Lying, being wrong, more lying, being a paid liar -- these things have consequences. Namely -- more and more avenues to spout your lies!

Take that, real-worlders!

Steve's overstating the case here.

I appreciate what he's trying to do, but al Hurra, while a U.S. government-funded exercise, is hardly an administration mouthpiece. They offer a stipend to everybody who goes on, so the money isn't tied to ideological fealty. I should know: they have no problem having me on repeatedly (and providing said stipend for each appearance) even though I'm resolutely critical of the administration -- and not in the fake O'Hanlon way, either.

Now, I don't know if he actually has a *contract* -- if so, maybe that would make a slight difference -- but it's a huge stretch to say he's "on the administration payroll" because he gets money that originated with the State Department for saying whatever he wants on a TV station.

Gotta hand it to the administration and their fan boyz -- they keep things going "he said / she said," totally obscuring the fact that there is no possible good outcome to this endless deadly folly.

Victory victory victory. Hate America Hate America.

The level of discourse and debate. Cue egghead and his name-calling.

A-ah! As we thought. Passively pushing the administration's official views.
Didn't fool us. Great job reiterating this in a new, visible post.

The Iraq Study group proposals included the instruction that "the president and his national security team should remain in close and frequent contact with the Iraqi leadership."

Back then, an administration official confided that the Iraq Study group--"riding in to save the son, had become an irritant." Another disclosed that Karl Rove "preferred James Baker not get instant gratification."

Dubya's fragile ego and the psychodrama with his father--screws everyone again.
Hence the surge, the failure of diplomacy...etc...etc....

A year after the invasion, there was something for the egbert-heads to point to showing progress. Two years, four years, etc -- "Read this and shut the hell up!" And so it will continue. More dead, more spent, more hatred sown.

That such a giant among the foreign policy intellectuals would sign on to Alhurra network and propaganize for the administration is proof that the surge is working.

O'Hanlon on the take? Is this any more corrupting than the checks he gets from the Saban Center? I am not sure. But, I suspect it will be much more damaging. Maybe time to fold it Baghdad Michael, looks like your done.

Doesn't anyone think it just a bit ODD that we never got to the bottom of that Armstrong Williams payola deal??? We have NO IDEA how he was funded, and of course more importantly, how many other "journalists" are STILL on the payroll! This is an issue I can imagine resonating with voters (do you think your tax money should be used to propagandize you?), yet no Dem pol took off with it.

Wouldn't you like an investigation to lead to a LIST from that one?

Let's not move past the fact that O'Hanlon pointed to cleaning up the devastation and destruction that we ourselves wrought as 'progress:'

"Ramadi is, to be sure, a badly damaged city. There has been hard fighting there for years, culminating in a major defeat for al-Qa’ida this March. But even in its bleakness, there were important signs of progress. For instance, the devastation requires legions of cleanup workers that American troops (though not yet the Iraqi government) have been able to hire and pay.
and;

"Successful U.S. tactics have gone well beyond classic military measures. For example, coalition forces are now trying to remove nitric acid and urea from stores, since these are the ingredients for homemade explosives. As a result, when many car and truck bombs are detonated these days, they are often less powerful than before, further helping to explain the reduction in casualties (which appears to amount to roughly a one-third decline in the monthly rate since just before the surge began—meaning that while Iraq remains very violent, trends are clearly in the right direction at the moment)."

Surely we recall that the ingredients for the car and truck bombs were ones left unattended at a munitions area, which we did nothing about despite knowing about it-- and were taken out by god-knows-who in truckloads. Recall whistle-blowing soldiers made a point of identifying this fact.

> I appreciate what he's trying to do, but al
> Hurra, while a U.S. government-funded exercise,
> is hardly an administration mouthpiece.

I am sorry, but post-Armstrong Williams one cannot assume that anyone taking any kind of US Government check is not compromised. Particularly if they are supporting the Administration position, as here.

I understand you are going to find that offense, and I am sorry. But that is the world Bush/Cheney created and we peons have to live in.

Cranky

Steve's not overstating the case. He says he doesn't know what it means. Methinks the clerisy doth protest too much. The big question is how much does Alhurra pay. If it's like a thousand an appearance it can't help but be corrupting and it's unethical no matter what you say elsewhere. Sorry, you don't get to say "well I can't be corrupted." It is still the appearance and the possibility of corruption if you get addicted to the money. That's the whole point of corruption.

It seems to me worse than even Cranky would have it. At this late point in our history, I view *anyone* working for Traditional Media as suspect. Over the last decade or so, Traditional Media have, as a whole, been complicit in the worst crimes against our nation and constitution and they show now signs of either remorse or change.

