Speaking Of Tempests . . .
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in National Security — Comments (54) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Another recent "scandal" involves the fretting and faux (one hopes, at least, that it is faux) outrage over the fact that General David Petraeus agreed to be interviewed by Hugh Hewitt. Andrew Sullivan has taken the lead in denouncing this "outrage" here, here and here, stating that the mere fact that the interview has taken place makes clear that "the politically neutral military" is now turning "into a branch of the Cheney wing of the GOP."
This isn't just nonsense. It is nonsense on stilts and represents proof either of the fact that Sullivan has taken leave of his senses or that he knows precisely what he is writing and is willing to deliberately poison the well when it comes to any debate about Iraq policy. Such conduct is utterly beneath anyone who would boast a Harvard Ph.D. in political science.
In none of his discussions on Petraeus's appearance on Hugh Hewitt's show does Sullivan take on the actual statements Petraeus makes. No, it is evidently enough for him to dismiss Petraeus's commentary because he appears on a radio program hosted by someone Sullivan doesn't like.
This is beyond intellectually lazy. If Sullivan doesn't like Petraeus's commentary, he should take specific issue with it. He shouldn't content himself by merely saying that he doesn't like the forum in which that commentary is presented. Of course, Sullivan's failure and unwillingness to do this conveys the clear sense that he lacks the expertise to go head-to-head with Petraeus on the issue of Iraq. It also makes clear that Sullivan is content and all-too-eager to slime and smear Petraeus so that if the General says anything positive in the coming months regarding Iraq, Sullivan can be primed to reject it instead of discussing claims and counterclaims on their merits and engaging in an honest, substantive debate regarding Iraq policy.
Petraeus, of course, has a great deal more to bring to the policy table than Sullivan does. He has forgotten more about insurgency, counterinsurgency and the art and science of war than Sullivan will ever know. He has taken repeated assignments in Iraq and did them brilliantly enough that when he was nominated for his current post, the Senate confirmed the nomination unanimously. Even if one is opposed to the current reconstruction effort, can one not muster up the desire to hope that Petraeus succeeds and proves the skeptics happily wrong?
Well, evidently, when it comes to Andrew Sullivan, the answer is "no." And that answer is not given in good faith. Rather, it is given with an abundance of demagoguery, smear-tactics and an utter refusal to deal with anything specific that Petraus said in his Hewitt interview. For Sullivan, none of that matters. All that matters is that he believes he can portray Petraeus as some willing minion of the Dark Lord Cheney because the General gave an interview to Hugh Hewitt. His stance is utterly astonishing and breathtakingly pathetic.
In his eagerness to smear Petraeus, Sullivan has qualified himself to be on the receiving end of the worst accusations he hurled at Karl Rove, the supposed Master of Nefariousness. In his stubborn refusal to consider the substance of Petraeus's commentary and to take the time to write a thoughtful and intelligent reply to that commentary, Sullivan has qualified himself to be on the receiving end of the worst accusations he hurled at George W. Bush, the supposed Pin-Up Model of the Intellectually Slovenly and Incurious. Perhaps at some point, Sullivan will stop with the juvenile name-calling and become the serious pundit he thinks he already is. Until then, it is safe to say that he is out of his depth as a commentator on Iraq, even as it becomes clear that he is an expert demagogue and rabble-rouser.
« Boeing v. Airbus — Comments (7) | The Incredibly Damaging Story That Wasn't (Part Deux) — Comments (1) »
Speaking Of Tempests . . . 54 Comments (0 topical, 54 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Nizqor (the site behind the poisoning the well link is not a good place to go. They use pop-ups, and I suspect are sponsored by spyware. Ironic that I'm poisoning their well.
