Washington Post journalist Robin Wright
Washington Post journalist Robin Wright
takes issue with our post. We argued that her article this morning presented a one-sided platform for neoconservative pundits to articulate their long-running agenda to bomb Iran as “a new drumbeat for bolder action.” Wright disagrees:
This article totally misrepresents what I wrote and the intent, and I consider it intellectually dishonest to attack me or The Post for merely trying to identify the people, institutions and arguments for more aggression action against Iran. In three references, I pointed out that the people cited were either advocates of war in Iraq or echoed arguments to justify war in Iraq.
Second, the press is constantly coming under attack for not identifying early enough the arguments made for going to war with Iraq. I am trying to make sure that the press is devoting attention to what is beginning to be a critical mass for this argument on Iran. This was meant to be a benchmark piece in covering the emerging debate, which is no longer focused just on Iran’s alleged nuclear program but is also now tied to Tehran’s role in Iraq.
Third, the context for this article was also misunderstood and misrepresented. I was contrasting what this group of people think with what the administration has been trying to do with carrot-and-stick diplomacy with Iran over the past 14 months–as the lead sentence notes.
Finally, I am not an editorial writer. I am merely presenting the news–and this development. It is up the reader to determine how they feel about the people who make this case or the case itself.
I was surprised that the writer of this comment also did not go to the trouble of doing any research on my own writing on Iran (including several books dating back to 1973) or even looking at the piece I wrote in The Washington Post’s Outlook section two weeks ago about Iran. He might have developed a more realistic assessment of the context of both this piece and my work.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well, Wright is right!
August 9th, 2007 at 5:59 pmAs I said before the Washington Post is Fair and Balanced!
August 9th, 2007 at 6:00 pmSpin & Suppress this guy immediately TP.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:01 pmQuick Spin & Suppress this guy immediately.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:03 pmIt’s not Wright’s problem if the Left’s kook fringe is not represented!
August 9th, 2007 at 6:05 pmRobin you are out of your mind. Nuts. You are talking about war with Iran, like we were discussing building a theme park.
War with Iran is insane right now. We can’t even staff the war in Iraq. We’re sending young men and women off to risk getting killed, year after year. The SAME young men and women! And here you’re talking about war with Iran?
How many arabs do you want to hate America? All of them? Because thats all you’re accomplishing. To attack a country like Iran, is being a bully, just like it was to attack Iraq. I hear all this “tough talk” about how we’ll go into Pakistan with force if we think Al Quaidas being harbored, but I don’t hear you telling RUSSIA the same thing. Or China.
Picking on Iran right now, regardless of what you or your “guests” think, will be viewed by the international community as “bullying”.
And you know what the funny thing about being a bully is?
When the other kids get sick enough of you, they all gang up, and whoop the bejesus out of you.
:|
Maybe its time to stop talking about who we’re going to kill, and start acting like the USA again.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:07 pmOkay, but now Ms. Wright is defending herself against a straw man.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:08 pmWhat was asked, Ms. Wright, was where is the balance in this piece, and where is the admission that all of your earlier predictions were wrong? Where is the research of the predictions of any of your sources? On matters of foriegn policy, have you ever been accurate?
Shouldn’t it matter to the American public that most conservative “thinkers” have proven to be, well, WRONG? ALOT, I might add.
She right.
…but it is big of TP to admit you were wrong….oh wait, nevermind.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:09 pmwhat is beginning to be a critical mass for this argument on Iran. This was meant to be a benchmark piece in covering the emerging debate, which is no longer focused just on Iran’s alleged nuclear program but is also now tied to Tehran’s role in Iraq.
Exactly. By arguing that “critical mass’ is being achieved, she gives credence to that line of BS. There is very little credible evidence about Tehran’s role in Iraq, and by emphasizing this, she is obviously slanting her argument to bolster the BS.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:09 pmI find Ms. Wright’s complaints completely ridiculous, particularly given that ThinkProgress links directly to her article – which turns out to be a one-sided drumbeat of arguments for military actions against Iran filled with quotes from discredited neoconservatives, and even a one-sided headline.
If Ms. Wright thinks that her indignation is justified – I suggest that she read her own article, which damn well *does* read like an editorial, and is nothing approaching responsible journalism.
-J
August 9th, 2007 at 6:09 pmSo the Pro argument was a Billy Kristol and the Con argument was The White House?
Great contrasting.. maybe your next article should be titled “Impeachment: Those who are for it happening now and those who are for it but think we should wait six months”
August 9th, 2007 at 6:09 pmRobyn,
So you are merely pointing out the people and institutions who are supportive of more aggression towards Iran.
