It’s hard to believe the editors of the Washington Post believe Robin Wright’s continued opposition to the proposed US policy of defining Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization is reporting in any true sense of the word. It is clearly “arranged opinion” with sources cited to support her views. That’s fine. But put it on the oped page where it belongs. Don’t tell us its news. Yesterday’s article was analyzed below. Today’s is worse.
PJM Home
14 Comments
1. Michael J. Totten:“according to diplomats and officials of foreign countries”
Kick me if I ever do that.
Aug 15, 2007 - 10:44 pm 2. markus:You may very well have an accurate hunch about her. The question this raises for me is “so what???”, and also “who cares???” I don’t give a damn what Robin Wright’s opinions are, and neither should you. The ONLY valid questions, whether reading an article by Michael Totten, or Robin Wright, or Robert Fisk, or Roger Simon, should be, “is this the truth?”, and “is there something missing?”
I do agree that her article today is weaker than yesterday’s one, because it doesn’t deliver what it promises in the headline and first sentence. That is, no actual Europeans and Arabs government officials are quoted. Instead, we get more dissent from the U.S. foreign policy establishment — interesting but beside her initial point. Basically, the article seems made up of outtakes from yesterday’s piece, with more quotes from Beltway insiders and a misleading intro.
Still, its quite a stretch to conclude from this that she’s making this stuff up. Do you really think that NO allies whatsoever have expressed concern about putting more pressure on Iran?
Aug 15, 2007 - 10:53 pm 3. Barry Dauphin:“so what”?
Because op-eds belong on the op-ed page where people begin reading them understanding that it’s an opinion piece. The wording of the quasi op-ed pieces often sound as if they are presenting dispassionate factsd, rather than a carefully contructed narrative. Many readers can be duped by this for a lot of reasons. The trend for op-ed stuff to be in the news is a very large problem. Wright is simply the latest symptom of that problem, but it is a problem.
Aug 16, 2007 - 6:15 am 4. soccerdad:At least yesterday Wright provided some useful information about the Revolutionary Guards finances. Today’s piece was just a colleciton of naysayers.
Aug 16, 2007 - 6:38 am 5. MikeD:Roger, you approach this all wrong. It is much less stressful if you simply assume, since it is in a major newspaper, that it is not news but is opinion or distortion. Regardless of where within the publication it is found it must be questioned and evaluated for inevitable bias, inaccuracy, and falsehood. Sometimes the bias and distortion is less blatant than at others but nothing can be accepted as raw fact and observation. If you want fact you read Michael Totten or Michael Yon, or letters from amateur observers on the scene. Otherwise you might as well be reading Scott Beauchamp.
Aug 16, 2007 - 7:18 am 6. jedrury:Regardless of what Robin Wright writes, this President of the United States does not read it or care about it and sleeps well regardless. It is comforting to know this. A man of conviction.
Aug 16, 2007 - 7:35 am 7. dclydew:Several months ago, I asked someone (either here or on MJT’s site) about defining ‘terrorist’. Most of the definitions were about them hiding among civilians, not being tied to a State and attacking innocent civilians. While we might well accuse Iran of supporting terrorists, I think we may be at risk of diluting the term if we just start applying to anyone that is not our friend or that takes a side in the guerrilla conflict in Iraq.
At this point, if Iran is arming Iraqi Shiites, we have to reconsider what we’re fighting… in short, perhaps the beginning of a proxy war with Iran.
Aug 16, 2007 - 7:49 am 8. dclydew:Regardless of what Robin Wright writes, this President of the United States does not read it or care about it and sleeps well regardless. It is comforting to know this. A man of conviction.
Convictions make convicts.
Aug 16, 2007 - 7:49 am 9. LarryD:dclydew, the Iranian regime has been suppling munitions and other supplies to the insurgents in Iraq for quite some time. The proxy war has already begun. It’s just that very few in Washington want to admit it.
Aug 16, 2007 - 8:40 am 10. ricpic:Apparently the best way to undermine the Iranian regime is to support it. All right thinking people know that!
Aug 16, 2007 - 9:23 am 11. dclydew:LarryD,
Well, thats really my point. Words modify our perception of reality (General Semantics). When we use a word, it creates a semantic connection to whatever our brains already have categorized to fit with that word.
For most people Terrorist is a definition of bad guys outside of a government, working on their own and directly attacking innocent civilians. Thus if we say “Iran’s Revolutionary Guard are Terrorists” we create the impression that they are independent of Iran’s government and focused mainly on innocent civilians. In reality, it appears that they are directly backed by the government and are aiming quite a bit higher than just bombing innocents.
Aug 16, 2007 - 10:04 am 12. Lem:If worry is the worry of the day, what is more worrisome?
What Iran is doing? A nuclear program, arming and training insurgents in Iraq, talking about wiping a country off the map.
Or what we are doing to counter it? Leaking about freezing the assets of ‘I don’t know what to call them’ group of bad people. (ooh the humanity)
Let’s fight the worries - Let’s not do/talk anything about Iran.
Aug 16, 2007 - 10:18 am 13. Charlie (Colorado):dclydew, in this case, the Quds are fighting out side their borders, not in uniform, using terror tactics, supporting terror organizations. Personally, I think an easy definition of “terrorist” is anyone using tactics intended to work primarily by spreading terror in a civilian population, but if you wanted to add “illegal combatants” to that it’d be fine.
I don’t see any problem with that definition including Quds.
Aug 16, 2007 - 12:35 pm 14. Peter Shalen:The article says that our “allies fear… that an evolving strategy may also set in motion a process that could lead to military action…” It’s about time, isn’t it?
Does anybody want to try to parse this sentence? “George Percovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that unilaterally sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard’s corporate interests makes sense if it AVOIDS THE PROSPECT OF NOT DOING SO in a new U.N. resolution.” (Caps mine.)
Aug 17, 2007 - 12:25 pm