However, here are two better sites for such links:
Fallacy Files
Bruce Thompson
As distant third, my own Logic Wizard is an experiment in applying search technology to perform such references as you made. Rather than building a whole index and making explicit links between, e.g., Poisoning the Well, ad hominem, and fallacies of relevance generally, I am trying to use tag-and-search to do organizing. I'm not sure it's working, or how much the blog format interferes.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
Sullivan is just another barking dog yelping "look at me", "look at me"...
Who cares what he thinks?
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Think of Sullivan as the mine canary. In this respect, he serves a useful purpose. He is picking up on what his friends over at TNR are saying, who are simply peddling the latest meme out of Hillary's shop.
Don't think this isn't organized. Unfortunately for Hillary, Reid, and Pelosi, the rug is going to get pulled out from under them. Watch, and wait.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
I suspect that the only ones who will really try to demonize Petraeus will be the Andrew Sullivan/Harper's Magazine/Matthew Yglesias Left. Some nutty Dem Congresscritters (e.g Maxine Waters) will try. But the rational Dems (Steny Hoyer, Chuck Schumer) should be able to short-circuit most of that. (There are some nutty/dumb Dems that I suspect even they can't control---John Murtha, San Fran Nan, and Dingy Harry)
I DO think the rational Dems will do their best to marginalize Petraeus and other pro-surge DOD officials. That's what I think is starting here. A steady PR drumbeat, painting the perception of anyone who supports continuing agressive counterinsurgency operations as simply parroting the Dubya line.
So, what should we do?
Where we can, publicly defend Petraeus and any other military/DOD official who speaks in favor of the surge. (E.g., the DOD official who supposedly "demeaned" Hillary Clinton by pointing out that calling for the Administration to discuss troop withdrawals might make it seem to nervous/vulnerable Iraqis that we ARE planning to leave!) The more Hewitt-type interviews we get, the better it is for our side.
How do we defend them?
1) Watch your local newspapers. When the OpEd section---or an OpEd columnist---posts an article insulting Petraeus et.al., write a strong Letter to the Editor in response. If that article is online, with a Comments section, comment quickly and aggressively. It's important for those MSMers who are inclined to demonize/minimize Petraeus that there's no yearning for a NewTone amongst us. Shoot at Petraeus; be prepared for us to shoot back---in ways that will highlight how shallow/stupid the MSM is being on this issue. My guess is that most MSMers won't want to be embarassed publicly. Do it to them a few times, and I suspect most will shut up.
2) ACTIVELY support VetsForFreedom, Win-the-War.com and other similar groups. Let it be known that, when Petraeus comes to Capitol Hill in September, that many, many reinforcements will meet him there. Make it known that, anyone who rises to belittle Petraeus will face a LOT of opposition.
3) All of our Congresscritters will be home for August. Go to one of their public events. Urge them to support the surge. let them know you're watching. For example, tell them that, when you are in Washington for the next VetsForFreedom gathering---the one corresponding to Petraeus' testimony---that you'll be stopping by their offices. If they hold a public event, stand up and ask them a question which puts them on the spot, in front of the audience and the local media. (E.g., Congressman, it seems to be a consensus view that, if the US leaves Iraq too quickly, that wide-scale killings will ensue. Do you agree?)
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
The Democrats, open minded liberals one and all, didn't want to hear a word he had to say, so there are other venues in an electronic age unfriendly to the Dems statist compulsions.
This is why the Democrats are pushing the Fairness doctrine, other opinions and contrary facts are poison to them.
Sullivan, a conservative, self identified, in the great mode of Kevin Phillips and David Gergen and a dishonest and posturing pimp all around.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
"Even if one is opposed to the current reconstruction effort, can one not muster up the desire to hope that Petraeus succeeds and proves the skeptics happily wrong?"
Nope. It doesn't suit the agenda(s).
General Patraeus is going to be shredded when his report comes out and his credibility is going to be hammered. Stuff like this doesn't help.
Of course, his own words about the war (5 years of sunshine & progress) are going to be the biggest thing held against him.