As a journalist you seemed to have forgot to point out some examples of people who are against more aggression in Iran. You know, that whole \”point/counterpoint\” thingy.
I have failed to see the contrast between the White House stance and the folks you have pointed out. This stance appears to be aligned with one another, and the White House has a funny way of being influenced time and again by the people and institutions you have cited.
As a reader, I have determined you are encouraging and backing the attack of Iran.
No need for your long-winded \”but I have been writing about Iran for years\” schtick.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:10 pmWell said Bartlebee
August 9th, 2007 at 6:11 pmThe neo-con water carriers in the Press just hate it when sites like TP call Bull Shit on them. Ruins their day. Worse then the wing nuts like Limpdick and O’Lielliey. At least with those 2, its a given that they lie through their teeth.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:12 pmThe only evidence I have seen presented of Iran\’s role in Iraq is the Fox news piece from a day or two ago, no other outlets ran that story.
Robyn seems to be of the ilk of folks who \”just know\” its going on.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:13 pmWhat do you expect? Thinkprogress.org is not a legitimate news source. It’s a website with a loonie liberal agenda.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:16 pmMore like this. Kudos to Wright for responding.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:16 pmRobin Wright is another Judith Miller.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:17 pmI hope Robin read our comments too.
btw – hey Robin – the trolls here (Peter Abelard) are hot for you!
August 9th, 2007 at 6:20 pmAlso:
I was surprised that the writer of this comment also did not go to the trouble of doing any research on my own writing on Iran
So you have to have read all of Wright’s past writings to properly put this piece of propaganda in context. Is this a newspaper or an episode of Lost?
August 9th, 2007 at 6:22 pmBush passes an executive order stating he can sieze the assets of any person or business in the US who is perceived to be working against the war effort in Iraq, and a week later all the News outlets are toting the Bush doctrine again.
Does ANYONE see a problem here?
August 9th, 2007 at 6:22 pmMs. Wright. Please do the country a favor and decide to spend more time with your family.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:23 pmWatchdog -
WOOF! TP is a (say it with me, jerk) PROGRESSIVE website. You like to call names, kiddo, so here’s one for you. Republican – You are a republican. I can think of no more unamerican label. So live with that.
-I Don’t need no watchdog!
August 9th, 2007 at 6:24 pmWell it doesnt happen often, but has been happening more and more the last year… TP and others like it are finally starting to put cracks into the BS wall that the media built around itself… they actually believed those BS walls were the end of the universe… funny.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:24 pmI see President Jake Troll is back, disguised as Peter Abelard. As I recall Abelard was a fool for love – Jake is just a fool.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:24 pmI hope Robin read our comments too.
btw – hey Robin – the trolls here (Peter Abelard) are hot for you!
Comment by kindness — August 9, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
——–
She is intelligent, caring, and a true patriot.
Although she is a beautiful woman, I would not say that I am “hot” for her, but I do respect her.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:26 pmthe press is constantly coming under attack for not identifying early enough the arguments made for going to war with Iraq.
well, quite frankly, i’m more pissed off at the press for not identifying early enough the arguments made for NOT going to war with Iraq…
…
and why does this get two threads???
August 9th, 2007 at 6:26 pm?
“Does ANYONE see a problem here?”
Yep, and I think it may be the same problem with all them Blue Dogs rolling over on their backs with their legs in the air in a surrender position. Something funny is going on here.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:27 pm#20. “I was surprised that the writer of this comment also did not go to the trouble of doing any research on my own writing on Iran”
So you have to have read all of Wright’s past writings to properly put this piece of propaganda in context. Is this a newspaper or an episode of Lost?
Comment by Laszlo Panaflex — August 9, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
lol!
August 9th, 2007 at 6:28 pm“carrot and stick” policy?
Show me the carrot.
And I look forward to reading your 1973 book on Iran which I’m sure accurately predicted the overthrow of the CIA-installed regime.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:28 pmJuly 17th, 2007, Bush issues this.
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq
And suddenly, all the news outlets are towing the administration line again.
Am I the ONLY one who sees this?
August 9th, 2007 at 6:28 pmYep, and I think it may be the same problem with all them Blue Dogs rolling over on their backs with their legs in the air in a surrender position. Something funny is going on here.
Comment by dildobaggins — August 9, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
I meant someone with a brain.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:29 pmShorter Robin Wright:
“Everyone I know thinks it’s a jolly idea.”
