In yesterday's post on the silence of the think tanks I was relying on an account I read in a book, which can sometimes be a problem since books tend not to be fact-checked especially rigorously. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, for example, turns out not to have been as silent on this issue as the post implied. Here, for example, is Jessica Matthews advocating "coercive inspections" as an alternative to "the very real possibility that a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, even if successful in doing so, could subtract more from U.S. security and long-term political interests than it adds. In this case an alternative does exist."
« The Hardball Guide to Professionalism | Main | The Giuliani Doctrine »
Carnegie on Iraq
15 Aug 2007 09:56 am
Comments (7)
books tend not to be fact-checked especially rigorously
Aren't you writing a book? Best not to denigrate the brand.
Aren't you writing a book? Best not to denigrate the brand.
Jonah Goldberg has pre-emptively ruined the brand by making a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.
It's a common mistake. There's a big difference between what think tanks do - and what the media deigns to publicize.
OT (sorry). Matt--remember the post you did a few weeks ago regarding baseball players (pitchers) regionality and tendencies to plunk batters in retaliation? Jose Offerman (yes, he still plays) apparently wnet nuts after being hit: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/wires/08/15/2010.ap.bbm.offerman.bat.attack.0241/
That omission is odd because the Carnegie proposal was headline news, at least on the major op-ed and commentary pages, for weeks after it came out. The administration had to respond if I remember correctly. Anyone who was remotely paying attention to the goings on of wonkworld would definitely know about it.
I still think you should look for people who became highly critical of the admin once the war went badly but refused to take a position on it, one way or the other, in advance. They are the real culprits here, not people like O'Hanlon and Pollack who genuinely believed that it was the right thing to do.
Any suggestions?
"Are you now the token liberal?
Hasn't Matt been the token liberal from Day One? The Atlantic has always leaned a bit to the Right. It's also a sane publication staffed by literate people, so by today's standards it's not really a "conservative magazine." But it certainly isn't a liberal one.
Comments closed August 29, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Tell me why the Atlantic seems to have bought Meghan McArdale as well. Are you now the token liberal?
Posted by JK Bowling | August 15, 2007 10:14 AM