PDA

View Full Version : Adios McCrystal


Wonderment
06-22-2010, 03:57 PM
May the departure of McCrystal mark the beginning of the end of Obama's surge in Afghanistan. It's time to reevaluate the whole mission, call off the drones in the region, dump Karzai and get out.

On the other hand, debacles like this often make warlords dig in their heels.

Thoughts?

bjkeefe
06-22-2010, 05:01 PM
May the departure of McCrystal mark the beginning of the end of Obama's surge in Afghanistan. It's time to reevaluate the whole mission, call off the drones in the region, dump Karzai and get out.

On the other hand, debacles like this often make warlords dig in their heels.

Thoughts?

I hadn't heard about this, so thanks for the heads up.

For those in a similar boat, here is a news story from Dexter Filkins (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/asia/23mcchrystal.html?pagewanted=all). [Update: this link now points to what appears to be an updated report. Two different reporters now have the byline, and Filkins is credited as a contributor in the footnote. Developing ..., to coin a term.]

Also, here is a short, interesting post from Jon Taplin (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/22/mccrystal_macarthur/), which came up first when I Googled (http://www.google.com/search?q=departure+of+McCrystal) departure of McCrystal. (Possible skewing in these search results should be noted, as I am reminded that our General Stanley A. spells his last name McChrystal.)

More news links here (http://www.google.com/search?q=McChrystal&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=nuvl&source=univ&tbs=nws:1&tbo=u&ei=dCQhTKi4L4L58Aat86GLAQ&sa=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQsQQwAA), using the latter spelling. Here is the current top Google News result from Fox (http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/22/mcchrystal-ignites-firestorm-of-concern-but-calls-for-resignation-nonexistent/).

[Added] I probably should have said "news" links, as it appears that almost everything returned at this point is pure speculation or at best, reaction quotes to the news that McChrystal had been summoned to the White House.

[Added2] Here is the Rolling Stone article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0) that apparently started the kerfuffle.

Wonderment
06-22-2010, 07:44 PM
Sorry about the spelling error on the general's surname.

I will be shocked if Obama doesn't fire him tomorrow.

In hindsight, Obama should have dumped him a year ago when McCh tried to play commander in chief by ranting about how the war would be lost without a surge.

In any case, what will be interesting is how the Repubs. play this and, for progressives, how can McChrystal's departure help the peace movement.

My sense is that it doesn't really help progressives because McCh will be seen as an ultra-hawk who challenged the administration's "humanitarian" rules for zapping civilians and its unwillingness to "get the job done" (whatever on Earth that could mean).

If McCh is turned into a right-wing folk hero it hurts (paradoxically) both Obama and the peace movement. Obama loses because he looks like a wimp, and the peace movement loses because the right will claim that warrior McCh knows more than civilian Obama i.e, we need less concern about civilians, more troops and more firepower.

Unfortunately, Obama may be susceptible to that line of lunacy and sink deeper into the Afghan quagmire. I don't see how this gives him any de-escalation opportunities.

pampl
06-22-2010, 08:10 PM
I don't think McChrystal will be dumped. He's viewed as too valuable to the war in Afghanistan, and that Rolling Stone article didn't attribute any very bad quotations to him. He's going to be forced to dump some of his staffers, though. It's sort of amazing how far you can rise in the military hierarchy without having the slightest clue about what you can say in front of a reporter.

Wonderment
06-22-2010, 09:09 PM
The article will also remind people that McChrystal has a long rap sheet that includes the Pat Tillman lies and torture in the Bush years.

AemJeff
06-22-2010, 09:47 PM
The article will also remind people that McChrystal has a long rap sheet that includes the Pat Tillman lies and torture in the Bush years.

The Tillman thing is what should have gotten him fired.

bjkeefe
06-22-2010, 10:36 PM
Sorry about the spelling error on the general's surname.

No prob. I didn't realize it was one until after Google Did you mean ...ed me.

I will be shocked if Obama doesn't fire him tomorrow.

You mean, you would like him to, and you will be annoyed if he doesn't, I think. As far as I can tell, McChrystal himself did not go that out of bounds (although the suggestion that his attitude is less than optimal is clear), and Obama is also known for not getting that excited about transient things. I expect that if McChrystal is able to be convincing, face to face, that he is basically on the same page as Obama, and clearly gets who is the Commander-in-Chief and who is (supposed to be) taking orders from the Commander-in-Chief, Obama will wave it off.

NB: this has nothing to do with my views about McChrystal, which aren't that well-formed, but which do skew a little towards the feeling that he might not be the best person for his current role. And it is also true that I think we should be concentrating on wrapping up the major parts of our occupation in Afghanistan, in accordance with the schedule Obama gave, what, a year or so ago.

In hindsight, Obama should have dumped him a year ago when McCh tried to play commander in chief by ranting about how the war would be lost without a surge.

Possibly, but Obama does always talk about how he wants to hear from well-informed people who don't always agree with him, so it's easy to see that as an example of Obama walking the walk.

In any case, what will be interesting is how the Repubs. play this and, for progressives, how can McChrystal's departure help the peace movement.

I suspect it will be interesting only for the comedy, concerning the Republicans. This is going to be like the Joe Barton Kinsley-gaffe -- the noisemakers on the right are likely to oscillate wildly among a few contradictory talking points. (I hope!)

As for the peace effort, well, yeah, I hope, too. But I am not going to bet on it at this point.

My sense is that it doesn't really help progressives because McCh will be seen as an ultra-hawk who challenged the administration's "humanitarian" rules for zapping civilians and its unwillingness to "get the job done" (whatever on Earth that could mean).

If McCh is turned into a right-wing folk hero it hurts (paradoxically) both Obama and the peace movement. Obama loses because he looks like a wimp, and the peace movement loses because the right will claim that warrior McCh knows more than civilian Obama i.e, we need less concern about civilians, more troops and more firepower.

The perennial dilemma for Democratic presidents since Vietnam at least, isn't it?

Unfortunately, Obama may be susceptible to that line of lunacy and sink deeper into the Afghan quagmire. I don't see how this gives him any de-escalation opportunities.