August 9th, 2007 at 6:29 pmIt is an interesting point, that she felt the need to respond to the blogosphere. Perhaps O’Rielly can rant about all the hatred in the left wings blogs again.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:30 pmNOW i start to read the comments…
bartlebee #6 reminds me of what i wanted to say FIRST:
thank you for reading TP, ms. wright… keep it up…
makes having it’s own thread understandable…
August 9th, 2007 at 6:31 pm.
I don’t know if Robin is a man or a woman, but I can see Robin is rushing to fill the void left by Bob Novak…..
August 9th, 2007 at 6:31 pmFor a reporter, she sure isn’t a very good communicator. On closer inspection, she’s not very honest, either. I believe she is supposed to get answers to the questions, ‘who, what, when, where, how, and why’. If she is reporting on opinion (as opposed to offering her own opinion – a clear no no), she is supposed to ask the opinions of all parties concerned with the topic. Only then can we “determine how they feel about the people who make this case or the case itself.”
This statement is balderdash – She is supposed to present both sides of the case, and to keep her preferences out of it. Both sides does not mean should we go to war now or later. It means should we go to war or not.
Fact: if Wright supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq – without challenging the facts presented by one concerned party, she has violated the most important journalistic standard – impartiality. In hindsight, does she think that some of the more obvious flaws in the Bush administration’s rush to begin the violence in Iraq should have been asked? Does she feel at all incompetent for not doing the difficult job of asking truth of power? Is she falling back on the “How was I to know to ask those questions?” canard? If so, she is a failure at her profession. Albeit a well-paid, well-connected failure, but a failure just the same.
There is no doubt that Iran – especially a nuclear-armed Iran (and while that is probably their goal, it is far from a “slam dunk”) – presents challenges for the world community. However, before we go killing a bunch of innocent people (the good ol’ press, like Wright, seem to buy, without the required question of the premise, the administration line that if they’re dead, and male, they’re a “terrorist”), and wasting borrowed money, we should investigate diplomacy and nonviolent measures first.
This statement is self-serving hokum. By covering only one side of the “argument”, you are contributing to, and assuring that “critical mass” is reached.
And finally:
This is self-validation, not reporting. Did Wright offer criticisms of her prior writings? No. Did she offer a bibliography? No.
Hi, my name is Marcus. Trust me, because I’m an expert. See, it says so in my book.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:32 pmComing out tomarrow
http://www.noendinsightmovie.com/
August 9th, 2007 at 6:33 pmWright: “Second, the press is constantly coming under attack for not identifying early enough the arguments made for going to war with Iraq.”
Sorry, this is simply 180 degrees off. The press is under attack for not identifying arguments against going to war with Iraq. Arguments for the war were spread throughout the media. Those who expressed anti-war views were shunted off to the side, shouted down or simply ignored. It’s hard to trust a “journalist” who would make a statement like Wright just did, supposedly defending herself.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:34 pmTrust me on this: never feed a baby onions.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:36 pmMs. Wright
The act of publishing a quote from someone in your article, as I am sure you know, lends a measure of credence to their opinion. When you list those pushing for war with Iran and give them quotes I would assume you would balance with some background on the person. Why not just publish a quote from someone off the street?
To lend balance your story should have indicated, after the quote, that the individual making the quote also held that, for example, war with Iraq was necessary and would be easy but has never recanted their prior position. This would allow the reader to gauge how seriously to accept the authority of the quote.
Frankly, this is Journalism 101 and the fact that you are trying to weasel out of doing this just shows how far from a professional you are.
I also assume that if we do go to war with Iran you won’t be bothered by the casualties because, after all, you had nothing to do with the final decision.
Sad
August 9th, 2007 at 6:36 pmYou’d look goon in a basic black dress.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:37 pmHer article is full of neo-conservative view points. Based on the past record of the Washington Post in how poor their reporting was on WMDs and the feeble case Bush made for going to war with Iraq. She and the Post have very little credibility to stand on.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:37 pmI love to romance you.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:37 pmWe have an overstrapped (supposedly) “volunteer” army that is under equipped in Iraq and Afghanistan already! These volunteers are now FORCED into longer service by mandates from the chickenhawk president extending over and over and over their time in Iraq. So much for “volunteer” army, once you sign up, all the rules and promises are thrown away. You are even expected to PURCHASE some of your OWN EQUIPMENT and you think we should be discussing attacking Iran?????
August 9th, 2007 at 6:39 pmWe can’t even protect our men in Iraq and Afghanistan as it is! No further aggression on yet another country will come from a volunteer army, that is a fact.
more attacks = DRAFT
Isn’t Robin Wright Sean Penn’s wife?
