Late-night self-indulgence, because the usual suspects are busy in every comment thread yelling where’s yer blue-eyed whistle-blower naaoow, ya bums?
Tom Ricks says he's not gonna be "soft" on Snowden and @greenwald any more: http://t.co/TG7eObxEPa NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!
— billmon (@billmon1) March 17, 2014
Me and Tom:
http://t.co/QhIKGQpwoB
http://t.co/KzAY0j5Yj1
http://t.co/sQwJf0PWka
— billmon (@billmon1) March 17, 2014
[July 2006]… The problem is that Ricks’ reporting from Iraq (at least through early 2004, which is as far as I’ve gotten) not only quoted the generals and colonels and majors accurately, but reflected their views entirely and almost exclusively. Ricks is using his official sources as human shields now, but I think any fair reading of his dispatches shows he swallowed their optimistic, gung ho predictions (predictions which he now admits were flat wrong) hook, line and proverbial sinker. The tone is one of a mutual admiration society, in which Ricks felt privileged to be a junior member…
It’s also not as if there weren’t any alternative views for Ricks and his fellow miltary groupies to jot down on their steno pads — other voices who could have clued them into the fact that the military tactics Ricks found so “nimble” at the time were actually sowing the seeds of the insurgency. But those voices belonged to human rights workers or solidarity activists or war critics or, even worse, ordinary Iraqis — fringe types, in other words, people who didn’t come with stars or eagles stapled to their shoulders. Not the kind of “credible” sources a Washington Post military affairs correspondent would feel the need to pay heed to…
Notwithstanding Ricks’ complaint, this has nothing to do with making room for “dissent” — loyal or otherwise. Dissent is what thousands of peace activists, bloggers, Pentagon critics and alternative journalists were doing in the spring and summer of 2003 — back when Ricks was still slinging the official party line.
He might want to remember that fact the next time he invites himself to his own pity party.
@tinyrevolution @tomricks1 You seem to be impuning Tom's stenographic skills again, old chap. Awfully unsporting.
— billmon (@billmon1) March 17, 2014
Lots of people consider Tom Ricks to be Andrew Sullivan with a military fetish. Doesn’t mean he isn’t what passes for a good reporter, but before you pin your hopes on his conclusions, be aware that he’s got a history of letting his latest Very Important Source rewrite his emotional hard drive as the political fashions change.