Jane Hamsher explains the long-running dislike of Froomkin in the WaPo newsroom because he actually called those in power to account, rather than constantly hedging and prevaricating and enabling them for fear of losing "access". His strong stance on the inherent corruption of Woodward-style journalism ruffled feathers as well. And his adamance on torture was a blast of fresh air in Washington, where people are too afraid to call their friends what they were: war criminals. Goldblog calls up Hiatt to ask him to review my post. Here's Hiatt's response:
It is so incoherent, it's hard to know how to comment. But I will try. He says I was acting on neocon orders when we published a piece suggesting that Ahmadinejad may have actually had popular support. But elsewhere I am being attacked for publishing ostensibly neocon pieces criticizing Obama for not supporting Ahmadenejad's opposition. It's hard to see how both could be true.
Yes, they can, if you follow the ways of Washington neocons.
(By the way, it's a straw man to say I said Hiatt follows neocon orders. He is so marinated in neoconservative politics that he needs no orders.) He also knows this: on Monday, one leading neocon position was that they wanted Ahmadinejad to win because that would give them a chance to bomb Iran or allow Israel to, and because it was naive folly to believe there could be any opening for democracy in Iran. Once they realized that this looked and was objectively vile, as well as being empirically wrong, most changed tack and argued that Obama wasn't doing enough to support the revolution. The difference lies in their cynicism not my incoherence. And his disingenuous response is almost as passive-aggressive as what comes next: