence and corruption, all fronting an agenda of vilest power politics.

> institution building efforts and aid to Iraq,

All of which is the official plan, and which has largely fallen apart.

> the civil war will rage anyway with Americans being targeted and blamed for the instability.

And they aren't? I mean, they aren't to blame for the instability? Twelve years of sanctions and random bombing, an invasion and three years of occupation... and you're just innocent bystanders?

I'd like to say that I enjoy this blog, and I'm generally in agreement with the views herein.

However, I'm struck by what appears to be obvious myopia and shortsighted thinking in terms of the Iraq situation.

Steve's position is not actually a position per se. Rather, its essentially a festering rehash of cliches and knee jerk slogans, held up by an adamant refusal to look at the larger issues around the occupation.

Let me offer some suggestions:

1) The invasion was entirely bogus and based on knowing lies and misrepresentations. It wasn't bad information, it was lies. You didn't 'accidentally' invade and occupy a country. There was malice aforethought.

2) The invasion of Iraq was an effort to gain control of Iraq's water and oil resources, and to consolidate America's strategic and military position in the Persian Gulf and greater middle east. There's a lot of collateral issues there, breaking up OPEC, controlling or influencing the worldwide price of oil, ensuring preferential terms to the US and controlling the oil lifeline of Europe, Japan and China, having a secure base and capacity to project power throughout the region, deutschland uber alles. You weren't doing anyone a favour.

3) The deteriorating political situation is attributable directly to a series of blunders by the United States in occupation, each one cascading into and building the next. These include: a) The failure to kill Saddam immediately and thus being unable to trust the existing military/political infrastructure, ultimately necessitating the dissolution of the army; b) The belief that Ahmad Chalabi could simply be parachuted in as a puppet onto the existing military/political infrastructure; c) The replacement of Garner by Bremer; d) Bremer's original plan to rule as viceroy for five or six years; e) The dissolution of said army; f) Radically inept debathification; g) Failure to provide security directly; h) Political attacks on Sadr, which sparked two major Shiite uprisings; i) Fallujah; j) Bremer creating a powerless governing Council; k) Bremer giving way to a revolving door 'puppet' government; l) Allawi as post-Bremer permanent puppet; m) Tainted electoral processes in two elections and a referendum which polarized the population; n) Catering to ethnic and sectarian divisions, including essentially handing the Kurds their own state, apparently singling out the Sunni for punishment, and treating with local and tribal leaders and militias while undermining national structures; o) Permitting and promoting the growth of various militias; p) Importing some 20,000 private security contractors (mercenaries) who are outside civil or military law; q) Corruption and incompetence in reconstruction; r) The "El Salvador Option". Essentially, through a series of blunders and seriously bad decisions, the US has painted the country into a corner. Its hard to see how the United States could have done less to ensure a civil war, if in fact it had deliberately tried to create one.

4) Iraq is now a country under incompetent and oppressive foreign occupation, under which an incompetent and increasingly oppressive puppet national government exists. No matter what the US does now, there will be civil conflict. A government which is dependent upon the US will never be stable. The question for Americans is how to keep a bad situation from escalating worse.
America has no credibility whatsoever, in the eyes of Iraqi's or the eyes of the world.

5) The solution is for the US to simply leave. Surrender entirely to a UN peacekeeping force (rather than putting an international face on and retaining power) and put up the money. Or simply get out. If you feel bad, but up 50 billion in a trust fund to reconstruct the country and hand it over to parties whose credibility is intact.

6) There will be a civil conflict, and it will be of greater or lesser savagery. Remaining involved increases the odds of greater savagery.

7) In departing Iraq, accept the consequences. Which includes a permanent loss of authority in the Persian Gulf and the Iranian domination of the region. These things are going to happen anyway.

The Iraqis are Arabs and the Iranians are Persians and that alone will prevent a monolithic Iranian control of the Middle East. Iran does not need to "control" Iraq. Iran would be happy just to establish good relations with Iraq in order to facilitate trade and address the problems along the very long border between Iran and Iraq.

By establishing a political process that excludes the ex-Baath Sunnis, the strongest voice for a secular Iraq not aligned with Iran is shut out of the process. This is one reason why there needs to be a new political agreement in Iraq that brings together all the parties. Pursuing the Bush political settlement that only works if backed by a US occupation force is not a good long term solution.

For the record, I'm not suggesting that Iran will control Iraq. This is futile for the US, and would be futile for the Iranians.

Iranian domination comes about when they are the pre-eminent military, political and economic power in a relatively small region chock full of tiny, regressive and potentially unstable states, which includes Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The temptation of these states will be to accommodate Iranian interests and support Iranian positions.