Wow, can you see the future? Do you know what the outcome of the study (and the surge, for that matter) will be already? If you're aware of what Gen. Petraeus is going to say, then you should enlighten all of us so we can be prepared to answer to the moonbats when they strike.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Come on. Be real. Everyone on both sides of this issue knows exactly what he is going to say...
"We are making progress...its going to take time....the training of the Iraqis is taking longer than expected.....AQ in Iraq has been severely hurt....the people are turning against AQ....Iraqi people come to us every day thanking us....we need more time but it looks like we are winning."
It could have been written in Jan.
so much. It should have been written in Jan. The Democrats should have said "great, let's get it done". Instead, they have to fight daily against an American victory.
...of absurdity. The quotation part of your second comment is extremely accurate.
You, however, are a fool. And that's the kindest word available to describe your level of abject stupidity.
I think he held back quite effectively. A "normal" person would have ripped the guy even harder.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
But did you ever stop to think that maybe, just possibly, he might be RIGHT? And that all the crapola that you seem to have bought into might, just maybe, be anti-war propaganda that has been spewed by the MSM and the Left? Nah, you wouldn't think that, would you? Why, only the Administration-backed tools could be spouting off propaganda.
I could have written your posting in January also. You are far too predictable.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I am just tired of you. Okay? Bone tired.
Anyone with any knowledge of Petraeus at all, I mean beyond a vague acquaintance with his name, would know he hasn't made any statement whatsoever concerning "5 years of sunshine & progress".
This is your schtick. You show up. Make asinine statements and expect them to be seriously considered.
Go some other place and bother them.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
General Patraeus is going to be shredded when his report comes out and his credibility is going to be hammered.
Shredded/hammered by WHOM? San Fran Nan? Haditha John Murtha? Stupid Barbara Boxer?
OK---let them try. We should welcome their trying. Because, we now have at least a month to find capable verbal combatants (e.g., Lindsay Graham, Sam Johnson) who can point out their foolishness.
In my opinion, most people who listen to Petraeus and Murtha will eventually pick Petraeus and roll their eyes at Murtha.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
"The enemy is extremism, we think..." - General Petraeus
General Petraeus is probably a great man. But by the continuous references to ‘David’ in Presidential speeches, it is clear that he is being set up as the fall guy by the Bush Administration. You don’t get to be a four-star by being dumb, and the General surely sees the position that the President is putting him in.
The General has a duty to his Commander-in-Chief, but he also has a fiduciary duty to the American people. He has a family interest in not ending up as the fall guy for a failed strategy.
The stage is set for General Petraeus to break with the President and be the first to name the enemy. The enemy is Islam. It is not possible to negotiate with a faith that requires all non-believers to be either converted, subjugated, or killed. It hasn’t happened for 1400 years and its not going to happen now.
History is watching General.
Now scram.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Since Sullivan himself has been interviewed on Hewitt's show a few times, does that mean he is a member of the Darth Cheney minions club as well?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
doesn't have a show.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Pejman,
It seems that you wrote a diary intended to discredit Sullivan but ignored his premise and went after alleged agendas instead.
If General Patreaus wishes to be viewed an objective non-partisan professional, going on to Hugh Hewitt's show is not the way to do it. Hewitt is a pure partisan with a clear agenda. Now there is nothing wrong with that. It's not like he's hiding his agenda.
But the General should realize that going onto a very partisan radio show and defending the Administration's policies is not going to change ANYONE'S mind and will only server to put his own objectivity into question.
If one of the generals that are critical of the war were to give an interview at DKos or DU, would you give it any credence or would you discard it immediately?
Patreaus may be 100% percent correct in his comments but it doesn't matter. His choice of media outlet discredits his comments before he utters a single word, at least in the eyes of those who not in full support of the Administration.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
at Hewitt's site allows the general to be quoted accurately. Other news outlets might have tried to frame his comments their own way.