I don't think Obama is susceptible to lines of lunacy, although I acknowledge he sometimes makes political calculations that cause him to do things other than I would prefer.

As for the de-escalation, I dunno if I agree with you. Seems to me this could be seen as a completely separate thing. Once it gets off the top of the news cycle, I mean. As I mentioned above, I'm counting on Obama to stick to the timetable he laid out a while ago, when the only issue on the table is "What are we going to do, and for how long are we going to try that?" So, he has cover for a draw-down, if he needs it, in that he can point to this promise he already made.

Ultimately, it seems like too many things are up in the air, so it's really hard for me to do any kind of analysis of the McChrystal situation and give reasoned predictions. It's mostly just gut feelings at the moment. And, in any case, it'll all be moot soon enough.

bjkeefe
06-22-2010, 10:40 PM
The Tillman thing is what should have gotten him fired.

Forgot about that part. Yeah, to the extent that I understand his role in that, I agree.

Wonderment
06-22-2010, 11:59 PM
You mean, you would like him to, and you will be annoyed if he doesn't, I think.

No, I mean my political intuition tells me he's a goner. But we'll see. I may be eating crow come the morrow.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post. You're right that the McChrystal affaire (like the e?) should be decoupled from the Big Questions of the war.

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 01:21 AM
No, I mean my political intuition tells me he's a goner. But we'll see. I may be eating crow come the morrow.

Hmmm. Okay. My intuition bets against intuition.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post. You're right that the McChrystal affaire (like the e?) should be decoupled from the Big Questions of the war.

It'd be nice if this didn't remain THE story for too much longer, too. Might as well wish for the moon, though, I suppose.

Wonderment
06-23-2010, 01:32 AM
It'd be nice if this didn't remain THE story for too much longer, too. Might as well wish for the moon, though, I suppose.

Well, fired or not, the story tomorrow will be about Obama, not McChrystal. Nobody is wondering how McChrystal will handle Obama.

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 01:39 AM
Well, fired or not, the story tomorrow will be about Obama, not McChrystal. Nobody is wondering how McChrystal will handle Obama.

Yep, true dat. We should create two bingo cards, one for fired, and one for not fired, and have the squares be the predicted responses.

For example, on the Not Fired card, one square could be "MoDo writes a column with multiple uses of Obambi."

The Fired card will have to be at least 10 x 10, if not 30 x 30, though, because just thinking of everything the wingnuts will howl in this case is causing my brain to issue a Low Virtual Memory warning.

listener
06-23-2010, 02:15 AM
I've been following this conversation with interest, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness and circumspection of all participants.

Though I don't think I can add anything original to the conversation, I did come across this piece of speculation which I found thought provoking (though, as both Wonderman & Brendel have acknowledged, may be moot by some time tomorrow):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/37863298#37863298

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 02:20 AM
... as both Wonderman & Brendel have acknowledged, ...

Have you been dipping into the Beowulf again?

TwinSwords
06-23-2010, 02:21 AM
Steve Clemons gets it right (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/06/power_is_relati/):

Runaway General Stanley McChrystal has to Go

Barack Obama has an easy choice to make: fire a general who has established a culture of insubordination and indifference toward civilian leaders and partners in government or defer yet again to a general who acquires power like medals every time he outwits or outmaneuvers the White House.

General Stanley McChrystal went over clear lines in the debate about the surge into Afghanistan with freelance comments he made in London. Recently, McChrystal stated that the move into Kandahar would slow and threw into doubt confidence in a July 2011 drawdown start date. He didn't consult with anyone before a public redesign of US strategy.

And now in this Rolling Stone report, "The Runaway General (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/twn_up_fls/Rolling%20Stone%20McChrystal.pdf)" (pdf), McChrystal and his team are reported ridiculing Joe Biden, Richard Holbrooke, Jim Jones, just about everyone not in their groove on strategy.

McChrystal has gone over too many lines.

Obama needs to fire him. If he doesn't, McChrystal's brand will be validated and the environment of insubordination and unprofessional conduct will be reinforced.

If McChrystal survives his White House encounter, then Obama will be diminished.

That is what this has come to.

Elsewhere today (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/mcchrystals-self-inflicte_b_621493.html), Clemons stated that Gen. McChrystal "and his command staff have undermined the very foundation of public trust in the White House's legitimacy and leadership." Even if the consequences to Obama are politically damaging, and they clearly would be, he has to fire the (reckless and irresponsible) general to establish that gross insubordination and violation of chain of command cannot and will not be tolerated in the US armed forces.

Clemons concludes "Barack Obama has to use this mistake by McChrystal as a learning moment -- reminding the nation that the President is the Commander in Chief and reminding the US military that pugnacious disdain for diplomats, civil society builders, for strategists, Vice Presidents, and ISAF allies with whom they may have differences is something that they must learn to deal with responsibly and respectably."

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 02:32 AM
[...]

Excellent points. I don't know enough of the details about McChrystal over the past several months to comment meaningfully on this, but I do want to say, the general (no pun intended) principle is spot-on -- we already have enough of a problem with media-savvy military brass forgetting who's in charge in our country. If McChrystal really has been as insubordinate and disparaging as Clemons portrays him, and he can't completely convince Obama that he's going to change his ways, he should go.

Civilians are the HMFIC in the USA. No exceptions.

listener
06-23-2010, 02:32 AM
Have you been dipping into the Beowulf again?

Yes, I confess to being monstrously guilty as charged.

Florian
06-23-2010, 02:34 AM
Steve Clemons gets it right (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/06/power_is_relati/):



Elsewhere today (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/mcchrystals-self-inflicte_b_621493.html), Clemons stated that Gen. McChrystal "and his command staff have undermined the very foundation of public trust in the White House's legitimacy and leadership." Even if the consequences to Obama are politically damaging, and they clearly would be, he has to fire the (reckless and irresponsible) general to establish that gross insubordination and violation of chain of command cannot and will not be tolerated in the US armed forces.

