According to the Washington Post: One former CIA officer who has helped formulate U.S. policy on the Middle East complained that a number of officials in the Defense Department have difficulty distinguishing between U.S. interests and the goals of Chalabi and Israel.

Another official, an ideological ally of Feith's, said, however, that the investigation is part of an effort by some in the intelligence community to discredit Pentagon hawks. "This is part of a civil war within the administration, a basic dislike between the old CIA and neoconservatives," the official said.

Comment: The guy who slams the DOD is just described as a "former" CIA officer. He could have quit out of ideological pique over US foreign policy or been fired as part of the process that Bush has initiated. So he may have an agenda or a vendetta about current officials at the DOD. The way he is portrayed is that he is a neutral, disinterested observer.

But look at the next paragraph beginning "Another official"—this other official is trying to defend Feith and AIPAC. The author(s) of the article make a point of stating that this official is "an ideological ally of Feith's". Thereby making his statement less reliable.

One person appears disinterested with no particular bent; the other one appears to be biased in favor of Feith— thus casting his views in doubt.

Not a neutral portrayal — whether intended or not.

Posted by Ed   9 3 04