On July 2 of last year, Politico broke a startling story: The Washington Post was planning to host off-the-record salons at which sponsors would pay to mingle with D.C. eminences and Post writers. The dinners--the first of which had been advertised in Post fliers as an “exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done”--were to take place at the home of Katharine Weymouth, the Post’s publisher.
I’ve already written of the new liberal complacency about terrorism: “Clutching at Straws: The So-Called ‘Weakness’ of Al Qeada.”
Steve Coll, as usual, gets to the crux of it:
Created by Ben Bernstein, Noah Kristula-Green, Julie Sobel, and Barron YoungSmith
(Click here to see a full-sized version of the matrix.)
In light of the latest Petraeus '12 speculation (this time from Peter Beinart), Andrew Sullivan wants to know why everyone's so sure the General is a member of the GOP, wondering whether people are just assuming "that military = Republican." As best I can tell, the assumption that Petraeus is a Republican stems from the fact that he is.
Steve Coll is pessimistic:
The history of the Afghan Army since 1970 is one in which the Army has never actually been defeated in the field, but has literally dissolved for lack of political glue on several occasions.
Coll watched the Soviets learn this the hard way. He writes that a strong and legitimate government, perhaps in which Karzai and Abdullah work together, may be the only way to avoid another repeat.
Steve Coll analyzes, and asks good questions:
