Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
by John Cole| 32 Comments
This post is in: Media
Hugh Hewitt, self-annointed Minister of Information, is back at it today:
Howard Fineman’s MSNBC column, “Was It Worth It? ,”underscores how difficult it is for the United States to succeed in the war on terror given the public’s media-driven demands for quick results and tied-up-in-bows conclusions. Fineman begins his gloomy, defeatist column with a letter written by an officer he will not name in a branch of the service he will not specify:
“Our eventual departure,
Comments are closed.
Fineman Fluster
I just had occasion to read Howard Fineman’s article in Newsweek entitled “Was It Worth It?”, a rather obvious commentary on Iraq from the left-wing, liberal point of view. The Iraqis are benighted, incapable of sophisticated forms of self-governance l…
Fineman Fluster
I just had occasion to read Howard Fineman’s article in Newsweek entitled “Was It Worth It?”, a rather obvious commentary on Iraq from the left-wing, liberal point of view. The Iraqis are benighted, incapable of sophisticated forms of self-governance l…
Rick
John,
Let me edit, like an out-of-control WH oil baron:
What is really important to Balloon Juice’s guests is submission of the media and the 2006 elections.
Thus everyone picks and chooses. Including you.
Seriously, Pat Dobson looms larger in your world than anyone else I’ve read. Practically a Sidd Finch in stature.
And you’re trying to persuade unbelieving heathens like me, by scanning the news and blogs for reinforcing messages, that he’s devouring the GOP. That’s different behavior from Hewitt’s? Please.
Cordially…
John Cole
When every administration action is either out of control spending on the fiscal side or winks and nods and outright gifts to the religious right, I don’t have to pick and choose my stories too carefully.
Rick
John,
Oh, I don’t accuse you of being careful. ;)
No, your antennae are atuned to your agenda. Like Hewitt’s and everyone’s.
If that’s giving the crowd what it wants, and perks up your revenues, good on ya. I could say “damn pathetic,” but choose the high road.
Cordially…
KC
John, I know this is going to get me in trouble, but at this point, I don’t think Hillary is looking too bad in 2008. I like Hagel and I sort of like McCain, but they have not done anything noticable in my mind to hold down spending or put any checks on the executive branch. More to the point, I just fear pushing the country more into the hands Dobson and his alcolytes, people who I fear they’d eventually have to sell themselves to just to get elected. At least with Hillary, I know she’d be under such a gun from the right that she’d have to wear restraints.
RW
Rick scores a bullseye.
John Cole
Of course everyone has an agenda.
I think Hugh’s is just bad for the country.
Rick
John,
I’d welcome the risk of finding it in practice. Not every status quo is to be cherished.
Especially when power is concentrated but purported to be “off limits” to reform. What goes for corporations (Fox! Fox!) goes for less structured institutions, like the “MSM.”
Cordially…
Hacktacular
John — I just don’t understand why you give Glenn Reynolds a pass all the time. Every story you criticize from Hugh and his ilk is linked to by Instapundit with an “indeed” or a “heh” or some other short comment. Yet you continue to kiss his ass, and guess what, he never links you anymore now that you no longer are on the kill-MSM bandwagon. (What’s funny is that if you go to Daily Kos and read their criticism of the MSM, it sounds almost exactly like Glenn and Hugh’s.)
shark
*SIGH*
After all you’ve seen from the media and you STILL choose to carry water for them?
Perplexing to say the least.
CalDevil
Ok John, we get it. You disagree with Hugh on abortion, gay marriage, right to die issues and the religious right in general.
Well great. So do I and so do a lot of other people. Nevertheless, this relentless bashing of Hugh (especially on an issue that has nothing to with the “Christian agenda”) and anyone else who dares to admit to conservative Christian ideals is getting tiresome very quickly.
Feel free to challenge Hugh and others, including this Pres and the GOP in congress on the social issues you hold dear. Hell, I support you fully on those points.
However, just because Hugh takes a somewhat skeptical view of one in a long line of MSM sky is falling in Iraq stories does not render him, as you so graciously depict, a modern day Goebbels.
I’ve read your blog for a while now and I’ve consistently found you well-reasoned even when I haven’t agreed with you. I like your style, but I notice that you’ve recently become more personal in your scraps, rather than just letting the might of your ideas carry the day. Do you honestly believe that Hugh has any expectation that the MSM will give this admin and the GOP in congrees a pass in 06?
Please John, tell us you’re not veering off into Sullivan territory.
John Cole
Nevertheless, this relentless bashing of Hugh (especially on an issue that has nothing to with the “Christian agenda”) and anyone else who dares to admit to conservative Christian ideals is getting tiresome very quickly.
Project much?
Exactly what in this post discusses ‘Christian ideals?’
Rick
I like your style, but I notice that you’ve recently become more personal in your scraps…
CalDevil,
My turn to suck up for once. I’ve been sparring–or girlie slapping–with John Cole for a couple months now over his latest emphases and interests, but there’s been nothing personal directly at me, or that I recognize towards others.
Except for that incident a while ago that led him to take a break from blogging. Lasted maybe 25 seconds.
Cordially…
Jason
Please John, tell us you’re not veering off into Sullivan territory.
It’s worse than that… he’s leapfrogged Sullivan and is now veering into Oliver Willis territory.
The last paragraph John wrote for this original post could have been lifted from any number of Willis entries over the last couple of years:
Why do they hate America? Damn liberal media. Don’t they know a school opened today somewhere?
Indeed. Heh.
p.lukasiak
geez, its must be really tough for you to be a thinking conservative nowadays, John. Not only do you get brickbats thrown at you by the right by refusal to bow to the current talking points orthodoxy, the people on the other side (like myself) will still question your sanity/intellectual honesty for making statements like “Those are legitimate questions, and you can come to your own conclusions. I still believe it was worth it, and I still believe a long term commitment is necessary and will be successful.”
Thus, although I do have to question your sanity/intellectual honesty for continuing to believe that “it was worth it”, I do applaud your willingness to at least consider the alternative! :)
John Cole
Jason-
When Hugh Hewitt starts to apply his won standards to his writing as he demands of the media, I will stop bashing him and making fun of him usijng rhetoric that is indeed Oliveresque.
And what is Hugh’s standard? Of course- all bad news must be balanced with an equal number of good news. So, for every hundred posts he writes bashing the ‘liberal’ media, he must have 100 posts praising them, even if there aren;t a hundred posts he agrees with.
What, you say? That is stupid?
I agree. Tell Hugh. And tell him to quit embarassing himself by being nothing more than an RNC suck-up.
SeesThroughIt
“Do you honestly believe that Hugh has any expectation that the MSM will give this admin and the GOP in congrees a pass in 06?”
Out of curiosity, do any of you who hate the MSM so much honestly believe that said MSM will give a Democratic administration and/or congress a pass?
(Hint: Of course not. But admitting as such would rupture the far-right’s meme of “liberal media bias.” John could not possibly be more correct when he says that these peopple want the media to be a GOP parrot.)
Kimmitt
What’s funny is that if you go to Daily Kos and read their criticism of the MSM, it sounds almost exactly like Glenn and Hugh’s.
…ish. Reynolds is pretty obviously trying to work the refs, while Kos is generally asking the refs to, you know, call the game. They sound superficially similar, but there are some differences.
Rick
Advantage: Kos? Pffft!
Cordially…
caleb
“underscores how difficult it is for the United States to succeed in the war on terror given the public’s media-driven demands for quick results and tied-up-in-bows conclusions.”
I don’t think the media is to blame..
Perhaps if the Bush administration didn’t go on before this whole war began about the “they will throw rose petals at us”, “we’ll be out in 6 months”, “The Iraqi oil will more than pay for this venture all by itself”, people would not have gotten this idea of Iraq excursion being a quicky.
The administration has only themselves.
Simon
Damn caleb, you beat me to it! But you forgot the best one of all, the “cakewalk” comments.
Even moreso, and I believe John has pointed this out here before, Bush has not once asked people to sacrifice in this time of war. Why should people think it was going to be tough when all they ever heard was “move along… and don’t stop spending!” and all they ever saw were arcade game scenes of brilliant armored vehicles driving through the night. For that, the press has something to answer for, but it’s part and parcel with the goals of this Administration.
John Cole
John — I just don’t understand why you give Glenn Reynolds a pass all the time.
I like Glenn. He does his fair share of media bashing, but he doesn’t simply parrot the administration agenda on everything.
The same can’t be said for Hugh- he reads like a Ken Mehlman/RNC/AFA press release. And the real shame about it is the guy is not an idiot-in fact, quite bright. Instead of using his considerable talents, he has chosen to be a shill for the company line, which is a real waste and a real source on intellectual dishonesty.
Instead of thinking for himself once in a while, he has chosen to brand himself as nothing more than Limbaugh lite.
And then there is the persecution complex…
At any rate, while I agree with Glenn on a number of issues, and disagree with him on a bunch more, I know he thinks for himself.
You don’t have to agree with him, but he picks and chooses his own agenda.
As for me picking on Hugh- hardly. He doesn’t even know I exist.
As for the social issues, of course I disagree with him on most of them, and the reason I choose him, as opposed to many others who parrot the same nonsense, is because he has the talking points down pat on every issue and serves as a source of disinformation.
At any rate, the last couple of things I have commented on regarding Hugh have little to do with social issues, unless Iraq and his silly support of the Olympics in NY are now considered social issues.
Far North
Is anyone else sick and tired of that absurd conservative talking point: “the world is a better place without Saddam in power?”
Yessireee, damn right! No doubt about it. Everyone but stupid liberals can see that.
