28 Comments

1. Allah:

Time to call Corn out for calling Lowry out for not calling Buckley out: see the last paragraph here.

Feb 27, 2006 - 11:26 am 2. Always right:

Don’t think it’s a CYA case. It is more like “I told you so” later to show your pre-stinct.

Instant gratification in the current era is fueling this phenomenon (the politics of the last five minutes). Every issue, every crisis has to be resolved in the next election cycle. This is equivalent of a multibillion-dollar company CEO concentrating only on next quarter profit margins.

Feb 27, 2006 - 11:29 am 3. Soldier's Dad:

Pundits and reporters need to spend more time at the beach. The waves rise, the waves fall, the world doesn’t come to an end. Of course, a 2 year old, upon seeing his/her first 30 foot wave might proclaim “death is near”…

Feb 27, 2006 - 11:36 am 4. Knucklehead:

Soldier’s Dad,

It would help them to get out and see a few sunrises also rather than just lights out at the favored Presse Ancienne watering holes.

Feb 27, 2006 - 12:16 pm 5. dclydew:

I found the main point of the article (which was arguing against the validity of the “If you aren’t with us you’re against us” mindeset) interesting. I think Buckley’s opinion has about as much chance of being wrong as anyone’s opinion… but, I do think he should be allowed to make that opinion public without being concerned that he would be labeled “enemy of freedom”, “traitor” or being accused of “comforting the enemy”.

Just as Danish Cartoons and idiots hate speech should be free, so too should disagreement with a nation’s political decisions. Buckley didn’t call GWB Hitler, he didn’t say that AQ was just some innocent guys who were fighting the Evil Empire… I consider Lowry’s viewpoint (as quoted) abhorent.

Feb 27, 2006 - 12:25 pm 6. RogerA:

Even though some pundits are becoming more blogosphere savvy, I think the old line pundits really really dont understand the nature of their business–

In an earlier era it was possible to be a pundit, and get paid big bucks for expressing an opinion–not that it was right factually, morally or anything else–We are seeing the last of those dinosaurs–Nowadays any of can express an opinion that in many cases is better informed than those put forward on sunday talk shows. We just dont get paid for it

Keep things in perspective: please name for me the 5 greatest pundits of the Civil War, World War I, etc–very few names spring to mind that have the name recognition of the people who actually made history, rather than opined about it.

Fortunately, the punditocracy provides the commentariat with more than enough ammunition to keep us in business.

As to the basic question? who the heck knows how things will come out in Iraq–I dont see a civil war now; what I see is a whole lot of pundits hoping there is or there isnt so somehow no one will look back in a hundred years and say–Wow–that David Corn, Rich Lowery, or WFB, sure call THAT one right.

Feb 27, 2006 - 1:06 pm 7. markus:

The point that Corn indirectly raises that needs to be addressed is the Republican double-standard. When Bill Buckley, or George Will, or Francis Fukayama, or James Pinkerton, or Brent Scowcroft, or James Baker, or Robert Nowak, express doubts about Bush’s conception of the GWOT, they are called “silly”, “misguided”, or “wrong”. When Jack Murtha or Howard Dean or John Kerry express IDENTICAL doubts, they are described as “traitors”, or as allies of the enemy.

Just whose opposition to the war is more genuinely comforting to the enemy: Michael Moore, speaking on behalf of the shrinking and beleagured American liberal minority, or Brent Scowcroft, speaking on behalf of probably half of the foreign policy establishment of the party that rules all branches of the federal government?

Feb 27, 2006 - 1:28 pm 8. Pat Curley:

Corn’s more honest than most on the Left, but of course, what he mistakes here is that Lowrey and most of us in favor of the Iraq War don’t assume that everybody who opposed (or now opposes after supporting initially) the war is in favor of tyranny.

Many of them, though, clearly and objectively are. When Michael Moore makes a film that depicts pre-war Iraq as a happy and peaceful place, that’s shilling for a tyrant. When the Hollywood Glitterati fawn over Fidel Castro and extol the virtues of his government, that’s shilling for tyranny. When William F. Buckley authors a piece arguing that in retrospect Iraq has not turned out well, that may be premature (I agree with Rog that none of us has any idea what will really happen), but it’s clearly not motivated by support for tyrants.

Feb 27, 2006 - 1:30 pm 9. markus:

Pat Curley — I saw Farenheit 911 once and didn’t think too much of it. But while I recall him criticizing American support for Saadam in the eighties, and noting the suffering allegedly caused by the sanctions, I don’t recall anything he said that implied that pre-war Iraq was a happy and peaceful place.

And if I’m wrong and in fact he did, find me an elected Democratic official or presidential candidate, McKinney or McDermott excepted, who agrees with him. Still, we’re somehow the supporters of tyrants.

Feb 27, 2006 - 1:41 pm 10. vegetius:

Markus:

Please link to those articles in the National Review that call Murtha, Kerry, Dean, et al., traitors. I browse that site weekly and haven’t seen what you describe.

Feb 27, 2006 - 1:42 pm 11. Rhod:

I’ve been a reader and supporter, over and above subscription costs, of National Review for forty years. I never thought of Buckley as the centerpiece of the mag, and over the years I’ve disagreed with him on lots of issues. Also, the manner and role, the facial tics and maundering style, however real it was, it sometimes overtook the man and rendered him silly.

