I'm going to update this post over the next few days with some of the best and/or most noteworthy responses to today's big NYT story.
+ Juan Cole does a fabulous job of tying the revelations in this article to the wider debate over the war taking place in the context of the election. An absolute must read.
+ Steve Benen does a good job of placing the piece into a wider context, concluding that, "For five years, these men have been dominating the airwaves, telling Americans that we're "winning," that the Bush policy is "working," and that the media is ignoring the "good news." It wasn't true, as some of them are now willing to admit. But as offensive as it is to learn about the retired military leaders regurgitating White House talking points for fear of losing lucrative contracts, it's even more offensive that the Bush gang would view retired commanders as puppets, and the public as suckers."
+ Atrios shows once again why he's the world's best drive-by blogger (and I mean that in the best possible sense). Back when political blogging first broke big, members of the prestige media were often heard lamenting a lack of blogger ethics. They had editors and standards, and we did not. Therefore, we were dangerous and must be resisted. Except, well.... they didn't, they don't, and either way we can't be stopped. Those frequent calls for a "blogger ethics panel" sure seem quaint now, don't they?
+ Time's Karen Tumulty adds a bit of background to the story. NYT investigative reporter David Barstow won the Pulitzer back in 2004, and after this story he is surely going to win one again. It took a court case to pry loose the 8,000+ pages of email and transcripts upon which this story was based, and for that we all owe the NYT our thanks.
+ Marcy Wheeler (a.k.a. Emptywheel) examines why the NYT, after years of engaging in precisely the sort of behavior decried in this article, might choose now to come forward in such a high profile way. Although David Barstow has a long history of cleaning up the NYT's various mistakes, Wheeler suggests this article may also be motivated by the paper's rapidly declining financial outlook.
+ Col. Pat Lang recounts his personal experience with the briefings. He participated in one. He wouldn't play ball. He was never invited back.
+ Libby at Newshoggers.com has a similar reaction: "The only thing that surprises me about this story is that the NYT reported it"
+ Glenn Greenwald is weirdly subdued about today's news. I expected fire and brimstone, but instead I got "nothing to see here, move along." Sure thing, Glenn, this isn't entirely unexpected, but... just because those of us who are information junkies already know something, it does not follow that the average person does. Stories like this are useful precisely because they bring the information to an ever-wider circle of citizens.
+ The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb naturally tries to downplay the importance of the story, but it doesn't seem like his heart is really in it. The best he can do, in fact, is to suggest that the only problem here is a lack of transparency, and that because the American public isn't stupid, that's not really a problem anyway. But taken to its logical and not too far distant conclusion, that argument would suggest that government propaganda is never a problem, and given the WS's long history of fighting communism, that's an odd position for anyone writing for them to take. I mean, the people are too smart to fall for propaganda? Really? I'll remember that the next time someone from the WS decries bias in the media.
+ Moving even further to the right, Prairie Pundit declares that "countering the forces who want to lose the war is a patriotic obligation." King George would of course have said the very same thing about the obligation of British citizens to oppose our war of revolution.
+ Democracy Project also appears ready to dismiss the story. Their justification seems to rest on the fact that all pundits and so-called experts are shills for one interest or another, so this is really no different than anything else. I don't deny that point, but I don't see how it does anything other than magnify the importance of this issue. Moreover, given that war is an issue unlike any other in a democracy, it seems to me that even granting their point, this still should be an issue of immense concern.
+ Rick Perlstein, quite predictably, uses the story as a chance to sling his new book. Way to use the power of your blog to maximum effect!
Subscribe to this blog's feed
