Greenwald on the NYT on Iran

Glenn Greenwald deconstructs today's New York Times article chronicling the administration's internal debate over Iran. I think he gets it right.

But so many of the "facts" here are, at the very least, questionable. While some U.S. officials have accused Iran of arming Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, Iran has categorically denied that accusation, and, as that same article reported, even Robert Gates refused to confirm the allegation with anywhere near the level of certainty that the Times bestowed this morning on this claim.

Indeed, the Times itself even reported last week: "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Monday that Iranian weapons were being smuggled into Afghanistan and into the hands of Taliban fighters, but that it was unclear whether Iran's government was behind the arms shipments." Contrast that caution from Bush's own Defense Secretary with the unambiguous claim of the Times today that Iran is "inflaming the insurgencies in . . . Afghanistan."

And then there is the claim that Iran is "inflaming the insurgencies in Iraq . . . and in Gaza." It is more or less established that Iran aids the Shiite factions which are close to Iran and close to the Iraqi government, but those are not "insurgents." And it is far from established that Iran aids the actual insurgents in Iraq attacking U.S. troops -- in particular, the ex-Baathist Sunni elements and "Al Qaeda in Iraq." The claim by the Times -- presented as unquestionable fact -- that Iran "is inflaming the insurgency in Iraq" is, at best, quite sloppy, and as presented, is also misleading.

The same is true for the claim that Iran is "inflaming an insurgency" in Gaza. The sole basis for that claim appears to be the aid provided by the Iranians to Hamas. But Hamas is not an "insurgency," but rather, the majority party which was democratically elected by the Palestinians. Theoretically, at least, to aid Hamas is to aid the democratically elected majority party in the Palestinian Authority, not arming an "insurgency."

[snip]

Of course, questions such as whether we ought to be doing any of that, whether such actions are justified, whether Iran or the U.S. is the more provocative party here, are all questions which can and should be debated. And nobody doubts that Iran -- like large numbers of countries around the world, including some of our most important allies -- is internally repressive. But no account of a potential U.S.-Iran war can possibly be complete -- or even accurate -- without including all of those facts about what we are doing to provoke the Iranians into conflict.

Yet the Times article contains none of that. It presents a view of Iran that adheres almost completely to the administration's depictions -- namely, that "Iran is emerging as an increasing source of trouble for the Bush administration," as though it is unilaterally and without provocation running around waging war against the U.S. In doing so, the article repeatedly asserts as facts propositions which are nothing more than unconfirmed administration claims.

While I'm not convinced that the article goes so far as to make it easier to make a claim for strikes on Iran, Greenwald is right that the article is short on facts, and he reminds us that to swallow the traditional talking points may be to forget, so soon, how easily the American media, and by turn the public, swallowed the traditional talking points in the run-up to Iraq.

Troop Funding Spin

Glenn Greenwald, picking up on Jonathan Alter (who was picking up on Greenwald in the first place) helps clarify the most important aspect of political spin success enjoyed by the White House and Republican Party vis-a-vis funding the Iraq war:

Both of the premises which Alter sets forth here are correct: (a) de-funding does not even arguably constitute "endangerment or abandonment of the troops," but (b) "Americans have been convinced that it does." And therein one finds what is the most extraordinary and telling fact of our political landscape. Namely, our Iraq war policy was just determined, in large part if not principally, by a complete myth: that de-funding proposals constitute an abandonment or, more ludicrously still, "endangerment" of the troops.

Emphasis mine. This is another in a series of "wins" the White House has enjoyed over Democratic leaders, despite the overwhelming returns of the 2006 mid-term election that turned the country blue. No matter what the public polls say, no matter how elections turn out, the White House and Republican leadership have simply been able to reduce the matter most effectively to a visceral level. Until the Democratic leadership finds a way to counter this, owning the intellectual high ground will continue to prove meaningless. Despite huge losses in Congress due to widespread corruption, cronyism and moral failure, Republicans still manage to hang on to the moral high ground, absurd as it may be, when it comes to the war.

Greenwald's whole post is here. It's a good one.

Blog Culture

A "blog" sounds like something your doctor takes a sample of by poking a cotton swab deep into the back of your throat to then send away to the lab for analysis. This connotation may have something to do with why I come to the scene relatively late.

But this post from Glenn Greenwald has a whole lot to do with what draws me into the fray despite my initial reluctance to, perhaps, open up and say "ah." I'm particularly interested in this passage:

There is much to learn from the contempt expressed by John Yoo, Joe Klein and Jon Alter towards blogs -- i.e., a collection of hundreds of thousands of politically engaged citizens who are dissatisfied with the prevailing political and media power centers and have created their own instruments for expressing and activating that dissatisfaction.

Greenwald's article is not about blog culture, but then again it is. In this post he takes on those who would classify bloggers as "parasites" on the mainstream media. These are the same people who attempt to minimize the relevance of the blogosphere by calling it so much "mouthing off at home," (as opposed to those who mouth off in front of the camera) thus trivializing the research and writing done by a number of very committed and (often) informed readers.

One of the truly remarkable things about the blogosphere--especially politically, but maybe that's just how I relate to it all--is the level of engagement it fosters among those who might not otherwise get involved if they couldn't do so from their homes, work centers or schools, and often at little or no cost. I'm absolutely blown away by the sheer range of information, analysis and opinion that the Internet delivers to my desktop every day, and the more I read and write the more I want to read and write about what I'm reading and writing. I dunno. Sounds like an actual dialogue gaining ground among a whole lot of people who have traditionally had little opportunity to get past the glossy and polished exterior of the media at-large (or our political institutions or professional sports franchises, you name it). This is, I believe, what we call progress and empowerment, and exactly what our country proclaims--loudly and repeatedly all across the globe--to stand for.