This article is interesting to me mainly for the fact that it highlights Mr. Rubin's main failing: consistently interpreting the Iraqi's feelings with few if any quotes to corroborate his claims; his favorite tactic seems ot be to state that "Iraqis say" or "many Iraqis say" without actually giving any evidence that they do. In fact, in many cases, I see no evidence at all that Iraqis feel that way, and it seems ot me that he is simply stating his preferences and attributing them to anonymous Iraqis who are probably also fictional;
"Many Iraqis complain about incomplete de-Baathification."
"Professional American diplomats and intelligence analysts may approve the snub (of Chalabi), but Iraqis say it strikes them as petulant and unprofessional."
"Not only those in the Shia south, but also many Baghdadis talk about voting 169, the position of the Iraqi National Alliance on the ballot."
And despite this, he seems to denigrate the opinions of those who question whether the elections can be held by pointing out that they are anonymous (unlike Mr. Rubin's many specific and well-publicized sources?). He than states that "It is time to listen to the Iraqis."
You mean to the Iraqi named - Michael Rubin?
Or is it Mike-Shill, as in Shill for Ahmad Chalabi?
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment