Sometimes, having zero recognition can be frustrating because it means that days -- weeks -- later, some "big name" will bumble onto something that should have been immediately obvious from various code phrases contained in the original story. The now infamous O'Hanlon/Pollock op-ed generated an enormous amount of media coverage, mostly because these effete ninnies reported that the surge was making things better. That they did this on the coattails of the US military was admitted, if coyly, in the op-ed itself, though no one at the time seemed to recognize the admission. Except here, where the opening statement made in the op-ed was easily decipherable:
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel....The meaning was obvious:
Readers are to be convinced of the veracity of this report because, despite their being handled by the US military the entire time, O'Hanlon and Pollock have "harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq."But now Glenn Greenwald, in an interview with O'Hanlon, is revealing that this is exactly how the propaganda effort went down. The DoD arranged the entire trip.
How did you arrange the meetings with the Iraqi military and civilian personnel?Now, don't get me wrong. I have great respect for Greenwald and it is especially good that he got O'Hanlon on record saying this. But everyone is claiming to be surprised by this "revelation" when it was no revelation at all. At least, not here. But "here" is pretty much the middle of nowhere.
MO: Well, a number of those -- and most of those were arranged by the U.S. military. ... The predominant majority were people who we came into contact with through the itinerary the D.O.D. developed.
Apologies for the self-indulgent bellyaching. I will now return the the regular bellyaching program.