Adios McCrystal

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by listener

(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, NRO 6/2003, McMegan 6/2002 (or a co-blogger), BartCop 2/2002, ... 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.

Perhaps if you spent less time reading Beowulf ...

[listener]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

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, NRO 6/2003, McMegan 6/2002 (or a co-blogger), BartCop 2/2002, ... 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).

[TwinSwords]

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]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

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]

Originally Posted by listener

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]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

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 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]

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]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

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 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]

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]

Originally Posted by pampl

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]

Originally Posted by pampl

*I wonder if this means the return of the Obama-as-tyrant meme

That meme never left.

Originally Posted by pampl

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]

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]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

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.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

This bit from the NYT's latest article on the affair made me snicker:

Indeed. Kind of strange.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

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]

Originally Posted by pampl

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

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

That meme never left.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

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

From the Wonkette liveblog:

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]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

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]

Originally Posted by pampl

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]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

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]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Stalin times Kim Jong-Il, to the power of Hitler.

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

ROFL.

I, too, enjoyed the advanced mathematics seminar.

What would Lincoln do?

[bjkeefe]

Roy Edroso:

You know the drill.

And don't miss the comments.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

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
2. Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
3. The Obama disaster machine: unfortunate coincidences or malevolently premeditated?

The first three words of the second article:

When Adolf Hitler…

[listener]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

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
2. Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
3. The Obama disaster machine: unfortunate coincidences or malevolently premeditated?

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]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

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.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

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
2. Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
3. The Obama disaster machine: unfortunate coincidences or malevolently premeditated?

The first three words of the second article:

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."

==========

P.S. Dave Weigel asserts:

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 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) ...



is NOT RACIST!!!1!

(pic. source)

[SkepticDoc]

the article via Michael Moore:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mu...unaway-general

[bjkeefe]

Will Bunch's two comments, from Tuesday:

[listener]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Will Bunch's two comments, from Tuesday:

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]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

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
2. Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
3. The Obama disaster machine: unfortunate coincidences or malevolently premeditated?

The first three words of the second article:

An additional reaction to #2, from Scott Lemieux of LGM:

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 to suddenly discover creeping Hitlerism in fairly ordinary voluntary legal agreements really is a bit much.

[Wonderment]

Good analysis, I think.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Good analysis, 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 — after the blogger Andrew Sullivan highlighted it 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 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 like that guy, a lot. Ah, well. Golden handcuffs catch another, I guess.

[Wonderment]

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]

You have to read the whole article to get the "joke."

[Wonderment]

Bachevich on perpetual war and McChrystal syndrome.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Bachevich 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]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Good analysis, 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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

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.

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 (via, via).

Attn PMP: Please search Matt's post for the words "element of trust" and "you do not work for the people you're covering."

[Wonderment]

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]

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.

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

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

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.

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.