So, if you work for a Traditional Media outlet, like The New York Times, CNN or even say, "The Washington Monthly", to myself and most people you and your colleagues have so debased your profession that we automatically assume that you are lying, at the very least, when it comes to anything government-related.

I don't know about think-tank cowboys, but no journalist should take government money, Period. Full fucking stop.

At The Washington Note, Steve says this:

O'Hanlon's public bio does say that he is a commentator for Alhurra -- so nothing is hidden. But "under contract" and helping to produce shows, as I'm told he is helping to do, seems to be a broader form of engagement in America's propaganda efforts, which aren't going that well in any case.

A.J.,
I haven't seen what you do on Al Hurra, so I'm not comparing directly, but Fox has Colmes. It is impossible to determine to what extent someone is being paid by the Administration to do their dirty work. Who decides that O'Hanlon is the "expert" to have on? Who decides how much of our tax dollars he should be paid to spout his dubious opinions? Is he told what to say? Does he need to be told? I think not, really. If he keeps saying things that get him a lot of think tank money and TV exposure, then even a dog can understand that kind of positive reinforcement. The bottom line is that he is being paid for what his opinion is rather whether his opinions have merit.

Yeah, a household name like Alex...um...Rossmiller carries a lot of weight. No disrespect (other than the ordinary kind I always throw around) meant, but O'Hangman has regular appearances on TV and guaranteed space in the NYT and WashPost. Even if they are paying you both a 'stipend', he still has a louder megaphone and a bigger soapbox. Mr. Rossmiller's stipend is chump change compared to the value that O'Handjob provides the administration.

As I sounded off on Eschaton this afternoon when it was revealed:

ef this p of s...
sorry you folks don't know me around here.
I'd much rather express myself fully

I realize this is serious business, but isn't it comical that we named our cheerleading network to sound like a cheer? Personally, I would have preferred 'Al-Hurray' or 'Al-Yipee' but you can't have it all.

Here is an interesting analysis of the parallels between Napoleon Bonaparte's and George W. Bush's fantasies about remaking the Middle East. Both megalomaniac losers who ended up destroying a great empire.

Alex: "I appreciate what he's trying to do..."

I think we all "appreciate" what Steve was trying to do. For stepping out of line, O'Hanlon's career and credibility has to be utterly destroyed.

If nothing else, I suspect O'Hanlon is learning something interesting about the "progressive" movement in this country.

Come to think of it, Kevin's touched the third rail a few times himself on this blog, when he's broached a comment or two that didn't properly come out of the Democrat's Little Blue Book.

Incidentally, does the Washington Monthly publish its donor's list?

Another well-known progressive traitor to the Cause:

William Shawcross

For propaganda to be effective, one needs willing foils. What a shameful time we live in. Even the housing bubble and price deflation in the housing market can't be dealt with truthfully. The stock market has become fantasy-driven. The same people who talk about letting market forces work manipulate it and the news that drives it, as if bad news will go away if ignored or deferred. We are a childish people in the main.

elmendorf, what a nice troll name. Conflating dead heroes with ignoble causes; a right-wing specialty.

I think we all "appreciate" what Steve was trying to do. For stepping out of line, O'Hanlon's career and credibility has to be utterly destroyed.I think we all "appreciate" what Steve was trying to do. For stepping out of line, O'Hanlon's career and credibility has to be utterly destroyed.

I think we all appreciate what you're trying to do, which is smear and slander your opponents when you're unable to refute their arguments or when they have clearly refuted yours.

Apparently this tactic is the second-to-last refuge of a scoundrel or someone with a victim complex, the last, of course, being wrapping oneself in the flag.

Since this war is mostly for the support of the public, the government is obliged to present its side and to challenge the other side. it is a pity Soros pays more than Uncle Sam does.

"For stepping out of line, O'Hanlon's career and credibility has to be utterly destroyed."

ROFL... Nice ad hominem attack. Got anything substantive to say? O'Hanlon is, of course, getting nailed for his dishonesty and for his complete failure to back up his assertions about Iraq. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

"Since this war is mostly for the support of the public"

No, dear, this war is mostly for the support of George W. Bush and the Republican Party. Sadly for them, they screwed up.

"the government is obliged to present its side and to challenge the other side."

No, dear, I'm afraid that you are, once again, completely wrong. The government is obliged to tell the truth, nothing more. What we have instead, is propaganda, and clumsy propaganda at that.

"it is a pity Soros pays more than Uncle Sam does."

ROFL... Nice ad hominem attack, wholly divorced from reality. You really should get out more.

elmendorf on August 23, 2007 at 10:51

I can't believe this is the first time any of you have heard of the Brookings Index. I've been following it for a long time now.

elmendorf on August 25, 2007 at 4:16 PM

The Brookings group was considered a reliable source for a long time. Their findings were quoted constantly. Apparently, this was only until they stopped telling you what you wanted to hear.