The world is a better place without Saddam in power. Therefore, the world is a better place without those 1660+ American soldiers who are now dead because they “liberated” Iraq and took Saddam out of power. And the world is better off for the 12,000+ injured Americans resulting from taking Saddam out of power. And the world is a better place now becasue tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead. The world is so much better off without those Iraqis and to prove it we won’t even try to count how many of them are dead. But Saddam is out of power.
The world is a better place because America has spent $300 billion dollars taking Saddam out of power and spreading democracy around the Middle East. And if you think $300 billion bought a better world, just wait until we reach the trillion dollar mark in our never ending quest to keep Saddam out of power and spread democracy.
And America is better off because our armed forces are stretched so thin that we won’t be able to respond to new threats around the world. But, Saddam is out of power
The world is a better place without Saddam in power just like the world would be a better place if we dropped a nuclear bomb on Houston, Texas to make sure none of it’s citizens died from cancer.
The world, and America, will be a better place as soon as the new century conservative understands that there is a terrible price to pay for war. That price is terrible even when the conservative isn’t asked to make a personal sacrifice.
So, please conservative, no more of this “better world without Saddam” crap unless you are prepared to acknowledge the price of removing Saddam from power, even though you weren’t asked to sacrifice a damn thing.
Rick
please conservative, no more of this “better world without Saddam” crap unless you are prepared to acknowledge the price of removing Saddam from power, even though you weren’t asked to sacrifice a damn thing.
Talking to me? I acknowledge the price, and since the world w/o Saddam is causing benenficial changes in the region–the “neocon” point, BTW–the hard calculus is running heavily on the plus side.
Cordially…
Barry
‘Hard calculus’? The Bush calculus probably is. The neo-con calculus: the ‘rice and flowers’, ‘cakewalk’, ‘down to 30 thousand troops by Sep’ lines aren’t being repeated much, and only the hard-core whack-jobs are still talking about whether to hit Syria or Iran next.
CadillaqJaq
I’m of the belief that “Cakewalk” is more of a liberal/Dem/MSM/anti-Bush term than anyone’s connected with the administration; Google Irag War.cakewalk.. read this article by Robert Novak, dated March 27, 2003 for a different POV.
No Cakewalk
WASHINGTON — “There were some who were supportive of going to war with Iraq who described it as a cakewalk,” Tim Russert told Donald Rumsfeld on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday. The secretary of Defense seemed surprised. “I never did,” he replied. “No one I know in the Pentagon ever did.”
Rick
…hard-core whack-jobs are still talking about whether to hit Syria or Iran next.
Barry,
Three divisions/three weeks–that’s a cakewalk.
And in the hard calculus, the hope is that in so shaking the tree of the region’s contemptable “stability,” other fruit will fall.
You just named a couple; we’ve already witnessed some others. Smells like victory. Or “light at the end of the tunnel,” if you’re among those who insist on not getting over 1968.
Cordially…
Simon
I’m of the belief that “Cakewalk” is more of a liberal/Dem/MSM/anti-Bush term than anyone’s connected with the administration; Google Irag War.cakewalk.. read this article by Robert Novak, dated March 27, 2003 for a different POV.
Well cadillac, I just googled “iraq cakewalk” and what do you know? The very first result was a Feb 13, 02, WaPo opinion piece by Ken Adelman of Project for a New American Century fame. You know, the NeoCon architects of the war. Not only is the column titled, “Cakewalk in Iraq”, but he gives us this wonderful paragraph:
I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they’ve become much weaker; (3) we’ve become much stronger; and (4) now we’re playing for keeps.
You can try to change history, but your belief here is simply incorrect.
Rick
It was rather a cakewalk (see three divisions/three weeks), and you’re not exactly demolishing the Cadillac with history.
Re-read what his point is, to satisfy yourself.
Cordially…
Simon
You can live in whatever dreamland you like, but if you considered the mission to be accomplished after 3 weeks, you’re kidding yourself. I guess that’s why our soldiers continue to die and we continue to spend billions on this war. It wasn’t over in 3 weeks and it ain’t over now. Honestly, what exactly happened after three weeks? The regime fell, yes, but ‘something’ definitely took it’s place and it’s effectively tying up the most advanced military in the world. Having our entire army tied down there means it isn’t over. Battles and wars and all that.
No need to reread his point as I got it the first time. Just because Novak and Rumsfeld want to deny that Rumsfeld’s asst., Adelman, very explicitly called it a cakewalk in the runup and selling of the war doesn’t make it so. As far as the Dems pointing it out, they should. It wasn’t simply the cakewalk article, but the other ridiculous claims about financing the effort and the amount of troops and time we’d need. The Administration most definitely played down all those aspects.
Rick
Having our entire army tied down there means it isn’t over. Battles and wars and all that.
Closer to 10%, and more civil affairs activities than “battles and wars.”
Earth to “reality-based community.” Three divisions (plus the Brits) in three weeks.
That is a cakewalk. Since Bush=Hitler, try this one: in 1939, it took the Germans and (a week or so later) Soviets, with dozens or hundreds of divisions on converging axes of invasion, four weeks to conquer Poland
Cordially…