Clemons concludes "Barack Obama has to use this mistake by McChrystal as a learning moment -- reminding the nation that the President is the Commander in Chief and reminding the US military that pugnacious disdain for diplomats, civil society builders, for strategists, Vice Presidents, and ISAF allies with whom they may have differences is something that they must learn to deal with responsibly and respectably."

I agree! Obama needs to stand tall à la De Gaulle and throw the rascal out (as De Gaulle threw out some insubordinate generals during the Algerian War).

Obama has begun to look like a wimp in the eyes of the American public. This is no doubt an illusion woven by "savvy" journalists who can do nothing but repeat the same memes every day, but in politics appearances matter more than reality.

Wonderment
06-23-2010, 02:42 AM
as both Wonderman & Brendel have acknowledged

Where's my cape?

TwinSwords
06-23-2010, 02:45 AM
Excellent points. I don't know enough of the details about McChrystal over the past several months to comment meaningfully on this, but I do want to say, the general (no pun intended) principle is spot-on -- we already have enough of a problem with media-savvy military brass forgetting who's in charge in our country. If McChrystal really has been as insubordinate and disparaging as Clemons portrays him, and he can't completely convince Obama that he's going to change his ways, he should go.

Civilians are the HMFIC in the USA. No exceptions.

Robert Gibbs today was pretty clear that Obama, too, took McChrystal's remarks very seriously.

Don't know how reliable this news (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100044536/breaking-general-stanley-mcchrystal-tenders-his-resignation/) is, but: "A senior Capitol Hill source tells me that General Stanley McChrystal had tendered his resignation to President Barack Obama and that the White House is actively discussing a replacement who could be quickly confirmed by the Senate."

I'll honestly be amazed if Obama fires him, but believe that Obama would gain significant respect from his foes in the Republican Party (even if they never showed it), because they (who fetishize the military) recognize more than anyone that McChrystal crossed a sacrosanct line. If this was a rogue liberal general criticizing Cheney and Bolton in similar language while GW was president, there would be no debate about the proper recourse.

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 02:46 AM
Yes, I confess to being monstrously guilty as charged.

You're a better man than I. Still haven't made it through that one. Not even close.

On the video you linked to: Thanks. That was helpful for me in providing context and reminding me of details I probably should have retained.

Minor gripe (and not your fault, obvs.): If I were Dictator of Teevee, I would have cut the part with all the clips of past news shows talking about the past people Gates has fired. The summary with the scrolling list that Rachel gave conveyed all the information in what felt like 1/100th the time. Plus, I wouldn't have had to listen to those newsreaders talking in that edge-of-hysteria tone of voice they all seem to affect. Man, that drives me batty.

Wonderment
06-23-2010, 02:52 AM
I'll honestly be amazed if Obama fires him...

Wow. We sure have different reads on this. I will honestly be amazed if Obama DOESN'T fire him.

TwinSwords
06-23-2010, 02:55 AM
Indeed. If this was only the first time McChrystal made a show of his disdain for the president and the chain of command, it would still warrant a severe response. But this is something like the 3rd or 4th big public show of contempt from the general. As sometime-Blogginghead Jonathan Alter said today (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/22/why-military-code-demands-mcchrystal-s-resignation.html), "[t]he reason McChrystal must go is that this isn't his first time in trouble for talking out of school in a way that can fairly be described as insubordinate. Last fall, McChrystal gave a speech in London and afterward was asked if he could support the Biden Plan: fewer troops for Afghanistan, with a stepped-up use of Predator drones. He said "no." In other words, the commanding general in the region was saying that if the president sided with the vice president, he couldn't support the policy. Many in the White House last year viewed this as insubordination. ... Having been burned once by Stanley McChrystal, the president probably will not allow himself to be burned again. The military code—and American democratic traditions—all but demand that he accept the general's resignation of his command."

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 02:59 AM
Robert Gibbs today was pretty clear that Obama, too, took McChrystal's remarks very seriously.

He Tweets (http://twitter.com/PressSec) about it or it didn't happen!!!1!

;)

Don't know how reliable this news (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100044536/breaking-general-stanley-mcchrystal-tenders-his-resignation/) is, ...

Uh, you seen that commercial where the guy is on the plane, ready to skydive, and he turns to the stoner behind him and says, "Are you sure this 'chute was packed right?"

(Pause) "PROBABLY!!!"

The Telegraph? Iffy, at best. I'd never trust anything from them as a sole source.

That said ...

... but: "A senior Capitol Hill source tells me that General Stanley McChrystal had tendered his resignation to President Barack Obama and that the White House is actively discussing a replacement who could be quickly confirmed by the Senate."

That seems possible, at least. The NYT article seemed very confident in saying McChrystal had already written his letter of resignation yesterday.

I'll honestly be amazed if Obama fires him, ...

Really? Why? You think he's cowed by the military or the thoughts of political fallout or something? Or is it something else that makes you think it would be amazing?

... but believe that Obama would gain significant respect from his foes in the Republican Party (even if they never showed it), because they (who fetishize the military) recognize more than anyone that McChrystal crossed a sacrosanct line.

Eh. If they never show it, it didn't happen, and this time no winkie. I suppose I take your point, but ... well, maybe. I suppose a truly changed mindset could affect something down the road. Okay, fingers crossed.

If this was a rogue liberal general criticizing Cheney and Bolton in similar language while GW was president, there would be no debate about the proper recourse.

You're right about that. While watching that Maddow clip listener (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=166417#post166417) linked to, I noticed a still shot of McChrystal talking to Obama in the White House. McChrystal was wearing cammies, or whatever the proper term is, not a dress uniform.

Think back to the time ZOMG MICHELLE TOUCHED THE QUEEN, and then think about McChrystal being a general who had criticized BushCheney's strategy, who then went to the White House looking like that. The Internet would probably explode from the fauxtrage.

TwinSwords
06-23-2010, 03:06 AM
Wow. We sure have different reads on this. I will honestly be amazed if Obama DOESN'T fire him.