How unfortunate for you that computers have this thing called "storage." Usually "a long time" means more than two days.

elmendorf on August 25, 2007 at 8:58 PM

Come to think of it, Kevin's touched the third rail a few times himself on this blog, when he's broached a comment or two that didn't properly come out of the Democrat's Little Blue Book.

Come to think of it, the pounding Mr. Drum sometimes takes from his regular readers sort of discredits the idea of the left as an army of like-minded ideological zombies.

If we were freedom-lovin' independent thinkers like you guys on the right, we'd call up Kevin and say "ditto. ditto. ditto." just to prove our independence.

Nice ad hominem attack. Got anything substantive to say?

Yeah, "dear." You got anything to actually refute the statement? Did you read the link?

What do YOU think Steve is "trying to do?" His implication is obvious that the only way O'Hanlon could possibly disagree with the Party Line is because he was being bribed by the administration. It isn't "ad hominem" when the lynch-mob motivations are glaringly obvious.

[Handle Hijack]

Come to think of it, the pounding Mr. Drum sometimes takes from his regular readers sort of discredits the idea of the left as an army of like-minded ideological zombies.

Uh, no. The only thing it actually proves is that Kevin isn't a like-minded ideological zombie.

Hey "egbert." How come your spelling has suddenly improved so much?

Then comes the muckety mucks in the liberal Congress

Voted for by whom????

"Hey "egbert." How come your spelling has suddenly improved so much?"

Go read it again, elmendrof

Well, this will teach me to comment and run! I'm getting back to this thread late, obviously, but . . .

Let me first say that in addition to being a hated establishment fellow at a DC think tank, I'm also a contributing editor to the noted centrist sell-out rag . . . AmericaBlog. Some of us in the "clerisy" are good guys, I promise. Believe me, I dislike O'Hanlon's views as much as -- probably more than -- anybody else.

Really I was just making the point that compensation for going on al Hurra (a network that, to the best of my understanding, is viewed by about four people worldwide) is not equivalent to being on the administration's "payroll." It's not a conflict of interest, and I think evidence of altering one's views to get the payment would be necessary to label it corrupt. It's roughly the equivalent of getting paid by a paper for an op-ed.

There are *plenty* of reasons to criticize O'Hanlon. This just doesn't happen to be one of them, and I figured people might want to know.

Almost forgot -- I think this goes without saying, but this is no criticism of Steve. I understand how the O'Hanlon thing could look, and since I have some knowledge of how al Hurra works, I figured I'd chime in. Steve and I were on the foreign policy panel at YKos together recently, we work together in DC, etc. etc.

"Yeah, 'dear.' You got anything to actually refute the statement?"

ROFL... Dear heart, you made the silly ad hominem attack; it's up to you to back it up. It's hardly surprising that you cannot, of course.

"It isn't 'ad hominem' when the lynch-mob motivations are glaringly obvious."

LOL... You might as well give it up, dear and just admit that you got caught making shit up. All you're doing now is digging that hole deeper and deeper.

Here is a quote from O'Hanlon in 2003 that shows not only what a terrible analyst he is, but how he has continuously misrepresented and/or misunderstood the facts on the ground:

Finally, Democrats implicitly assume that Iraq will still be as big a national problem come election time next fall. That assumption is probably wrong. For one thing, a number of trends in Iraq today—in the education and health sectors, in electricity levels, in availability of fuels for cooking and heating, and in market activity—are more positive than commonly appreciated.

Perhaps most crucially, U.S. troops in Iraq will almost surely be fewer in number—and less exposed to attack—come next fall. Although there will not yet be a strong Iraqi army to replace the U.S.-led coalition, there will be an Iraqi police force that has taken over most patrolling and routine beat-walking duties in major Iraqi cities. Already, 55,000 such police are on the streets, and the number will double within a year. That should permit U.S. troop levels in Iraq to decline by about half and reduce American casualties at least as much.

How many falsehoods in just these two paragraphs? Half a dozen at least, and some of them are whoppers. The Democrats crushed the Republicans on the war, which was the decisive issue of the election, availability of electricity and fuel and progress of reconstruction have all been resounding failures, troop numbers and casualties are up not down, et alia.

You might as well give it up, dear and just admit that you got caught making shit up.

Nice dodge, poochie muffins.

The actual quote:

I still don't understand how O'Hanlon could have co-written with James Steinberg one of the very first major articles calling for US troop withdrawals from Iraq and then have written "A War We Might Just Win."

I recently communicated with Steinberg and then encouraged The Nation's Ari Berman to follow up, and as Berman makes clear, Steinberg has not changed his views even a nanometer.

I've also recently learned that Mike O'Hanlon is under contract with the US government's propaganda network, Alhurra. I'm not quite sure what I think about that yet -- but it's something that ought to be in the open.

