Found this through Frank Rich's latest piece, which according to Rich, was scrubbed by Politico when they updated THEIR piece.
How We Know What McChrystal Really ThinksAndrew Sullivan
22 Jun 2010 11:55 am
<snip>
It's a shock, isn't it? Obama essentially gave McChrystal everything he asked for, and backed the full counter-insurgency strategy. He has, in my view, foolishly thrown more resources and more ambition at this hopeless task than his predecessor ever did. And yet, McChrystal and his flunkies still feel the need to bad-mouth and mock those who lost the argument.
This is news, no? It's important news. It reflects on the character and integrity of the man tasked to lead America's longest ever war.
So why, one wonders, have we not heard a peep of this from all the official MSM Pentagon reporters and analysts with their deep sources and long experience? Politico explains (before it got scrubbed from their article): McChrystal, an expert on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, has long been thought to be uniquely qualified to lead in Afghanistan. But he is not known for being media savvy. Hastings, who has covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for two years, according to the magazine, is not well-known within the Defense Department.
And as a freelance reporter, Hastings would be considered a bigger risk to be given unfettered access, compared with a beat reporter, who would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks.
The better their sources, the less we know. Take it away, Greenwald!
<snip>
Link:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/how-we-know-what-mcchrystal-really-thinks.html:wtf:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