I just got home a short while ago, so I'm still catching up on the reaction from pundits left and right, but if what I've seen in the last 30 minutes are any indication, I'm increasingly tempted to agree with you that Obama probably will fire McChrystal. Why? Because even on the right there seems to be recognition that McChrystal should be canned. Even the morally depraved William Kristol has acknowledged (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/special-editorial-mr-president-don%E2%80%99t-waste-crisis) that McChrystal "probably does" have to be fired.

If the consensus left and right form around the idea that McChrystal should be fired, then Obama will probably go ahead and do it - and so far that's how the consensus seems* to be shaping up.

* based on my limited exposure to pundit reaction.

listener
06-23-2010, 03:08 AM
Where's my cape?

Sorry, no cape, but you do get some incredibly ripped muscles (http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/wonder-man/1-1.jpg).

Wonderment
06-23-2010, 03:14 AM
All right, who blew my cover? These guys again? (http://www.wikileaks.org/)

listener
06-23-2010, 03:15 AM
You're a better man than I. Still haven't made it through that one. Not even close.

On the video you linked to: Thanks. That was helpful for me in providing context and reminding me of details I probably should have retained.

Minor gripe (and not your fault, obvs.): If I were Dictator of Teevee, I would have cut the part with all the clips of past news shows talking about the past people Gates has fired. The summary with the scrolling list that Rachel gave conveyed all the information in what felt like 1/100th the time. Plus, I wouldn't have had to listen to those newsreaders talking in that edge-of-hysteria tone of voice they all seem to affect. Man, that drives me batty.

In all honesty, the closest I've come to Beowulf is being in the same library where it sits. So if I am a better man than you (to which I make no claim), it would have to be for other reasons.

As to the edge-of-hysteria tone, I sympathize with your reaction. But keep in mind that without it, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would probably be out of business by now. :)

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 03:21 AM
In all honesty, the closest I've come to Beowulf is being in the same library where it sits. So if I am a better man than you (to which I make no claim), it would have to be for other reasons.

It's conceivable there are some.

As to the edge-of-hysteria tone, I sympathize with your reaction. But keep in mind that without it, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would probably be out of business by now. :)

Eh, much as like those two guys, it's kind of like asking me to be thankful that there is cancer, because I once met these really nice oncologists.

Wonderment
06-23-2010, 03:23 AM
Yeah, punditry will go crazy on this one. But I don't think the basic narrative is too complicated: Macho general thinks he and his crew can outsmart and diss the civilian command with impunity. Terminate immediately.

Florian
06-23-2010, 03:26 AM
The military code—and American democratic traditions—all but demand that he accept the general's resignation of his command."

To be sure. But I wonder: Is insubordination only the foreground issue? The general and his buddies seem to think that they know better than anyone how the war in Afghanistan can be won. Do they? Perhaps Obama is more wary than he lets on and would like to change directions before McCrystal becomes the indispensable man of the hour.

TwinSwords
06-23-2010, 03:28 AM
Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings (the author of the piece that kicked off this whole controversy) was on Rachel Maddow's show tonight.

— MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings on McChrystal - 'The Runaway General' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOTnkybNgs8&playnext_from=TL&videos=ctTPPa9vOQY)

listener
06-23-2010, 03:36 AM
Eh, much as like those two guys, it's kind of like asking me to be thankful that there is cancer, because I once met these really nice oncologists.

I understand. When I wrote that, I was just thinking of this Lenny Bruce quote:

People should be taught what is, not what should be. All my humor is based on destruction and despair. If the world were tranquil, without disease and violence, I'd be standing in the breadline, right back of J Edgar Hoover.

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 03:41 AM
Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings (the author of the piece that kicked off this whole controversy) was on Rachel Maddow's show tonight.

— MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings on McChrystal - 'The Runaway General' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOTnkybNgs8&playnext_from=TL&videos=ctTPPa9vOQY)

Thanks for that. An interesting take.

In case that YouTube version gets yanked, here's the same clip (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#37862920) on MSNBC.

listener
06-23-2010, 03:47 AM
Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings (the author of the piece that kicked off this whole controversy) was on Rachel Maddow's show tonight.

— MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings on McChrystal - 'The Runaway General' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOTnkybNgs8&playnext_from=TL&videos=ctTPPa9vOQY)

Yes, I found that interview to be very instructive, despite the unfortunately poor sound quality. In contrast to the overall press coverage, it was helpful to hear Hastings flesh out his point of view in a nuanced way that went beyond the sound bites that I'd been hearing. Hastings seemed fundamentally sympathetic to McChrystal as a person, and his views well-considered and nuanced. He seemed genuinely surprised at the brouhaha that his article had stirred up.

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 03:47 AM
I understand. When I wrote that, I was just thinking of this Lenny Bruce quote:

Yes. I should have been more explicit that I consider the likelihood that teevee news will ever be non-annoying to me smaller than the likelihood that we'll completely get rid of cancer. So, given reality, I sure am grateful for Jon and Stephen and crews, not to mention a bunch of my favorite bloggers. Laugh, because it hurts too much to cry.

listener
06-23-2010, 04:14 AM
All right, who blew my cover? These guys again? (http://www.wikileaks.org/)

Yup. You got it.

And moreover, speaking of superheroes, Jay Rosin is onto something (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/28972?in=41:15&out=41:51), but what he doesn't realize is that the "undisclosed location" of wikileaks is actually the Fortress of Solitude (which, "coincidentally," is protected by very special "chrystals.")

(And btw, kudos to Julian for the best shirt worn on BHTV ever.)

[? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_of_solitude)]

pampl
06-23-2010, 04:17 AM
InTrade gives 70% chance of McChrystal being dumped. I'd take those odds, if I had money and registering for it wasn't such a complete hassle (and, from the impression I got, borderline illegal). I still think Obama views McChrystal as too valuable to the war in Afghanistan and so ultimately his presidency, and is too willing to forgive and forget, to accept the letter of resignation. I'm only like 60% sure now though, compared to maybe 80% confidence earlier today.

edit- Oh, I should add that 70% looks to be a starting price, not set by the market yet.