It isn't "O'Hanlon changed his views by taking government cash under the table" in that many words, but it's the only obvious implication. Want to try some more Latin?

By the way, elmo, dear, O'Hanlon's credibility doesn't have to be "destroyed," for the simple reason that, if you actually look at his record over the past few years, he has no credibility. With respect to events in the Middle East in general, and Iraq in specific, he has been proven embarrassingly and blatantly wrong, time and time again.

Sorry, but the government is not in the news business for profit.

Al Hurra is watched by practically nobody, because it's seen as a spin doctor for America. Voice of America is impartial, Al Hurra has yet to prove itself as far as I know. Heck, the entire founding of the station was to air pro-American content.

Too many people like to hear themselves talk, whether they know anything or not. It gets annoying fast. For the rest, read Marc Lynch on al-Hurra.

The idea that Mike's stipend is inconsequential is an insult.

His stipend isn't illegal but it's unethical since it's undisclosed and creates a clear conflict of interest using US civil service standards for establishing conflict of interests.

Let's not forget O'Hanlon's advocacy of ballistic missile defense, an idiocy which IIRC antedates his support of the invasion.

Hey, this ain't your Peace Corp O'Hanlon any more...he gotta make a buck! How else can he afford to send his kids to the Ivy League?

Just out of curiosity, what is the significance of the herd of horses on the Alhurra masthead?
http://www.alhurra.com/Sub.aspx?ID=266

Are they supposed to be a herd of Arabian horses? Because with the blue sky and white clouds, it's more evocative of Montana or Wyoming to me.

But I know nothing of horse breeds, and have never visited the Middle East.

Does it conjure visions of sheikhs on noble steeds for the hapless citizens of Baghdad, as they suffer from a lack of electricity and water during the 100 plus temperatures of summer? Does it stir nostalgia in their hearts, when they're not thinking about the relatives lost to sectarian or insurgent killings?

It ought not to be difficult to find out who funds the Iraq Index, O'Hanlon's anal retentive fact collection project. It is hard to believe Brookings would fund it out of internal monies. O'Hanlon has to put food on his family, and is probably prostituting himself to do it.

Here is my response just emailed to my friend Alex Rossmiller:

Alex — I saw your comments via Kevin Drum.

O’Hanlon is “not” just getting a stipend for appearing now and then on Alhurra. According to another Alhurra employee, he is “under contract” to them not just as a commentator but as someone who helps produce shows, line up others, etc....that is different — and compensated far more robustly than the modest honoraria you may receive for appearing.

Best,

Steve Clemons

> Really I was just making the point that
> compensation for going on al Hurra (a network
> that, to the best of my understanding, is viewed
> by about four people worldwide) is not equivalent
> to being on the administration's "payroll." It's
> not a conflict of interest,

Thank you for that pronouncement from on high, but I fear I must note that you offer no reasons or arguments in support of why this is so. Specifically you do not address any of the very cogent counterarguments advanced upthread.

So let me restate the basic principle: no news reporter or pundit can take any money from the US Government and not have an automatic conflict of interest. Not ever, and certainly not under the Bush/Cheney Administration which is on the record as having used government money to place moles and shills into the traditional media.

If a reporter is working for a news agency that is publicly acknowledged to be government owned (and is subject to oversight from Congress), he can avoid charges of corruption by making this fact clearly known in every piece he publishes (and every teevee appearance) outside that entity. The conflict of interest will still remain however.

Cranky

"Nice dodge, poochie muffins."

ROFL.... Oh, the irony....

"The actual quote:"

Yes, dear, let's look at your "actual quote":

For stepping out of line, O'Hanlon's career and credibility has to be utterly destroyed.

Nice ad hominem attack, dear. Got anything substantive to say? Because all you're doing right now is bobbing and weaving because you got caught making a silly attack.

this is just more of the elite in this country covering for one another.

Neither I, nor most americans, are willing to give much credibility to a guy in who works for an outfit called the "National Security Network". No thank you, we're sick of these very important and serious people covering each-others asses, and I don't give a god damn what they have to say.

It's not so much that the government is buying loyalty, it's that the loyal are being paid off, which is why nonsense about how O'Hanlon could write anything he wanted, how the pay was low, has nothing to do with the case. He has his knee pads

...but Fox has Colmes..... steve EVfuture at 8:21 PM

... it is a pity Soros pays more than Uncle Sam does. Walter E. Wallis at 9:44 PM

What do YOU think Steve is "trying to do?"....elmendorf at 10:40 PM

"The Brookings group was considered a reliable source for a long time."

Until, oh, the mid-1960s or mid-1970s, yes. And the Republican Party was for civil rights until Rutherford B. Hayes. How precisely is ancient history relevant?