And as to the claim that the Iraq logs may have delayed the formation of a new Iraqi government, I’m scratching my head. Yes, such a delay could be a blow to the stability of Iraq, and to the U.S. mission to aid in the establishment of such a government. But since when did journalists go about arguing that information shouldn’t be exposed because it might complicate some political development wanted by some party? (And how exactly did this information, which supposedly everyone already knew, cause this political hiccup?)
The Post’s editorial is just another example, if an especially incoherent one, of some element of the press shrugging off the documents. It’s especially sad that it was voiced in our capital’s paper.
We are talking about Fred Hiatt's WaPo editorial section, correct? The one that seems to have a deeply vested interest in America's wars, and especially, judging by it's sales job, Iraq? Dismissiveness from the Pentagon is more surprising.
#1 Posted by Strangely Enough, CJR on Wed 27 Oct 2010 at 04:42 PM
Pentagon Pages 1.0 (1971) - WaPo is a shining eample of the free press.
Pentagon Pages 2.0 (2010) - WaPo editoral = Pentagn PR.
Pentagon Pages 3.0 (20??) - WaPo = Fox News?
A free press becomes a moot point if journalism dies.
#2 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Wed 27 Oct 2010 at 11:20 PM
Oops. I need to fire my proof reader. Make that PENTAGON PAPERS.
#3 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Wed 27 Oct 2010 at 11:23 PM