“Several”:http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/ “others”:http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_07_29_archive.html#3544512441182964331 have been picking on Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack for “their _NYT_ piece”:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print about Iraq.
Without commenting on the piece itself, I would point out O’Hanlon “spoke about Iraq”:http://www.armscontrol.org/events/axisofevil_jan03.asp#ohanlon at a “January 2003 ACA event.”:http://www.armscontrol.org/events/axisofevil_jan03.asp I remember being struck by the fact that he offered a bunch of good arguments for NOT invading Iraq, didn’t really answer them, and said he would support invasion anyway.
See a great explanation of the O’Hanlon/Pollack piece here:
http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/phenomena/tab_think_tank_991005.html
O’Hanlon and his usual partner in crime Ivo Daalder are hacks looking for a job in a Democratic White House…there usual strategy is “yeah, we favour empire but what type” or “yeah, we favour BMD but what type”, that kind of thing. Arthur Koestler’s “The Call Girls” comes to mind.