Sullivan’s Takedown of the Wash Post’s Anti-Hagel Editorial

Andrew Sullivan’s excellent sentence-by-sentence takedown of the Washington Post’s exceptionally tendentious editorial against Chuck Hagel today bears reading. Here’s a taste, with the Post quoted first followed by Sullivan’s comment.

On the contrary: Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him.

The left? This implies that all realism in foreign policy is an artifact of the left, whereas, of course, it has always been more at home on the right. But again: note the attempt to stigmatize rather than argue: “well to the left” and “fringe”. This is a hazing, not an argument.

The Post, which I think tends to be more slightly more liberal interventionist than neo-conservative (it can be critical — albeit not very — of Israel from time to time, and it occasionally even praises the UN, anathema to the neo-cons), has indeed become ever more enthusiastic about the exercise of U.S. military power overseas over the past few decades despite the Iraq disaster over which they have never suggested the slightest regret.

LobeLog alumnus, Ali Gharib, also takes some good shots at the Post over at Open Zion.

Jim Lobe

Jim Lobe served for some 30 years as the Washington DC bureau chief for Inter Press Service and is best known for his coverage of U.S. foreign policy and the influence of the neoconservative movement.