Iraq, which had in recent history been a counterweight to Iran in realpolitik is now taken off the board for the forseeable future, and my emerge as an Iranian ally/partner.

The distinctions between Arab and Persian are real. And the two countries did fight a long devastating war. On the other hand the same could be said for France and Germany. Past history and ethnic differences are not necessarily a barrier to functioning partnerships.

An Iran/Iraq alliance would constitute an effective Muslim trading block of over 100 million people, positioned between the India Subcontinent, Central Asia, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, which collectively between the two, or indirectly through influence in the Persian Gulf or Central Asia would control much of the worlds oil.

Throw in Syria, you've got 120 million and access to the Mediterranean. Add Pakistan to an alliance...

The sad fact of the matter is that your current administration has taken a stable situation which met America's needs, and relentlessly bunged it up beyond all possible hope of recovery. America has spent five years digging itself into a hole that there is no getting out of.

Steve's 'solution' which is the only apparent solution in 'reasonable' mainstream American discourse, is simply to get out more shovels and dig harder.

Ain't going to work.

Steve: Analyses such as the one you quote from Robert Fisk are a dime a dozen. He is right in a sense: Certainly words matter, and the ease with which an ideology in power can manipulate the media into using "right" words, which convey certain messages, is worth denouncing. It's called a political frame, and I wish the media weren't so submissive in adopting whatever language is used by power. But in fact it's all relative. It happens to be that supporters of zionism are in power in both Israel and the U.S., so their words are adopted by the media. But what if they weren't? You can see from Fisk's words that he would do the same (from the opposite side) if he were "in power." In the section you quote, you'll note the example he chooses to give of Palestinian opposition to Israeli actions is "a Palestinian child who throws a stone at an Israeli soldier," rather than the more accurate (and relevant to his context) "Palestinian suicide bomber who blows up a mixed-religion disco on a Saturday night, killing a bunch of children." More subtlely, later he describes Palestinian "attacks" on Jewish settlements, a nice, general, vague word that could just as easily mean "argue against" as "blow up women and children," which is all too often its true meaning.

These kinds of semantic games can always be played, and both sides are always willing to do it. Always. It's just that one side of this conflict has all the power. Fisk is complaining about a power structure, not semantic unfairness, which is a completely different argument. He in fact is being disingenuous, as he often is. Please don't be taken in by him. There are, in fact, many Israeli liberals who are just as anguished by the plight of Palestinians as "journalists" like Fisk. But they, in contrast, have considered the issue from all its many angles, and know there is no easy "white hat-black hat" solution. Most, in my experience, also support the "security wall." Virtually all, in fact. If you are intersted in blogging more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (which I hope you do, since I respect your opinion), I would encourage you to greatly expand your sources of input beyond Mr. Fisk.

Not much of a conflict is it, when one side has all the power.

I'm just curious, what's the ratio of children throwing rocks at soldiers to suicide bombers blowing up discos full of children? What are children doing in a disco late on Saturday night anyway, was it day-care night? Is this meaningful? Should all resistance to Israel be generalized as suicide bombers? Or as rock throwers? Or as a continuum?

It strikes me that this question has meaningful implications. If for instance, all resistance is generalized as the suicide bombers, then doesn't that justify treating all resistance harshly. A child who picks up a rock deserves to have his head blown off?

I can't say that I agree that Fisk is being 'disingenuous', nor that I'd question his credibility as a journalist.

As for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it actually is black and white. In a nutshell:

Israel stole the Palestinians land and dispossessed Palestinian people. That's not hard and its not controversial. Pretty much fact. South Africans did it to blacks, Australians did it to Aborigines, New Zealanders did it to Maori, Canadians and Americans did it to natives. The details vary, but settler states and settler societies all take their existence from the dispossession of their predecessors.

The question becomes, how does Israel deal with the Palestinians who are marginalized and dispossessed?

The strategies seem to be: 1) Ignore the refugees and hope they'll go away; 2) Bomb the refugees and hope they'll go away; 3) Steal more of their remaining land; 4) Steal all of their remaining land; 5) Let them have some/all of their remaining land on terms and conditions which will guarantee their hopelessness and impotence and hope they go away.

The Palestinian response has been: 1) Not to go away. 2) Bomb Israel back. 3) Throw rocks at soldiers. 4) Blow themselves up along with their perceived enemy. 5) Attempt to negotiate and dialogue their real issues.