I am certain he could get editorial review of the interview to ensure that he was not quoted out of context. Heck I'm sure he could find someone willing to give him an unedited interview if he so chose to.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
and the general certainly doesn't have time to shop around for interview opportunities. It could have been for a reason as simple as Hewitt's willingness to defer to the general's timetable and without any other demands.
I doubt if the general consciously made a partisan choice, and what he did say to Hewitt is as much on the record as it would have been through any other outlet. Whom he grants interviews to shouldn't be an especially important political issue compared to the obvious life and death matters in Iraq.
You can't just discard political ramifications of your actions.
It is entirely possible that Gen Patraeus Hewitt's interview the most palatable because of logistical reasons or simply for convenience.
However he must also know that having a cheerleader interview you will probably get you some criticism. If he doesn't know that he is being naive and he doesn't strike me as naive in any way.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
directly affected by the general's leadership, the politics of granting an interview to Hewitt could only matter to American pundits. The content of the interview itself is there for any journalist to find, whatever they want to do with it.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Name 3 radio or tv shows that are not very partisan
that have on guests like the general
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Since you will say anything that isn't supportive of the GOP is partisan Left.
However I would say that he could go on FNS with Chris Wallace, Meet the Press, or even Scarborough.
If he wanted to get wider exposure he could go on 60 Minutes. If the President can do that, I'd imagine he could as well.
Honestly just about any national news program has vastly more credibility than Hewitt does since they have to play more to the middle than he does.
Hewitt isn't a journalist. He is a political operative that has a blog and radio show.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Agree on all your points. I didnt' hear the Hewitt interview, but in general I think it does more harm than good for one to limit his appearances to sympathetic interviewers (IF that's the case with Petraeus -- I don't know if it is). Sure, it rallies a segment of the population -- preaching to the choir -- but for everyone else it begs the question of if the interviewee is seeking the safety of easy pitches right down the middle of the plate rather than defending his views in a tougher interview. I think it's generally bad P.R. strategy (and arguably a bad policy from a public service standpoint), unless the strategy is to retain and invigorate existing supporters of the surge so that enough remain with a strong enough voice to sustain the surge politically (e.g., via filibuster).
as well. He hasn't limited his appearences to Hewitt.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
game
I'd love to see the general go into full warrior mode and go on MSMBC's Keith Domberman's show. A good smack down, with General Petraus laying on a few full body slams would be great!
_______________________________
None of the Above !
That's what I thought, but wasn't sure. If that's the case, and if he's doing so (appearing on "neutral" media) at least as much, I don't see a problem with him appearing on a partisan's show. My comment was conditioned on the premise that he has not, which was a premise whose validity I acknowledged I did not (and still do not) know, but which I guessed was an underlying assumption in this discussion (not having read through it all).
... I think it does more harm than good for one to limit his appearances to sympathetic interviewers ...
What if, as I suspect, the 'non-sympathetic interviewers' simply don't want to interview him? Is it fair to tell the General that he can't interview with anyone?
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I rather doubt Petraus would have trouble getting interviewed on just about anyone's program in the MSM. Come on, now.
here... at Hugh Hewitt's site. It's about 35 minutes long.
The full transcript is also available on the site.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
On that score, Hewitt is vastly more credible than any most any MSM broadcast TV outlet. 60 Minutes would edit Jesus Christ to make him look like Hitler. Hewitt produces verbatim complete transcripts.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
interview him.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
If so, do you have some objection to the content? Do you believe it was biased? If so, please provide examples - I'd like to hear what you find objectionable. The content is there in plain view for reading and criticism. I see no ellipsis to indicate editing. Now I suppose you might have some conspiracy theory that says that Hewitt has modified the words that Petraeus spoke to suit his evil Conservative plot.
Would I think the same on another site? No, although I am sure that if a similar interview was published on DKos, there are others who would swear that Markos would modify what was spoken to suit his agenda. However, it appears that Hewitt's article is a transcript of a live interview that is undoubtedly available somewhere in audio form, thus making accuracy checking easier.
