A REAL PUNDIT

I'm talking about Glenn Greenwald of Salon. Unlike many others who pick up a few selected facts and then bloviate at will, Greenwald does his homework and his analyses are well-reasoned. He gets to the bottom of the O'Hanlon/Pollack Iraq trip by demonstrating that they did little investigating. Instead, they relied on the U.S. military and we know the military has recently been busy promoting a pollyanna view of the Surge and the war.

Greenwald also lists statements by O'Hanlon and shows that he was just another ignorant cheerleader, no better than a half-wit like Sean Hannity. The difference is that were are supposed to take someone like O'Hanlon seriously because he's part of the foreign policy establishment.

Atrios puts it well:

Just because they have a mutual backscratching society in which they tell
themselves are all wise, noble, experienced, intelligent, impartial, and honest
doesn't make it so.

What will it take for hacks like O'Hanlon and others to be discredited?