http://online.wsj.com/...
I literally couldn't wait to see the Wall Street Journal's "defense" of the indefensible. I knew it was coming. And it's here.
The inevitable "almost nothing new here" blow off.
The real story is how closely these documents reflect official views of the Afghan war.
We've long believed the U.S. government classifies too many documents as secret, and now we know for sure. How else to explain why Sunday's release of some 92,000 previously confidential documents reveals so little that we didn't already know about the war in Afghanistan?
Then why the necessity of an opinion column? Everybody already knows all this.
Of course this is based on their accessing and closely analyzing all 92,000 documents in 24 hours. Impressive. If you register (free) and read the comments you'll see that many individuals also separately accessed, read and analyzed all 92,000 documents in 24 hours too. "Nothing new here" "This is old news" ad nauseum. If you get in you'll see that I directly challenged some of them on this (under the "David Harrison" handle)
This is precisely the time when cooler political heads should be putting the documents into context...giving Generals David Petraeus and James Mattis the time they need to succeed in that crucial theater.
What is "succeed?" What would constitute "success?"
Blank out.
Why is this a "crucial theater?"
Blank out.
"(Give the generals)...the time they need..." How much more time do they need? Two months? 50 years?
Blank out.
What's a "cooler political head?" Anyone who wants us to stay there indefinitely? Anybody who can lean back and relax with a cigar while discussing this?
Blank out.
We can't afford another liberal antiwar stampede.
Note the repetition of the BIG LIE (see Joseph Goebbels -- keep repeating the lie and it becomes real) -- "antiwar" versus the truth: "anti-THIS-war."
Oh, she's fighting her husband in court over abuse? Well then she's "anti-man."
Why can't we afford it? What will happen?
Blank out.
My conclusions:
- We can't possibly know to what extent the news is new until we examine all 92,000 documents. I really doubt that's been done by anyone at this point.
- Even to the extent it's been determined it's old news, that's meaningless because if it wasn't widely disseminated it's still new, in substance, to many people.
- The "it's old news" meme is just a trick to get readers to feel they're in the dark, should have known this stuff and that the writer is one of those who are "in the know." Kind of an intimidation tactic.