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 05:05 AM
Yep, true dat. We should create two bingo cards, one for fired, and one for not fired, and have the squares be the predicted responses.

For example, on the Not Fired card, one square could be "MoDo writes a column with multiple uses of Obambi."

Something I still wouldn't bet against. However, before he gets Not Fired, this column by MoDo (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/opinion/23dowd.html) is actually pretty good.

listener
06-23-2010, 05:18 AM
Something I still wouldn't bet against. However, before he gets Not Fired, this column by MoDo (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/opinion/23dowd.html) is actually pretty good.

Much as I usually despise the Queen of Snark, I must admit that Ms. Dowd (MoDo? Must we JLo and A-Rod everyone?) makes some good points in this column. And I also must admit that she does have a towel-snapping way with words.

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 05:40 AM
(MoDo? Must we JLo and A-Rod everyone?)

Blame K-Fed!

Or maybe, as I am more inclined to do, credit K-Fed, because it is my sense that once he gave himself this moniker, the fad started dying quickly. The existing names are still used, but I don't hear new ones being coined very often.

BTW, "MoDo" is years old; e.g., WaPo 11/2005 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110401996.html), NRO 6/2003 (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTVmNThiMWYyZTc1ODUyZThhMmYzNDUwMDZiM2FlMjg=), McMegan 6/2002 (http://www.janegalt.net/archives/003825.php) (or a co-blogger), BartCop 2/2002 (http://www.bartcop.com/0724.htm), ... that last looks to be near the beginning of the spreading of the term, as far as a quick Google shows.

It's also in common enough use that it merits an entry on the Wikipedia disambiguation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modo).

Perhaps if you spent less time reading Beowulf ...

listener
06-23-2010, 05:54 AM
Blame K-Fed!

Or maybe, as I am more inclined to do, credit K-Fed, because it is my sense that once he gave himself this moniker, the fad started dying quickly. The existing names are still used, but I don't hear new ones being coined very often.

BTW, "MoDo" is years old; e.g., WaPo 11/2005 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110401996.html), NRO 6/2003 (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTVmNThiMWYyZTc1ODUyZThhMmYzNDUwMDZiM2FlMjg=), McMegan 6/2002 (http://www.janegalt.net/archives/003825.php) (or a co-blogger), BartCop 2/2002 (http://www.bartcop.com/0724.htm), ... that last looks to be near the beginning of the spreading of the term, as far as a quick Google shows.

Well, B-Kay, you have done it again -- once more you have sent this old fart scurrying to the Google machine, this time to find out who the f*ck "K-Fed" is (and my life is so much the richer for having done so!).

And in the spirit of this thread, perhaps I can propose a neo neologism: "StanMac" (oh, never mind, that one's already taken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Mack)).

TwinSwords
06-23-2010, 06:41 AM
On the news shows this morning, they are talking about McChrystal in the past tense, as in "the thing that did him in" and "he was a great general but...." So, for whatever reason, they are treating his departure as a fact at this point.

I sure hope it's true. Afraid to be optimistic, to be honest.

TwinSwords
06-23-2010, 01:43 PM
Wow. We sure have different reads on this. I will honestly be amazed if Obama DOESN'T fire him.

Well, you were right. Thank God Obama made the right decision.

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 02:05 PM
Well, B-Kay, you have done it again -- once more you have sent this old fart scurrying to the Google machine, this time to find out who the f*ck "K-Fed" is (and my life is so much the richer for having done so!).

Heh. Sorry about that. I imagine that you could feel 100 brain cells dying with every word you read.

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 02:09 PM
On the news shows this morning, they are talking about McChrystal in the past tense, as in "the thing that did him in" and "he was a great general but...." So, for whatever reason, they are treating his departure as a fact at this point.

I sure hope it's true. Afraid to be optimistic, to be honest.

This was an interesting comment to read, after the event had happened. I wonder if it was an open secret among the chattering classes by early this morning, or it just became the CW.

This bit from the NYT's latest article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/politics/24mcchrystal.html) on the affair made me snicker:

[list of people mad at the general, and then ...] But Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, and his powerful half brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, mounted a full-throated defense of General McChrystal.

Wonderment
06-23-2010, 02:59 PM
Well, you were right. Thank God Obama made the right decision.

Watch for my new show premiering in the fall on MSNBC: "PredictionDown with Keith Wonderment."

Wondrous Prophecies highlight reel:

1) Wednesday will follow Tuesday!!!1
2) Full moon expected in November!!!1
3) Singularity coming any minute!!!1
4) Stock market certain to fluctuate!!!1

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 03:56 PM
Sorry about the spelling error on the general's surname.

No prob. I didn't realize it was one until after Google Did you mean ...ed me.

Another reason not to feel bad (or at least alone), from Wonkette's liveblog (http://wonkette.com/416214/liveblogging-barack-obamas-televised-assault-of-ex-gen-mcchrystal#ixzz0rhwpnXcw) of the big firing:

1:23 PM — General Patreus, damn will have to add him to spell check again, he is now the commander in Afghanistan. David Petraeus.

pampl
06-23-2010, 03:57 PM
Wow, mea culpa. I didn't expect Obama to view McChrystal's actions as negatively as he must have.

Thoughts:
*I wonder if this means the return of the Obama-as-tyrant meme and the waning of the Obambi meme.
*This has got to be one of the most influential RS articles ever.

edit: and as long we're making abominations out of names, let me point out how easy it is to spell "D-Pet"

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 04:03 PM
Wow, mea culpa. I didn't expect Obama to view McChrystal's actions as negatively as he must have.

Thoughts:
*I wonder if this means the return of the Obama-as-tyrant meme and the waning of the Obambi meme.

And, of course, PROOF THAT OBAMA HATES THE TROOPS AND WANTS THE MUSLINS TO WIN.

edit: and as long we're making abominations out of names, let me point out how easy it is to spell "D-Pet"

But it's so easy to spell Betray-us.

(*ducks*)

TwinSwords
06-23-2010, 04:13 PM
*I wonder if this means the return of the Obama-as-tyrant meme
That meme never left.


and the waning of the Obambi meme.

