Asking the hard questions

New York Post editorial writer Tom Elliott criticizes the media for admitting "not asking the hard questions" after certain events in Iraq (particularly, not finding the WMDs that are most likely in Syria) didn't come out as expected, then continuing to not ask the hard questions.

For example, here are some hard questions:

» Is a timetable for withdrawal intended to hasten victory — or defeat?

» If victory, how will withdrawal help?

» If defeat, how will that help national interests?

» How will abandoning Iraq’s burgeoning government affect America’s reputation in the region?

» A Taliban spokesman recently stated Osama bin Laden is coordinating insurgent attacks in Iraq. If true, how is it possible to simultaneously fight the war on terrorism but not insurgents in Iraq?

» What are some possible worst-case scenarios of withdrawing from Iraq?

» Should such a scenario manifest, what are Democrats’ contingency plans?

» The bill mandates the last of Iraq-stationed U.S. troops to leave by September 2008. What’s significant about this date other than being two months prior to the next presidential election?

As he says, there's a simple reason for that:

These questions never came because the answers are obvious: Abandoning Iraq will hasten an American defeat; leaving the country halfway broken will leave a permanent scar on America’s regional reputation; it’s impossible to fight the war on terrorism but not Iraq’s insurgents; leaving Iraq could beget a full-fledged regional war; Democrats have no plan should such a contingency arise; the final pullout date is arbitrary aside from its intent of removing Iraq from the next election’s political equation.

I have to agree with Elliott's arguments. At times, people make decisions that are so jaw-droppingly stupid that they defy explanation. Crystal Pepsi might be a fine beverage, but "Crystal" and "Pepsi" are such opposing terms that failure was pretty much assured. Leaving Iraq when that's been made entirely clear that it will be spun as victory by Islamists, and abandonment by Iraqis working with us, is similarly unthinkable.

If you need a definition of bias....

Another Rovian Conspiracy highlights a MSNBC story on the Virginia Tech atrocity that quotes a retired ATF agent on hollow-point bullets.

"It's not something that you would need for home protection, because what you are trying to do is eliminate an immediate threat," [Joseph] Vince says. "The idea of killing is what this ammunition portrays to me."

But is this person speaking from experience, and not with a political goal in mind? Referring to him as a retired ATF agent would indicate that. However, the ARC conspirator did more reporting than the reporter, apparently. Google indicates that Mr. Vince is a member of a gun control organization, has worked for Handgun Control Inc., and supports lawsuits against firearm dealers.

Either the reporter is incompetent, or he was willing to try to pass off an activist as an unbiased source.