Ware?
CNN’s Michael Ware says Obama coming to Iraq is a waste of time and McCain, with his six trips, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
I mean Senator McCain has been here, what, more than half a dozen times. And we’ve seen him get assessments of Iraq terribly wrong. So I wouldn’t be hanging my hat on the fact that your opponent has only been here once.
You remember Ware. The newsman more terrorists trust.
March 2007, Ware on McCain’s view of early surge success: “beyond ludicrous … Neverland.” Here’s his surge view, by the way, from last August. It’s that America was battered into submission by the Baath Party to accepting a deal the Baathists offered in 2003. Killing are down because everyone’s fled. American troops, Iraqi troops, surge strategy had nothing to do with it. Al Qaeda not on the ropes, just displaced and morphing. “This isn’t an American win. America is not on track to win this war.” Same time period, the surge is undermining the very government that America created. Skeptics turned surge fans O’Hanlon and Pollack don’t know what they’re talking about. By November, the surge is a “success” and a “blessing.” In February, it’s all held together by bubble gum and bailing wire. In early April, al-Maliki has no idea what he’s doing, commands no allegiance. It’s up, it’s down. We could go on. He’s spent a lot of time on the ground. But I’m beginning to get the impression Ware doesn’t know always what he’s talking about. He’s your go-to guy on impending doom, gloom and hopelessness, though.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 12:38 pm on Friday, May 30, 2008
4 Responses to “Ware?”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
What, they couldn’t find fabulists like The Independent’s Fisk or Cockburn, so they went with Ware?
As you know, Jules, I’ll defend to the end the vast majority of our reporters in OIF, but never Ware.
His name should be “B-Ware,” because the news consumer is going to get a whole lotta BS with every “story” he tries to file.
In case you’re wondering, the person who really was “heckling” McCain (or, in her defense, asking tough questions loudly) was an embedded blogger named Jane Stillwell.
http://www.evergreenpolitics.com/ep/2007/04/jane_on_npr.html
If you confused Ware’s voice with a middle aged chick from San Francisco, perhaps there’s a reason for that.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:45 am
It’s getting time to note, GW’s ’strategery’ is working.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/02/080602fa_fact_wright
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=702bf6d5-a37a-4e3e-a491-fd72bf6a9da1
May 31st, 2008 at 12:00 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden takes Ware apart. [...]
May 31st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Ware’s brave. He’s willing to risk his life to be where the action is. He can be very good at reporting specific events when he is there himself. He’s also too willing to cozy up to the enemy and swallow their propaganda, probably to ensure continued access. He’s a terrible “big picture” reporter. Anything above the level of the platoon he happens to be embedded with is likely to be the usual generic doom and gloom, regardless of what is really happening.