What gives?
August 9th, 2007 at 6:39 pmO.K., Robin, you can be the in the first wave of Storm Troopers who take the beach after we nuke them, heroic in your MOPP-4 gear, with a bayonet in hand, -you silly- ass Neo-SCUM
Cee-U-Next Tuesday.
moron.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:41 pmThird, the context for this article was also misunderstood and misrepresented. I was contrasting what this group of people think with what the administration has been trying to do with carrot-and-stick diplomacy with Iran over the past 14 months–as the lead sentence notes.
Neocons versus White House. Wow, that’s quite a contrast. Well, that pretty much covers the entire spectrum of thinking on the ways to deal with Iran. I guess there’s nobody else in the whole wide world who might offer a third or fourth viewpoint on it.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:42 pmFirst time gerbil owners should resist the urge to go right into breeding.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:42 pmIt’s hard to trust a “journalist†who would make a statement like Wright just did, supposedly defending herself.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — August 9, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Especially seeing as TP is supposed to be part of the “loony left”. If this is such a pointless, loony website, why bother to respond to it?
It’s what I’ve been telling you guys – once you respond to a comment, you validate it. As much as Robin and the trolls will refuse to admit it, Robin just validated TP’s post by deeming it worthy of rebuttal.
TP just won one!!!!
August 9th, 2007 at 6:43 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — August 9, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Kudos.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:43 pmExactly right and well written.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:44 pmI consider it intellectually dishonest to attack me or The Post for merely trying to identify the people, institutions and arguments for more aggression action against Iran.
The point is, why were voices opposed to war in Iraq excluded from the article? She doesn’t even address that question.
Also, it must suck to be working for a paper that is demonstrably complicit in duping Americans into supporting Bush’s Iraq nightmare, but it’s a burden those poor blogger-bedeviled WaPo reporters will just have to bear.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:45 pmActually, come to think of it, the trolls constantly validate TP by attempting to derail it! If this is such nonsense, there’s no need to respond, yet the trolls respond endlessly. Anyone else notice the new troll tactic – get to a new thread 1st and make sure you post the 1st 3 or 4 or 5 comments?
And they say we don’t matter, but there here trying to stop this as much as they can.
TP wins again! You watch the sliming I’m gonna get for saying this!
August 9th, 2007 at 6:45 pmComment by Jeff — August 9, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Correct.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:45 pmComment by ForTruth — August 9, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
Spot on.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:46 pmI thought Bush was using “lie and provoke” diplomacy with Iran?
August 9th, 2007 at 6:46 pmWell, it wasn’t until you posted here.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:47 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — August 9, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
Wrong.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:47 pmComment by sluggo — August 9, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
Well, you obviously don’t know the first thing about journalism.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:48 pmGood point. Now, put on this jacket and follow me.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:48 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — August 9, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Ridiculous and uninformed.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:49 pm#
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — August 9, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
Wrong.
Comment by Peter Abelard — August 9, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
See? Let the trashing commence. If what I said had no validity, the trolls would feel no need to push back. You watch, this is gonna be interesting.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:49 pmComment by Jim Wolf359 — August 9, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Hey! Watch your language. Let’s keep this civil.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:50 pmRobin Wright protests that we should include the context of her article on Iran in Outlook two weeks ago. OK, I went and read it. She talks about the first Cold War beginning in 1946 and then goes on to say our current period of hostility began with the revolution in 1979. But, oh oh, she conveniently leaves out the troubling fact that during that first Cold War, we ruined Iran’s experiment in democracy by supporting a coup by the Shah and kicking out a democratically elected President of Iran in the 50’s. For someone touting herself as an “expert on Iran,” and someone who has “written three books on Iran,” this can only be seen as intellectual dishonesty.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:51 pmWell, you obviously don’t know the first thing about journalism.
Comment by Peter Abelard — August 9, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
Hmmm… personal attack w/ no substance. Trolls getting desperate!
August 9th, 2007 at 6:51 pmOh sure, you say that when her boyfriend is around, but I doubt that’s a pickle in your pocket.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:51 pmIt’s obvious that Robin believes she should turn and attack her attackers – employing a bit of push back here. Trouble is, when you are stuck in the mud, this is the worse thing one can do.
Wail all you want, Robin. It still won’t make you a journalist. Your cover is blown and now you’re upset.
