Well, I suppose it's a step in the right direction when John Podhoretz
admits his fellow conservative journalists and pundits ("alas") engaged in "happy-talk assessments" during the early years of the Iraq War. But notice how he slams the Washington Post's Thomas Ricks and Karen De Young after he all but acknowledges they were largely right in their early reporting of the war (i.e. non-happy talk) and largely right in their reporting today that AQI may be on the verge of defeat:
It is very interesting indeed that Thomas Ricks and Karen De Young are starting to test the possibility that, in their understandable despair after the many U.S. failures in the first 3½ years of the Iraq war, they might have gotten it wrong.
So let me get this straight: Ricks and De Young have been consistently right in their reporting -- and therefore might have gotten it wrong. John and the happy-talk crowd have been consistently wrong in their blowhard assessments -- and therefore might have gotten it right. ... God, it must be galling for happy-talk conservatives to admit to themselves that the evil MSM has gotten the war largely right. It's short-circuiting their brains, judging by John's right-wrong confusion. ... It must also gall them that it was critical assessments -- not smiley-face cheerleading -- that forced the administration to finally change course in Iraq. ...
... Oh, look: Glenn
, while questioning the patriotism of politicians and journalists, posts a reader's strange new theory about why the administration didn't change course sooner:
... I have to believe that one reason the chain of command was reluctant to change course in Iraq was the belief that the opposition was not in good faith, but instead was a stealth attempt to finally achieve what they could not win outright in 2003--and therefore any change in policy or admission that things weren't progressing would be used as a hammer to just end the entire thing.
It always comes back to the non-happy-talk critics. ... It's their fault!