To New York Times, ‘Full Range of Views’ on War Is Pretty Narrow

By Peter Hart
Global Research, September 12, 2014
FAIR 10 September 2014
Region:
Theme: ,

A foreign policy dinner had ‘a full range of views,’ according to the New York Times–featuring hawks from both major political parties.

Obama hosted a dinner of foreign policy insiders on Monday to talk about his plan to attack Islamic State fighters. The New York Times  (9/9/14) reported this was “an effort to win over elite opinion,” adding:

The guestlist, which included national security advisers to three former presidents from both parties, represented a full range of views about the risks of returning to Iraq.

So what does a “full range of views” look like to the New York Times? Powerful people who worked for Republicans and Democrats.

The Times‘ Mark Landler ran down the list:

Two of the guests–Stephen J. Hadley and Richard N. Haass–worked for the George W. Bush administration and have direct experience with the Iraq War and its chaotic aftermath.

Theirs would certainly count as “direct experience.”

The discussion included Sandy Berger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who both advised Democratic presidents; former Obama officials Tom Donilon, Michele Flournoy and CIA deputy director Michael Morell; and former Clinton adviser Strobe Talbott and Democratic hawk Jane Harman.

If the idea was to hear a “full range” of ideas, you might want to add–or subtract–a few names.

Judging by the stories that emerged after the dinner, things went well for the Obama camp. Here’s Washington Post columnist David Ignatius (9/9/14):

“We have to do it,” says Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser and the dean of a group of strategists who met with Obama on Monday night.

And back to the New York Times (9/10/14), which reports that “several participants” said that Obama “presented a comprehensive plan that included military, diplomatic and ideological components.” The Times also reported that Harman said that “she and other participants told Mr. Obama that he could order military action in Syria without fear of helping Mr. Assad, since ISIS was occupying ungoverned territory that his forces were unlikely to reconquer.”

So Obama was able to “win over” a group of elites who were likely to agree with him anyway.
Articles by: Peter Hart

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]