I read the comments on one of the wingnut blogs earlier, and the foaming at the mouth was centered around the idea that Obama can be tough on America's fighting men and women, but not Iran or North Korea or any of America's enemies. (And in fact, that's a meme Republicans have been cultivating since Obama took office.)

Wonderment
06-23-2010, 04:16 PM
I think this is a short-term win for Obama. The authoritarian Republican mindset will find much to like in a guy who decapitates an uppity general with one quick stroke of his sword. Merits a footbally slap on the ass from Dick Cheney types. Plus, they love Petraeus, the replacement. The extreme right will find something to whine about, but since they worship exercises in raw male power, it will be difficult.

The criticism will come over the war strategy, not the firing per se.

TwinSwords
06-23-2010, 04:18 PM
This was an interesting comment to read, after the event had happened. I wonder if it was an open secret among the chattering classes by early this morning, or it just became the CW.
Yeah, good question, but when I heard the guy on the show that's on before Morning Joe say "the thing that did him in was ..." it did make me wonder if they knew something we didn't. Evidently the White House staff made it pretty clear what was going to most likely happen, and probably a lot of those conversations were off the record.


This bit from the NYT's latest article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/us/politics/24mcchrystal.html) on the affair made me snicker:
Indeed. Kind of strange.

TwinSwords
06-23-2010, 04:21 PM
Watch for my new show premiering in the fall on MSNBC: "PredictionDown with Keith Wonderment."

Wondrous Prophecies highlight reel:

1) Wednesday will follow Tuesday!!!1
2) Full moon expected in November!!!1
3) Singularity coming any minute!!!1
4) Stock market certain to fluctuate!!!1

LOL!

I would watch that!

At least once!

I would tune in just to see the TV newscaster moustache you would have to grow for the part.

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 04:21 PM
*I wonder if this means the return of the Obama-as-tyrant meme and the waning of the Obambi meme.

That meme never left.

And, of course, PROOF THAT OBAMA HATES THE TROOPS AND WANTS THE MUSLINS TO WIN.

From the Wonkette liveblog (http://wonkette.com/416214/liveblogging-barack-obamas-televised-assault-of-ex-gen-mcchrystal#ixzz0ri317pem):

1:33 PM — Haha on MSNBC all these anchors — Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews, etc. — are talking openly about the end of America, broken political process, Gulf oil disaster, losing wars everywhere, can’t even keep military commanders in line, president can’t do anything.

Damn the liberal media and how much they are in the tank for Obama!!!1!

==========

[Added] Also from the W lb:

1:47 PM — Obama’s standing up for civilian command of the military … is this … a coup? A civilian coup?! (Probably, according to Free Republic.)

pampl
06-23-2010, 04:49 PM
That meme never left.

Really? Maybe it's my fault for avoiding the worst of the right wing sites, but I got the impression it was gone during the Right's pre-emptive victory lap over Scott Brown and the death of ObamaCare

bjkeefe
06-23-2010, 05:01 PM
Really? Maybe it's my fault for avoiding the worst of the right wing sites, but I got the impression it was gone during the Right's pre-emptive victory lap over Scott Brown and the death of ObamaCare

One could hardly say "fault." Unless you're being paid to do it, tracking Greater Wingnuttia is more a matter of morbid curiosity than anything else.

However, Twin is right. The wingnuts never let up on the Obama-as-tyrant thing. It can be as trivial a matter as the First Lady doing a photo op to promote children eating healthier and exercising. This is immediately portrayed and echoed repeatedly as Stalin times Kim Jong-Il, to the power of Hitler.

TwinSwords
06-23-2010, 05:10 PM
This is immediately portrayed and echoed repeatedly as Stalin times Kim Jong-Il, to the power of Hitler.

ROFL. Indeed. And in fact, one of the comments I read this very day, in line with what I said to Pampl, was that "progressives only like to make war on their own people, like Stalin and Mao and Kim Jong-Il." So, you nailed it: Obama goes easy on America's real enemies (because he is one), while destroying the lives of Real Men like McChrystal.

This is going to be another festival of insane contradictions like we're seeing with the BP catastrophe: they know it's wrong to publicly defend BP, but they just can't help themselves.

listener
06-23-2010, 05:17 PM
Stalin times Kim Jong-Il, to the power of Hitler.

ROFL.

I, too, enjoyed the advanced mathematics seminar.

Whatfur
06-23-2010, 11:05 PM
What would Lincoln do? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/opinion/23goodwin.html)

bjkeefe
06-24-2010, 01:37 AM
Roy Edroso (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010/06/shorter-jonah-goldberg-farrrrrrrrt.html):


You know the drill. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22stupidest+thing%22+%22ever+written%22+%22jona h+goldberg%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

And don't miss the comments.

bjkeefe
06-24-2010, 05:17 AM
One could hardly say "fault." Unless you're being paid to do it, tracking Greater Wingnuttia is more a matter of morbid curiosity than anything else.

However, Twin is right. The wingnuts never let up on the Obama-as-tyrant thing. It can be as trivial a matter as the First Lady doing a photo op to promote children eating healthier and exercising. This is immediately portrayed and echoed repeatedly as Stalin times Kim Jong-Il, to the power of Hitler.

A small illustration: the three most recent posts from Teh Sadlys that are in my feed reader right now are shorters that address articles with the following headlines.

1. Obama’s Radical Agenda Revealed (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/31967.html)
2. Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/31951.html)
3. The Obama disaster machine: unfortunate coincidences or malevolently premeditated? (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/31935.html)

The first three words of the second article:

When Adolf Hitler…

listener
06-24-2010, 05:31 AM
A small illustration: the three most recent posts from Teh Sadlys that are in my feed reader right now are shorters that address articles with the following headlines.

