The Limits of Disclosure

Andrew thinks The Wall Street Journal should disclose Kimberly Kagan's involvement in the authoring of the surge plan when running her commentaries on how brilliantly the surge is working. That would be nice but, honestly, how about just . . . not running her commentaries? There are hundreds of conservative pundit and think tankers around time; just find one not named Kagan! Call Steve Hayes. Call anyone. This isn't brain surgery.

Comments

I don't see why this bothers you. Either the substance of column is accurate and persuasive or it isn't. Obviously, WSJ should make full disclosure so people can factor that in when they assess the substance, but otherwise who cares?

Posted by Led | July 12, 2007 9:40 AM

So, are you saying that co-authorship of a policy disqualifies you from advocating for it? Sullivan's right here--it's perfectly legitimate for Kimberly Kagan to promote her handiwork, and for the WSJ op-ed page to aid and abet her in said enterprise, so long as it's clear to everyone that that's what's going on. It's also OK to publish a conservative pundit not named Kagan--but that would serve a slightly different purpose.

Posted by David | July 12, 2007 9:42 AM

My understanding is that in the Neo World Order, we all change our name to Kagan.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 12, 2007 9:45 AM

Echoing David and Led, it was on the op-ed page of the WSJ after all. Four points to add here though.

1) Who the heck is Kimberly Kagan (beyond the brief bio given under her piece in yesterday's op/ed)? What's her relation to the other Kagans?

2) The reason I'd be suspicious about an op/ed about the surge by anyone named "Kagan" or "Barnes" isn't because it was partly a Kagan's idea, but because Kagan and Barnes were touting the surge's success months before it had been fully implemented. What a stupid move that was, because it weakens otherwise legitimate calls for patience now, based on the full complement of troops only arriving last month (although Alexander Haig questioned why it took six months to get all the troops in theater). The WSJ should instead solicit an op/ed from Michael Yon, who could offer firsthand impressions.

3) Matt, you missed the howler in the WSJ's editorial on McCain yesterday, where they pretended that McCain's immigration position (same as the WSJ's) wasn't the primary reason for his campaign's implosion.

Posted by Fred | July 12, 2007 11:30 AM

Call Steve Hayes?

Hard to think of someone *more* delusional about Iraq than that guy. He thinks Saddam was behind 911.

Posted by Jim E. | July 12, 2007 11:53 AM

That Steve Hayes?

The one who cheerfully peddled Feith's concocted "intelligence" on Iraq by making the rounds of the teevee shows claiming to have the real scoop on the facts?

Not just "delusional" but patently a conscious agent for spreading neocon propaganda.

Posted by Justin | July 12, 2007 3:32 PM