Posted by: Brian on November 5, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Basically, the entire Vanity Fair flap boils down to these things:
1) The article in question wasn’t supposed to be out until January, and indeed, it hasn’t been released yet. What we’re seeing is what I guess you would call a press release, in that it’s designed to build up publicity for the article;
2) The quotes that the press release gives are misleading and completely taken out of context with what the people interviewed actually said;
3) It’s a pre-election hit job, as Michael Rubin says, in that the quotes (as I said, taken out of context and twisted) are being pushed in such a way as to mean something they really don’t, that these former officials now are against the war. That is absolutely not the case at all.
In short, Vanity Fair pledged to these guys that they would be fair, accurate, and ethical. And they flat out lied. I’m with the good Captain on this one:
The article has much more, especially in conveying a sense of betrayal and abandonment of ethics at Vanity Fair. All of them had been told that their interviews would not be published until January, and more than one of them said they raised their concerns about their words being taken out of context before agreeing to the interview. Vanity Fair, it seems, has much more interest in partisan politics than in honest analysis and journalism — which is hardly surprising, given the track record to which Michael Ledeen alludes.
I’ve been on the receiving end of one of these “oh, we’ll be fair” interviews, only to be sandbagged when it actually came out. In retrospect, I should have known better, and I’m still paying a price for having believed the guy when he said he was going to be fair. Never again, brother.
Conservatives know, and should always remember, that this is the liberal media we’re talking about here, and if they can find a way to screw us over, they’re going to do it. I learned my lesson the hard way, and I suppose these guys are, too. But we can never, repeat NEVER, allow these attacks, dressed up as legit news articles, go unanswered.
Twenty years ago, maybe as recently as ten, if an article like this came out, it was over for those on the receiving end. Now we have an independent media (blogs and such) that are quick to point out the hackery from these news outlets. People aren’t buying it anymore, and that’s why we’ve seen Democrats struggle to be competitive. They don’t have it so easy anymore, and it’s taking its toll.
That’s not to say the left doesn’t have the advantage when it comes to the press, because this proves, if anything, that they still do. But they don’t have the monopoly like they once had, and that’s why we’re seeing closer and closer elections. People are questioning everything, every scrap of information put before them as never before, and now they have the resources to find out who’s telling the truth and who’s lying to them.
This Vanity Fair hit piece will only do as much damage as the GOP lets it do, and we should be on the offensive to dispute it.
Brian runs the website Iowa Voice, and is filling in for ST for a few days.
You don’t think the neo-cons are going to jump ship and one day claim they had nothing to do with Iraq? It’ll end up just like post-WWII Germany – “no nazi’s here…I wasn’t a Nazi-it was someone else.”
Chalk it up to conspiracy theories and the alleged “liberal media” if that makes it easier – but the fact is that neo-cons and other hawkish politicians that were behind the war are now claiming the opposite. (Democrats included – don’t forget, there were quite a few Dems that voted for this fiasco also.)
I’m sure it’s all about, as it always is, politics. Right now there are people on both sides who are playing politics with this war, saying that they never supported it, or that they did but no longer do, etc.
It takes more moral courage to fight on to victory, than to simply say “I quit” and walk away. And the fact is, we can’t just simply walk away, whether or not the war was a mistake (I don’t think it was).
If we just walk away right now, we’re going to see even more violence, more bloodshed, and that’s going to spill over to other countries, and it will follow us home here to the United States.
That’s what the Democrats just don’t get. They think that we can just call for a cease-fire and come home, but it just isn’t going to work that way. Until the terrorists are defeated, there will be no peace. Ever.
So, would you rather we fight them over there, or would you rather see our cities and our own civilians being killed by the thousands, perhaps millions, when one of these nutjob outfits gets their hands on a nuke or a chemical or biological weapon?
I swear the left out have such little understanding of the why’s and wherefores , that even when it turns bloody in the streets of America, it will still not be because of radical Islamic insanity. BDS fools and the moronic alleged news companies like the NYT will continue to print lie after lie until they die. The daily rinse and repeat of (insert their favorite fantasy here), still carries no weight or demonstrates an actual plan to solve the issues long term.
For Brian’s comment about “fightin them over there” -
If you understand international politics and the politics of terrorism, you would know that “fighting them over there” only works for a period of time before the presence of our troops brings them over “here.”
There is absolute evidence for this – read Robert Pape’s “Dying to Win”
Also – there is no basis in assuming that Democrats would “pull out and quit.” This is a talking point perpetrated by the right to win an election.
If you want to know my opinion – Democrats wouldn’t do a damn thing different. They voted for the war – and they use the oil. We would be stuck in Iraq in Lord knows where else if Dems were in charge. What America needs is a another option – the Democrat/Republican party is basically only one party.
Also -