1. Obama’s Radical Agenda Revealed (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/31967.html)
2. Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/31951.html)
3. The Obama disaster machine: unfortunate coincidences or malevolently premeditated? (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/31935.html)

The first three words of the second article:

When Adolf Hitler…

And to think that all of this could have been avoided if only his Kenyan birth certificate had not read "Barack Hussein Schicklgruber"...

bjkeefe
06-24-2010, 06:57 PM
One could hardly say "fault." Unless you're being paid to do it, tracking Greater Wingnuttia is more a matter of morbid curiosity than anything else.

However, Twin is right. The wingnuts never let up on the Obama-as-tyrant thing. It can be as trivial a matter as the First Lady doing a photo op to promote children eating healthier and exercising. This is immediately portrayed and echoed repeatedly as Stalin times Kim Jong-Il, to the power of Hitler.

A small illustration: the three most recent posts from Teh Sadlys that are in my feed reader right now are shorters that address articles with the following headlines.

1. Obama’s Radical Agenda Revealed (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/31967.html)
2. Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/31951.html)
3. The Obama disaster machine: unfortunate coincidences or malevolently premeditated? (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/31935.html)

The first three words of the second article:

When Adolf Hitler…

By the way, the above was not nut-picking by Teh Sadlys. At least one of them, the second, has been repeatedly cited as an authority by some of our right-leaning commenters.

Or, maybe it was nut-picking, and the real explanation is that the nuts have taken over the Republican Party.

Jim Newell reports, you decide: "Congressman Reads 'BP Escrow Fund = Hitler' Column on House Floor (http://gawker.com/5571929/congressman-reads-bp-escrow-fund--hitler-column-on-house-floor)."

==========

P.S. Dave Weigel asserts (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/the_bp_escrow_fund_as_nazi_ena.html):

I'm in the Senate right now, where there is no appetite -- really, none -- for criticizing the BP fund. The gap between conservative intellectual leadership and Republican politicians on this issue is as wide as we've ever seen it during the Obama era.

... which tempts me (okay, I'll succumb) to link to this other recent thing (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=166691#post166691) about Weigel, but I suppose I could be charitable and let it go with a tsk-tsk to Dave: the Senate is not the same thing as the House.

No, two: saying "conservative intellectuals" is a BP (batting practice, not that other thing) fastball right down the middle of any snarker's wheelhouse, but even apart from that, to extend the label to this clown is bordering on "liberal fascism"-level language destruction. (Or maybe Weigel is making a very subtle slam about the right, along the lines of if this is the best the so-called conservative intelligentsia can come up with ...? (In that case, he will be writing another apology blog post tomorrow. (He probably will be anyway, as soon as some wingnut accuses him of intending to make this slam.)))

==========

P.P.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert (R - Texas) ...

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/7308/crosseyedlouie499y.jpg

is NOT RACIST!!!1!

(pic. source (http://www.mcblogger.com/archives/2007/03/market_plunge_c.html))

SkepticDoc
06-24-2010, 07:58 PM
the article via Michael Moore:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/runaway-general

bjkeefe
06-25-2010, 12:36 AM
Will Bunch's two (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/The_shocking_news_to_come_out_of_the_McChrystal_ar ticle.html) comments (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Another_fine_mess_Stanley.html), from Tuesday:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6538/willbunchonmcchrystal.png

listener
06-25-2010, 12:52 AM
Will Bunch's two (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/The_shocking_news_to_come_out_of_the_McChrystal_ar ticle.html) comments (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Another_fine_mess_Stanley.html), from Tuesday:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6538/willbunchonmcchrystal.png

Well in his defense, I suppose it's not that easy to get fresh limes in Afghanistan... though I think that "Chrystal Light" would have been the obvious choice.

*groan*

bjkeefe
06-25-2010, 05:39 AM
A small illustration: the three most recent posts from Teh Sadlys that are in my feed reader right now are shorters that address articles with the following headlines.

1. Obama’s Radical Agenda Revealed (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/31967.html)
2. Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/31951.html)
3. The Obama disaster machine: unfortunate coincidences or malevolently premeditated? (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/31935.html)

The first three words of the second article:

When Adolf Hitler…

An additional reaction to #2, from Scott Lemieux of LGM (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2010/06/hacktacular-14):

Obviously, you expect some shift in conceptions of executive power based on partisan shifts in control of the White House. But for apologists for arbitrary executive torture (http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/23/thomas-sowell-on-ends-and-mean) to suddenly discover creeping Hitlerism (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/embracing_the_crazy.html) in fairly ordinary voluntary legal agreements really is a bit much.

Wonderment
06-26-2010, 10:35 PM
Good analysis, (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/opinion/27rich.html?hp) I think.

bjkeefe
06-26-2010, 11:01 PM
Good analysis, (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/opinion/27rich.html?hp) I think.

Thanks for the link. (You read Frank Rich before it's actually Sunday? Do you also open your Christmas presents on the 24th??? ;))

The nugget that really jumped out at me was this:

Politico theorized that Hastings had pulled off his impertinent coup because he was a freelance journalist rather than a beat reporter, and so could risk “burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks.”

That sentence was edited out of the article — in a routine updating, said Politico (http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2010/06/24/an_openthekimon.html) — after the blogger Andrew Sullivan highlighted it (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/how-we-know-what-mcchrystal-really-thinks.html) as a devastating indictment of a Washington media elite too cozy with and protective of its sources to report the unvarnished news.

Hmmm ... a major news blog substantively modifying posts without noting that fact? A blog that has been a big part of the shrillness about the recent Weigel/Journolist unpleasantness and its supposed lack of openness and honesty? I am shocked, shocked at the rePubOLITICO's hypocrisy!

BTW, that first link is to a post by B'head Jay Rosen and is well worth a look. (Secret bonus at the end, too!)

==========

[Added] More on the Politico's irresponsible behavior and their subsequent stonewalling (http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/a_politico_graf_goes_missing.php) from The Columbia Journalism Review (via Jay).

[Added2] On a personal note, I am sad to see Tim Grieve carrying water for his new paymasters on this one. I remember when I used to (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2008/01/28/last_post/index.html) like that guy, a lot. Ah, well. Golden handcuffs catch another, I guess.