Did you ever consider writing a piece about how an attack on Iran might play out? Did you ever think to question your sources on this scenario? What is motivating their desire for this attack on Iran? Did you ask why we’re not going after the Saudi funded Sunnis with the same fury?
There were so many questions a real reporter would ask. Why didn’t you ask them?
August 9th, 2007 at 6:51 pmSecond, the press is constantly coming under attack for not identifying early enough the arguments made for going to war with Iraq.
Am I nuts? I’ve NEVER heard this argument against “the press” – this just sounds silly to me. Has anyone seen an attack on the press for not identifying early arguments FOR going to war in Iraq? What the hell!?
August 9th, 2007 at 6:52 pmSlap!
August 9th, 2007 at 6:52 pmRobin,
I quote your whining:
“Second, the press is constantly coming under attack for not identifying early enough the arguments made for going to war with Iraq. I am trying to make sure that the press is devoting attention to what is beginning to be a critical mass for this argument on Iran.”
Robin, you are incorrect to say that the press did not identify the arguments that were made to go to war in Iraq. They did identify the impending drumbeat and information at the time. However, just as they didn’t do the job of reporting with skepticism all sides then you’re not doing it now. You are guilty of failing to mention how slanted, one-sided and dubious both the “information” being peddled is and how disingenuous most of the players involved in this insane rhetoric really are.
Think about it….in light of most of these “experts” past opinions regarding Iraq how can any of them really hold any weight with most people now? Besides the weight of carrying water.
Be honest with us and just call your self a recorder instead of a reporter.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:52 pmBalanced argument: forget getting the looney left’s thoughts about going to war with Iran, what about Iran’s thoughts on this?
Not talking to Iranians is part of the dehumanizing propaganda that typically precedes war.
And if you want to quote Iraq war cheerleaders, bluntly ask them the question anybody would ask, “Why should I listen to you after you were wrong last time?”
August 9th, 2007 at 6:52 pmComment by chimpeach — August 9, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
Ha! good one!
August 9th, 2007 at 6:54 pmThe next argument that these shills will come up with is:
Since we have no army left to invade, the inevitable war with Iran will have to be accomplished solely through naval and aerial bombardment.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:54 pmAnd, since that is the only asset at our disposal, nuclear devices will have to be used to make sure they have no army left to overrun our troops in Iraq.
Wait and see.
And another thing…!
Wright asserts that she is covering “a debate” – yet the voices of experts arrayed against the neocon POV do not show up in the piece. Some debate. Some coverage!
August 9th, 2007 at 6:55 pmShe writes that “this was meant to be a benchmark piece in covering the emerging debate, which is no longer focused just on Iran’s alleged nuclear program but is also now tied to Tehran’s role in Iraq.” Yet she offers no assessment on how the current policy is working in that area, nor does she offer a single opinion that isn’t premised on the use of force. A “benchmark piece” on the debate that only provides one side.
She defends herself, saying “I am not an editorial writer. I am merely presenting the news–and this development. It is up the reader to determine how they feel about the people who make this case or the case itself.” What development? Bill Kristol’s opinion? The entire article is made up of the opinions of right-wingers. She may not give an opinion herself, but she offers nothing but the opinions of one side. There are no facts offered as reportage, but she is no editorial writer. This is a bogus argument.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:55 pmI see Mr P Hendler is still playing the moniker game. You may as well go back to being Jason with your ignore list, everyone recognizes your posts “Mr P”
Robin, I think, you should be careful that you do not become another Judy Miller.
Just Saying.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:56 pmGet off of my schtick, you looser.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:56 pmLaszlo ~ she reminds me of the waiter at the fly cafe…
August 9th, 2007 at 6:57 pmWould you care to see our shit list?
Ping pong balls? I thought you said, “King Kong’s balls!”
August 9th, 2007 at 6:57 pmComment by chimpeach — August 9, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
Ha! Bad one!
August 9th, 2007 at 6:58 pmComment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — August 9, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
or rank incompetence.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:59 pmIt’s what I’ve been telling you guys – once you respond to a comment, you validate it. [...]
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
oh, i am SO gonna hold that against you! …
(i hope not)
:-)
August 9th, 2007 at 7:04 pmPeter Abelard,
Out of the first 5 comments on this subject you have 3 of them! And in your 3rd one you refer to commenter’s as the “Left’s kook fringe” and suddenly you’re concerned with civility?
