Not to mention the source.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are taking a huge toll on the American military. Who says so? The nation’s military officers, who are in as good a position as anyone to know.So just who is the Center for a New American Security?
Two Washington-based think tanks, the Center for a New American Security and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, through its Foreign Policy magazine, have done the nation a huge service by surveying more than 3,400 current and former military officers, one of the few comprehensive polls of this segment of the population in the last 50 years.
Why, a group that includes a number of former Clinton administration officials and appointees.
Why, there's Madeleine Albright. And John Podesta, he of the discredited Media Matters fame. Oh, and look, there Richard Armitage, the man who leaked the name Valerie Plame to Robert Novak.
Why, that sure looks to be an objective group.
Hey, look, there's Rand Beers, who served as National Security adviser to the Kerry-Edwards campaign.
Why, there's Susan Rice, who also worked for Kerry, was in the Clinton administration, and what do you know, blogs at the Huffington Post.
But I won't question her objectivity.
Look, who's that? Oh, it's Wendy Sherman, another Clinton adviser and DNC operative.
Hey, what's Gayle Smith, from the Clinton Global Initiative doing there?
Ashton Carter? Why, he also just happened to be in the first Clinton administration.
Why look, this group also happens to have some writers in residence. Knock me over with a feather, two of them happen to work for--surprise!--the New York Times:
David E. Sanger, Writer in Residence (New York Times)Stunning, isn't it?
Greg Jaffe, Writer in Residence (Wall Street Journal)
David Cloud, Writer in Residence (New York Times)
Now surely there are plenty of former military men who may believe our capacity and readiness is in trouble, but at the same time, I'm sure you could find an equal or greater number who will dispute this poll.
However, I find it highly suspicious that a group comprised primarily of former Clinton administration officials comes out with a study now, and find it incredibly dubious for the New York Times to make a big splash of it without noting the background of these sources.
Then again, I'm not surprised in the least.
Would they be so quick to highlight a study that found opposite results?
I doubt it.
In addition to the Times, the CNAS also dutifully notes that Reuters, among others, picked up their story.
Will they be so quick to note those who dispute it?