Quote Of The Day

Glenn Greenwald, on yet another of many reasons why this President is no better than the last one:

Seymour Hersh has a new article in The New Yorker arguing that there is no credible evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons; to the contrary, he writes, "the U.S. could be in danger of repeating a mistake similar to the one made with Saddam Hussein's Iraq eight years ago -- allowing anxieties about the policies of a tyrannical regime to distort our estimates of the state's military capacities and intentions." This, of course, cannot stand, as it conflicts with one of the pillar-orthodoxies of Obama foreign policy in the Middle East (even though the prior two National Intelligence Estimates say what Hersh has said). As a result, two cowardly, slimy Obama officials ran to Politico to bash Hersh while hiding behind the protective womb of anonymity automatically and subserviently extended by that "news outlet"[.]

The WH/Politico attack on Seymour Hersh

[emphasis mine]

The Obama Administration has made as much of a habit of doing this as the previous one. Actually more, I think. Dick Cheney was perfectly willing to talk crap about people like that in public. What's more, they are continuing the same failed policy of the Bush Administration regarding Iran. That policy is to pretend that Iran is a danger to the United States, when it may not be a particular danger to anyone.

Which is another example of why I have no use for President Obama.

Greenwald then went on to provide another illustration of why I have no use for the people who cover Obama and other DC politicians:

But the most hilarious part of this orgy of cowardly anonymity comes at the end, when Politico explains what is supposedly the prime defect in Hersh' journalism:

Hersh has faced criticism for his heavy reliance on anonymous sources, but New Yorker editor David Remnick has repeatedly said he stands by his reporter’s work.

That's the criticism that ends an article that relies exclusively on anonymous government sources, appearing in a D.C. gossip rag notorious for granting anonymity to any powerful figure who requests it for any or no reason. The difference, of course, is that the Pulitzer Prize-winning, five-time-Polk-Award-recipient investigative journalist who uncovered the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib scandal grants anonymity to those who are challenging the official claims of those in power (that's called "journalism"), while Politico uses it (as it did here) to serve those in power and shield them from all accountability as they spew their propaganda (which is called being a "lowly, rank Royal Court propagandist").

The WH/Politico attack on Seymour Hersh

While he's had his share of false alarms in recent years, Hersh is still an example of what journalists should be - people who try to uncover the truth. (The plain fact is that when you look into things that people are trying very hard to keep hidden, you're not always going to get it right.) There isn't one "reporter" at Politico who appears to be even dimly aware that this is something journalists could do if they put their minds to it.

Which is why I don't have any use for them and their kind. It's also a good reason why folks like Barack Obama can get away with what he does.