Pathetic hypocrite.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:05 pm:-)
Comment by katy — August 9, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
It’s taken me a little while to understand how this works. It’s actually a fascinating process. If TP didn’t matter, the trolls wouldn’t come here and try so hard to wreck it. Whether Robin understands it or not, she really validated TP today by feeling a need to push back so hard.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:09 pmTrust me on this: never feed a baby onions.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — August 9, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
I won’t charge you for having to clean my monitor off.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:11 pmSomebody has obviously drank far more than their share of the Kool-Aid.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:16 pmI am baffled why my post disappeared from this thread. I have had a few other posts simply disappear for no good reason lately. These have been on-topic posts without foul language.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:18 pmThe Post for merely trying to identify the people, institutions and arguments for more aggression action against Iran.
First if she is a columnist, she should learn how to properly form an adverb.
Second, the press is constantly coming under attack for not identifying early enough the arguments made for going to war with Iraq.
Second, the press didn’t come under attack for not identifying early enough the arguments made for going to war with Iraq….it is being attacked for not identifying the arguments made for not going to war with Iraq.
Get an effin clue.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:18 pmThe TP article claimed that the WP article “Provides Discredited Neoconservative Pundits A Platform To Advocate.” Having read the WP article, I think that’s a fair assessment. Ms. Wright should be careful about passing out valuable media real estate to bloodthirsty warmongers who have such a poor track record. What have they done to deserve a voice?
August 9th, 2007 at 7:19 pmI am contnually baffled by the wheel/chock mentality of the Republicans.
They watch their own get thrown under the wheels at a prodigous rate, Yet still they wait in line, often gleefully, for their turn to be crucified by the bus as it passes by.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:26 pmI do believe that Robin Wright was attempting to shed needed attention on the neo-conservative war drumbeat. But I think that she has been so cowed by the far rightwing media machine that she was unwilling to state exactly what she was doing, so it came out as though she were shilling.
-GSD
August 9th, 2007 at 7:27 pmHello. I’m Robin Wright.
RW: Today on my panel are: a PAID PROFESSIONAL PROPAGANDISTS who will be advocating war with Iran,
Guy1: Hello. Lets bomb the crap out of Iran.
RW: …and sitting next to him is a PAID PROFESSIONAL PROPAGANDISTS who will be advocating war with Iran.
Guy2: Hello. Bombing Iran would be a good thing.
RW: This concludes our bi partisan and fair and balanced debate about how there is a growing trend in american opinion to invade Iran.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:29 pmSecond, the press is constantly coming under attack for not identifying early enough the arguments made for going to war with Iraq.
What!? Are you insane? YOU – the main stream media have done nothing BUT beat the drums for war in Iraq. Who is attacking you, the Bush administration? Makes sense why you’d jump then. You disgust me.
There used to be a day when you ‘reporters’ had ethics, now you are simply a mouthpiece of the administration – congratulations.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:32 pmYou don’t have read the article any further than the first sentence to identify the problem:
Fourteen months after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered to talk to Iran, the failure of carrot-and-stick diplomacy to block Tehran’s nuclear and regional ambitions is producing a new drumbeat for bolder action, including the possible use of force.
Here is Robin Wright stating as fact that diplomacy has failed. The commonly accepted formulation is that when diplomacy fails, the only thing left is war. If she’s not openly advocating for war, what is she saying in that sentence? She certainly never mentions in her article that all the people she quotes as favoring military action against Iran now favored military action against Iran before Rice’s offer of talks.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:33 pmWright…
…like ALL al Cracker TRAITORS and inbred Bushite droolers…
…would fellate Bushiva and L’il Dick simultaneously…
…in the middle of Main Street…
…at high noon…
…no story here…
…move on….
…nothing to see here….
August 9th, 2007 at 7:37 pmDamn,
Looks like I can’t use “Occam” as a name.
… or can I?
August 9th, 2007 at 7:43 pmLooks like I can’t use “Occam†as a name.
… or can I?
Comment by Peter Abelard — August 9, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
Use whatever name you want troll, that’s what you do when you’re not licking the boots of your masters isn’t it brown shirt?
August 9th, 2007 at 7:49 pma-o !
August 9th, 2007 at 7:52 pmRidiculous and uninformed.
Comment by Peter Abelard — August 9, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
Yes, you are indeed. And they’re the best things about you!
August 9th, 2007 at 7:53 pmDamn, Looks like I can’t use “Occam†as a name.… or can I?
Comment by Peter Abelard
We know Ockham was you. The fact is Bush has had no real foreign policy. The Gates/Rice talks in Saudi, even with 20 billion in arms, resulted in no help securing Iraq.
Are you suggesting war with Saudi because of failed diplomacy?