Wonderment
06-26-2010, 11:41 PM
The nugget that really jumped out at me was this

Yes, that jumped off the page for me too. The "burning bridges" metaphor was a fantastic self-indictment, especially -- but not exclusively -- in the context of war reporting, in-bedded style.

Wonderment
06-27-2010, 12:04 AM
You have to read the whole article to get the "joke." (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/opinion/27sadat.html?hp)

Wonderment
06-27-2010, 02:24 AM
Bachevich (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062502160.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) on perpetual war and McChrystal syndrome.

bjkeefe
06-27-2010, 02:46 AM
Bachevich (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062502160.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) on perpetual war and McChrystal syndrome.

Thanks for the link. He makes many good points, but I was left with the feeling by the end that he goes a little too far, and as such, was left feeling largely unpersuaded. I hope that is not the reaction most readers will get, but I would have loved to have been his proofreader to question him on a few things.

At any rate, I would like to see him back on Bh.tv ASAP.

bjkeefe
06-27-2010, 03:26 PM
Good analysis, (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/opinion/27rich.html?hp) I think.

I was just reading something else on the NYT's site, and when I got to the bottom of the page, their fancy new feature of a little window sliding onto the screen to show a related article (yours, as it happens) popped up with a headline that at first made me think they were talking about Dave Weigel.

bjkeefe
06-30-2010, 08:26 PM
Jeez, but this is a sad moment. I always knew Lara Logan was pretty far gone as far as being an apologist for Teh Troops, but this is truly a sad moment (http://wonkette.com/416352/four-star-general-lara-logan-upset-with-fellow-journalists-lack-of-military-service). Be sure to follow the links. She looks as bad here as the Xeroxers at the rePubOLITICO. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=167139#post167139)

Ah, well. Another crush shot to hell. I will from this moment on remind myself that "Lara" rhymes with "Sarah" (kind of!) and that "Logan" has the same number of letters as "Palin."

bjkeefe
07-01-2010, 12:27 AM
Jeez, but this is a sad moment. I always knew Lara Logan was pretty far gone as far as being an apologist for Teh Troops, but this is truly a sad moment (http://wonkette.com/416352/four-star-general-lara-logan-upset-with-fellow-journalists-lack-of-military-service). Be sure to follow the links. She looks as bad here as the Xeroxers at the rePubOLITICO. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=167139#post167139)

Ah, well. Another crush shot to hell. I will from this moment on remind myself that "Lara" rhymes with "Sarah" (kind of!) and that "Logan" has the same number of letters as "Palin."

More on this from Matt Taibbi (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/122137/83512) (via (http://wonkette.com/416348/matt-taibbi-dumps-lloyd-blankfein-finds-a-new-lady-to-hate), via (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/quote-for.html)).

Attn PMP (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=167625#post167625): Please search Matt's post for the words "element of trust" and "you do not work for the people you're covering."

Wonderment
07-01-2010, 01:01 AM
Jeez, but this is a sad moment. I always knew Lara Logan was pretty far gone as far as being an apologist for Teh Troops, but this is truly a sad moment. Be sure to follow the links. She looks as bad here as the Xeroxers at the rePubOLITICO.

IN-Bedding journalists was a brilliant idea by Bush's propaganda consultants. They probably based it in part on what psychology has learned about Stockholm Syndrome. Of course, it was also based on the well-documented cravenness of mainstream US gung-ho-for-war journalism.

The concept backfired on McChrystal, however. RS was a little too far outside the mainstream to get played so easily for the thrill of "access."

McC probably got overconfident when the Obama admin. rolled over so easily on the escalation. He began to think he was a true Master of the Universe.

Wonderment
07-01-2010, 01:13 AM
Great Freudian-slip question from Kurtz at the 50-second mark in the Lara interview. He really puts the in-bed in embedded: "When you're out with the troops living together and sleeping together, is there an unspoken agreement....?"

Can be viewed here. (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/28/journalism/index.html)

She also says, "When you look at my body of work..." Twice.

TwinSwords
07-01-2010, 01:55 AM
Great Freudian-slip question from Kurtz at the 50-second mark in the Lara interview. He really puts the in-bed in embedded: "When you're out with the troops living together and sleeping together, is there an unspoken agreement....?"

Can be viewed here. (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/28/journalism/index.html)

She also says, "When you look at my body of work..." Twice.

Logan, while she was in Iraq, was not some news bimbo putting on makeup in the green zone so she could be pretty for the cameras back home. Anyone who assumes as much based on her looks may be guilty of sexism themselves. She was a front line reporter. That is, she was directly in the war zone on the front line with the troops and yes, that means she "slept with them" in direct proximity, so Kurtz's choice of words was entirely accurate and reflects the fact that he is actually aware of the kind of reporting Logan did while she was in Iraq. If there are Fruedian slips, they indicate more about the human sex drive and attraction to beautiful, fit women than about the role of journalists vis a vis the military.

bjkeefe
07-05-2010, 09:03 PM
On a somewhat related note (if you squint real hard), Michael Steele is a uniter, not a divider (http://gawker.com/5579442/all-aboard-the-gops-michael-steele-spanking-train)!

Just ask Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC):

This is not President Obama's war; this is America's war ...

Or Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC, also, too!):

"This is America's war. It's not Obama's war."

Looks like The Palmetto State Division of Ezra Klein's message-coordination machine is still working just fine, thank you very much!

In conclusion: Peace, love, and understanding, through perpetual war. USA! USA! USA!

bjkeefe
07-12-2010, 12:53 AM
[...]

The nugget that really jumped out at me was this:

[...]

Hmmm ... a major news blog substantively modifying posts without noting that fact? A blog that has been a big part of the shrillness about the recent Weigel/Journolist unpleasantness and its supposed lack of openness and honesty? I am shocked, shocked at the rePubOLITICO's hypocrisy!

[...]

Busted. Again.

Instaputz catches the rePubOLITICO (http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2010/07/hewitt-powerline-say-jump-politico-sez.html) bowing to their true masters once again -- the right-wing howler monkeys -- and changing a post to please them, and as before (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2010/06/busted.html), without noting the change.