The other objection might be that Hewitt tossed Petraeus softball questions. Now where have we seen THAT before (read: MSM and Democrats and their ilk)? Do you have issues with the questions that were asked? Do you disagree with the responses? Can you not take the content at face value and evaluate it as such? As I said, you can certainly wish that other questions were asked, but that is the case with any interview in any venue.
You say that his "media outlet discredits his comments". Why? Tell me exactly what can be discredited. Words are words, and provided they have not been edited, they stand on their own merit.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
If one of the generals that are critical of the war were to give an interview at DKos or DU, would you give it any credence or would you discard it immediately?
I would read what the general in question actually said, and then make up my mind on whether I think the comment is valuable. And I criticized Sullivan for failing to do that and instead giving undue attention to the forum in which Petraeus spoke.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
Hear, hear. Exactly right.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Honestly Pejman you may be willing to do that but the VAST majority on the Right would not because they would kneejerk regarding who the interviewer was.
I think it is simply not reasonable to say that people by and large regard all interviewers equally.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
...credibility? (And I know you're supporting Obama for President instead of Clinton, but I don't know if he's going to YKos too.)
It's a darned funny thing. When people on your side of the aisle talk to friendly partisan reporters, they have the oddest habit of dropping their guard and saying what they really mean. And those can be some of the most illuminating comments of all. I'd guess you'd want to see if Petraeus might do the same thing.
As has been said by others, you're taking issue with the forum that Petraeus chose rather than what he says. You're telling us that what someone says is less important to you than where he chooses to say it.
A politician going to a politically partisan event is fine. If Fred Thompson wants to do an interview with Hewitt, that's fine.
Patreaus is ostensibly neutral, at least he is supposed to be. He is not supposed to pick political sides. If you want to say that he is just another political operative, that's fine. But you completely discredit his legitimacy as a general then.
And I personally don't have a problem with his interview. He decided to play to the home crowd. That's his choice. But don't condemn pundits for pointing that out.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,283553,00.html
Hewitt's interview is more detailed and much better than Wallace's recitation of coventional wisdom drivel. One learns things when Hewitt interviews.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
For the links to the transcripts. That is a big help to those of us who are search engine challenged.
And this is a well written blog, PY. Sullivan would do well to acknowledge and address valid criticism, possibly even correcting his errors. (Not that I've ever read him, nor would I if he did so, but maybe he could gain some level of credibility.)
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
There's nothing wrong with Patraeus being interviewed by Hewitt or anyone else for that matter. The substance of the interview is what's important here. If the questions are softballs or framed in political ways, fine, point those instances out specifically so others can make that determination as well.
The interview was an important one and anyone who takes the General at face value must see a crucial turning point in Iraq. Those who don't are just plain disingenuous.
What's telling here as well is that no one on the left has really hammered away at the substance of what Patraeus is saying, they seem only interested in his choice of mediums.
To that end, we are facing a critical period of the war, and it's tremendously helpful for someone like Patreaus to speak to the 'right' to shore up support which has sadly wavered.
I think it's also important for him to speak to the MSM and the 'left' because he has far more credibility with them than a lot of other folks doing their best to win this war.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
into silencing Petraeus? Specifically, are they hoping that the Pentagon, concerned over "perceptions," will pressure the Gen to do no more such interviews with new media?
That's my guess. Because, it seems to me that the logical response to Sullivan's complaints is for Petraeus to go on liberal talk radio. But, I suspect Air America and Ed Schultz are scared of Petraeus. They won't dare interview him. He'll expose them as the intellectual/emotional children that they are.
But...how do they explain that to the non-netroots public? They can't. And, they can't openly insist that Petraeus not conduct these interviews. So, the next best option is to try and spur behind-the-scenes pressure---from Dem Congressional offices, perhaps?---on the Pentagon to stop them.
It worked on Gen Pace---why not try it again?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)