Lots of people (like me) have no real stake in the Eretz Israel game, but we have come to strongly sympathize with the Palestinians. Not because Arafat or the like have ever even begun to win us over; but because of what Fisk touches upon: the media shamelessly massaging the story.
When I sit and see Blitzer (former J POST correspondent) talking to Cliff May, Ken Adelman, Pollack, Ross etc., assessing Arab intentions, I can add em up. Less than 2% of the US popuIation is controlling the dialogue and (as Fisk observes) even the terms of the dialogue. They may even be right here and there, but this is manifestly unfair.
Ask yourself, finally, what the uproar would have been if an Arab-American lobbyist has stolen Indian tribal money and given it to a Palestinian sniper school is the "disputed" territories. OR if Arab-Americans had raided the Apollo facility for nuclear material that ended up in the hands of apartheid South Africa.
Like I said, I have no dog in the hunt, but I will not be lied to.

But this is the problem, lies are so deeply embedded that they become part of the foundation of the entire discussion. Delusion and self delusion prevent any meaningful thinking of real issues.

The result is that people can sit around with a straight face and talk about America's "Brand name" in Iraq and the need to put an 'international' face on the occupation so that Americans won't be 'blamed for the instability.'

I think that Americans are too in love with the pottery barn analogy. It goes, if you break it, you own it. Americans have some idea that they own Iraq because they've happily broken it. Well, the Iraqi's own Iraq. What America owns is the mess.

Or the result is primitive tribal chest thumping from people who ought to know better - Israel good,ugh! Palestinians bad, ugh! Us no steal country, ugh!

Well, sorry, but whatever the shortcomings and problems of the Palestinians are, it behooves us to recognize that Israel has most of the power and has been using it pretty relentlessly to screw Palestinians over for 70 years. And if we can't face up to that little fact, I don't know how we can expect anything to come about.

In the section you quote, you'll note the example he chooses to give of Palestinian opposition to Israeli actions is "a Palestinian child who throws a stone at an Israeli soldier," rather than the more accurate (and relevant to his context) "Palestinian suicide bomber who blows up a mixed-religion disco on a Saturday night, killing a bunch of children."

Ah, you prove Fisk's point. Sucide bombings are abhorrent and rare. Every one is given thorough coverage in the US media. Airstrikes and tank incursions are abhorrent and not very rare. Few are given thorough coverage in the US media. Your sense of 'accuracy' is skewed by the reporting you're fed.

A quick thought: would the kind of news and comment found in Ha'aretz survive the editoral blue pencil and lobbyist backlash if they appeared in a major US newspaper. If the answer is 'no' -- and I believe that is the answer -- then there's something deeply, deeply wrong with American reporting on Israel-Palestine.

"there's something deeply, deeply wrong with American reporting on Israel-Palestine."

Travel anywhere outside the US and you'll get a very different picture. Indeed--irony of ironies-- you'll get a more evenhanded report in Israel itself.

Do you even know of an Arab-American on US Television? Yet NYT's Dan Okrent said the mere suggestion that people keep track of Jewish vs. Arab ethnicity in US Middle East coverage was "deeply disturbing." I bet it was too— to Dan Okrent and the Sulzbergers.

There is something wrong when Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Ross, Adelman, May and Gerecht about what we should do re "Arab terrorism." Our theoretical Palestinian journalist-wag might say the clearest analogy would be to Goebbels covering the Wannsee Conference.

Steve brings up the Judy Miller Scandal. The NYTimes is an important paper because of their "inside connections" that other news organizations lack. The Bush administration has used the NYT and gamed the Times to spread Bush mis-information. Judy Miller was a scandal because her sources were lying to her. If they had been truthful (as is the case with other administrations) there would have been no Judy Miller scandal. She would have been a star.

Organizations like Knight Ridder, with few inside contacts have had much more accurate reporting than the NYT or WaPO. They are not being fed a bunch of hooey by Bush and must report the facts as they see them.

"Judy Miller was a scandal because her sources were lying to her."

Maybe. But maybe she wanted to be lied to. She had, after all, a horde of neocon friends. Moreover, it seems incredible to me that someone as experienced as Miller would buy into what she wrote. I know I didn't.

Consider this: what if Ken Adelman really believed to war would be a cakewalk? What if they (and Miller) thought it would tied up in a ribbon in a matter of weeks? If they believed this, a l lot of of things fall into place:

No WMDs: Who cares? We won.
No ties to AlQ: Nitpicking. Do you want SH back?

The problems might well have been forgiven if the war had been won quickly, and on the cheap. It was what Sharon counted on in Lebanon. He lost. So will we.