August 9th, 2007 at 7:53 pm“I am not an editorial writer. I am merely presenting the news–and this development. It is up the reader to determine how they feel about the people who make this case or the case itself.â€
– Robin Wright
“its not my JOB to find out if its TRUE; its my job to write WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS THINKING!!!!”
August 9th, 2007 at 8:00 pm– Judith Miller
Wright = War Monger
Back in May 2007, Wright was obviously trying to re-kindle the anti-Iranian sentiment felt by some Americans in the 1980s when Shia Islamic fundamentalists took hostages and then made demands to secure the release of the Kuwait 17, 12 of whom were Iraqis in the al-Dawa party of Al-Maliki. (NB: Kuwait 17 attacked the US and French Embassies)
She tried to re-kindle the anti-Iranian sentiment in Maericans by using the word “hostage”.
In at least two articles, she sociopathically exploited for ulterior motives the horrible and unfortunate capturing of Dr Esfandiari by labelling Esfandiari as a “hostage” in order to re-kindle the anti-Iranian sentiment describe above.
The problem with and the deep sickness in Wright’s “hostage” in the case of Esfandiari is that the Iranian government had NOT made any demands to secure her release.
Without making any demands, Esfandiari is NOT a hostage.
Can it be that Wright does not know what a hostage is?
Is it that she is that stupid or is it that she is just apparently longing to have a few more thousand people maimed, raped, tortured, malnutritioned, beheaded, hanged, etc and a few more hundred billions dollars spent?
Wright is to Iran what Judith Miller was to Iraq.
Esfandiari is one of three “soft hostages,” all dual U.S.-Iranian nationals, whose passports have been confiscated by the Iranian government, rendering them unable to leave the country.
Esfandiari is a most unlikely hostage.
Keywords: Robin Wright, Fanny Esfandiari, Iranian hostage Crisis, Khomeini, Kuwait 17, 1983 bombings of the American and French embassies, Dawa prisoners, Poindexter, Charles Dunbar, Ed Meese, Oliver North, Ronald Reagan, arms-for-hostages dealings, Hezbollah in Lebanon]
August 9th, 2007 at 8:17 pmRemarkable! Notice how Wright completely ignores the criticism of the press for having excluded critics of invading Iraq and focuses only on nonsensical criticism from the right which claims that the only reason that there is a lack of support for the Iraq conflagration is that the Corporate Media supposedly didn’t give enough uncritical coverage to the proponents. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. She also claims there is a “critical mass of support” building for the case for broadening the conflict to include Iran and pretends as if she has no role in it. This is such a carefully parsed response that attempts to pass off neoconservative assumptions as forgone facts that it amounts to a propaganda piece that Goebbels would have envied.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
“blah blah blah BLAH blah”
… Comment by Peter Abelard …
…. Exley ??? … Is that you, Exley ??? … Dude??? …
August 9th, 2007 at 8:57 pmReading Wright’s piece, I’d have to say that it fails on two points. The first is that if it is a news piece, as she claims, it lacks balance and objectivity. If it is not a news piece, then in the second instance is that it should have been published alongside of Krauthammer on the OpEd page.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:59 pmWright ends her “news” piece with this quote from
Danielle Pletka of AEI, “I like the idea of anything that gets rid of the nuclear weapons program and the regime, but I’m not persuaded that bombing achieves that. It may be our last option, but I’m not sure we’re there yet.”
Gee, a neocon who isn’t sure we’re ready to bomb Iran yet?!? I’m positive we’re not there yet, but I don’t think my opinion qualifies as news.
Also, as William “The Bloody” Kristol hasn’t been right about ANYTHING regarding Iraq, why would any of his comments be considered news? I always thought reliable sources were key.
Robin needs to rethink her complaints. Her column was hardly “news”.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:00 pmRobin refers back to the Washington Posts Outlook section of two weeks ago to refute her critics. Here’s what the story said:
Sounds like she is drumming up support for a war with Iran to me. Oops, there go my lying eyes again!
August 9th, 2007 at 9:27 pmHow many arabs do you want to hate America? All of them? Because thats all you’re accomplishing. To attack a country like Iran, is being a bully, just like it was to attack Iraq.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — August 9, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
I dunno if anyone covered this already but they don’t have Arabs in Iran. Except maybe a couple who are there on business or escaping prosecution or whatnot. But otherwise they’re mainly Persians with some Kurds and Armenians and a few assorted Turkics. Just thought I’d point that out.
August 9th, 2007 at 10:01 pm[...]which is no longer focused just on Iran’s alleged nuclear program but is also now tied to Tehran’s role in Iraq.
In other words, she is more than willing to repeat the unfounded claims that Iran is involved in Iraq, in order to sway public opinion in favor of a confrontation with Iran.
Her whole piece reads like a casus belli against Iran, and she is very careful to casually drop claims like the above as if they were facts.
the context for this article was also misunderstood and misrepresented.
I read the whole thing and, in context, the article is reminiscent of what was published about Iraq in the print media during the run-up to the invasion of that country, down to drawing a comparison between Hussein/Ahmadinejad and Hitler, as if either posed the same qualitative threat the Austrian madman did over 60 years ago.
I am merely presenting the news–and this development.
No, she isn’t. She is spinning the facts, and presenting unsubstantiated claims as if they were facts. That is not to be “merely presenting the news”.
If this woman had any journalistic integrity, she wouldn’t write this kind of tripe. Sadly, it would seems she is more than willing to fill the role Judith Miller vacated.
August 10th, 2007 at 1:01 amThe informed commentors here appreciate your work, Robin. Don’t let these angry, hate-filled, comments affect your sound judgment.
August 10th, 2007 at 2:23 amAny twit with an MLA handbook and a library card can write a book about Iran. Apparently one did.
August 10th, 2007 at 9:22 amWhen you quote Bill Kristol on foreign policy questions you destroy your journalistic credibility.
Seriously, when was the last time this asshat was right about Iraq? Hell, even a broken clock has a higher hit rating than Bill Kristol.
August 10th, 2007 at 9:25 amOH NOOOOo, the Gesteapo’s gonna be knockin on your door! A free ride to Gitmo! Did we find a real journalist?
August 10th, 2007 at 10:09 amRobin Wright is an outstanding reporter. I’ve followed her for a long time. To suggest that she’s carrying water for the right-wing nuts in this administration-another Judith Miller-is just preposterous and stupid!
Furthermore — she’s exactly right. She is a reporter–not an editorial writer. Few have the elusive combination of journalistic integrity, intelligence, and understanding that she has.
Good for Robin for sticking up for herself and for the Post. And I commend Think Progress on owning up to its overstatement, as well.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:22 amHmm.
Observer, it may be true that in the past Sean Penn’s wife was a good journalist, but she shot herself in the foot with this one.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:50 amShe felt compelled to defend herself. This in itself is an important step.
August 10th, 2007 at 11:31 amLittle Peter Abby. Baby.
Hi, Anti-American Troll. I don’t believe You picked the right day to post, Petey. Because Yesterday was the day that I decided to fight you. So if you want to continue to commit treason, you must now move out of my great country. The Peters must go!
Real Americans Have Just Said Enough!
The Revolt Has Started!
NOW
August 10th, 2007 at 1:35 pmIf she is not an editorial writer, why is she authoring pieces in Outlook, the Sunday commentary section of the Post?
I think Wright, and other journalists in the mainstream media, need to realize that being in the business for a long time doesn’t necessarily make one good at it, nor does it excuse lazy, sloppy reporting.
August 10th, 2007 at 3:39 pmI’m familiar with Robin Wright’s past writings and this is not meant as an attack on her integrity or well established reputation.
This article may have been a misrepresentation of her intent but certainly not her writing. She claims that she is merely trying to identify the “emerging debate” for more aggressive action against Iran. But all the people and institutions she cites are well recognized and on the record for advocating the military option for quiet some time now.
Second, I don’t think anyone accuses the press for not identifying early enough the arguments made FOR going to war with Iraq. To the contrary, there was a massive failure on the part of the media not publicizing the cases AGAINST it.
Furthermore, my problem with her article has little to do with the excerpts from the people she quotes as they’ve been singing the same tune for a long time. The only reason they’ve been getting a little louder lately is because the Iraqi fiasco has caused a mass exodus of their once consenting and more agreeable audience.
What troubles me is that she repeats some of the very same baseless arguments these people have been peddling on a daily basis to prepare a war-wary public to favor a more aggressive action against Iran — “Failed carrot-and-stick diplomacy”, Iran intent on “subverting it’s uranium-enrichment program for a nuclear bomb”, Iran responsible for “one-third of U.S. combat deaths last month in Iraq”, or “no one questions that Iran is working on weapons of mass destruction” just to name a few.
Isn’t it time for the more respectable members of media like Ms. Wright to carefully examine these claims and accusations before we are all led to yet another military conflict with far more disastrous consequences?
August 10th, 2007 at 4:43 pm