I’m not prone to hero-worship, and often found Buckley long on definition and observation, but really short on recommendations, with the result that Buckley was usually only half-right.

In “Commentary” a couple months back, he said essentially the same thing he said the other day. What offends me today is that Buckley has now undermined themes he’s developed, and overdrawn, about totalitarianism, liberty, prosperity and Western exceptionalism…the ideas that made him tolerable even to old-style liberals. We could agree on things.

No more. Buckley is currently a guy who accepts the first half of The White Man’s Burden, the part about primitives in need of refinement but not the part about their being worth the effort. This is disturbing. It’s Buchananism.

Feb 27, 2006 - 1:54 pm 12. markus:

vegetius — I didn’t say that NRO explicitely called Murtha, et al, traitors, though Victor Hanson may have come close. Others have done so, here: http://treasonousmedia.blogspot.com/2006/01/john-murtha-coward-traitor-all-around.html

as well as in countless comment threads left on LGF and elsewhere.

Not to mention the Swift Boat attack on Kerry, and the similar attacks on Murtha, coordinated by Brent Bozell III and the Media Research Center, after he came out against the war:

Feb 27, 2006 - 2:12 pm 13. Pat Curley:

Markus, look at the infamous scene in Fahrenheit 9-11 where the kids are flying kites and playing, just prior to “shock and awe”.

As for the Swiftees attack on Kerry, they were proven right on several occasions–Christmas in Cambodia and Where Was Rassmann most notably–and where they were not proven right, the evidence was inconclusive.

It is my opinion that the “traitor” card gets overused, but the “how dare you question my patriotism” card comes out just as often.

Feb 27, 2006 - 3:28 pm 14. RogerA:

Markus–Please dont think my post was aimed at the ideology of a particular pundit–I just think pundits in general are full of it; what they say isnt important; and the world will proceed, thank you very much, irrespective of their ideology or acumen.

This may come as a shock, but I actually value your opinions more than I do Buckley’s, Corn’s or whoever–because you impress me as a thoughtful American who has a point of view–and you dont have to meet deadlines or submit copy to pick up an overblown paycheck. The Buckley’s and Corn’s purport to speak for their, what, “constituents?” I would rather hear from the constituents personally.

Feb 27, 2006 - 3:39 pm 15. Buddy Larsen:

FWIW, the USA’s current population is about ten times what it was on the eve of the Civil War.

Feb 27, 2006 - 3:43 pm 16. Kevin Peters:

Roger:

I have stated many times that the final results of this war won’t be known for years. And of course it is impossible to know whether leaving Saddam in power and leaving the status qou of the non-democratic middle east was a better option.I think, just as occasional audits of the stock predictors are done to check the accuracy of their predictions, an audit of the punditocracy should be done to see what their batting average is.

The administartions predictions of being greeted by flowers and choclates has been repeated ad nauseum. But it is ok because they predicted it. But it was the L.A. Times or the N.Y.T that wrote that the battle of Baghdad was going to be similar to the battle for Stalingrad. There were numerous predictions that the Iraqi elections were going to be met with indifference and low turnouts.And the predictions for civil war have been predicted from the start of the conflict. If you say the same thing for years upon end you have a good chance of it coming around eventually.

There have been untold screw ups in the prosecution of this war. But I don’t see that this type of change could happen any other way. And many of the critics of the Bush prosecution of the war,a prosecution full of errors that deserve to be attacked, had been writing for decades that the peace of the world was always going to be tottering on the brink of destruction as long as the repressive nature of the governments of the middle east were not forced to change. Does anyone think that this change was going to happen voluntarily? Change it, don’t upset the balance, how can these Human Rights be allowed to continue, Shame on you for allowing women to suffer under these cloth chains, how dare you interfere with different cultures, Arafat and Fatah are the legitimate representatives of the Palestinians, A and F are corrupt thieves. Someone should to a twenty year op-ed and pundit audit and detail the conflicting and error filled predictions.

Feb 27, 2006 - 4:00 pm 17. Buddy Larsen:

Kevin Peters is right. An avalance of hyperbolic doom-saying creates a hyperbolic counter–and then it’s only the resultant policy that can be judged.

While Kevin would like to see some batting averages, I wouldn’t mind seeing some speculation on where the UN OFF program would be by now had Al Gore won the 2000 election.

Feb 27, 2006 - 5:03 pm 18. Won Dampchin:

Just wanted you to know that I looked around thirty seconds ago and we hadn’t lost yet in Iraq. I’ll check again in a few minutes after I walk the dog.

Feb 27, 2006 - 5:49 pm 19. In Vino Veritas:

Toll in Iraq’s Deadly Surge: 1,300

That’s about 45 years worth of Thanksgiving driving fatalities, to use your tortured analogy.

The war is lost. The American people want out, and American soldiers want out. It’s a lost cause, and the quicker neo-cons understand this, the more lives we save.

Feb 28, 2006 - 7:21 am 20. Old Dad:

IVW,

Your logic is flawed, but then I’m sure you know that.

The French suffered more than half a million casualties at Verdun in WW I, the Germans slightly less.

No one on either side wanted to be there. In the aftermath, whole French divisions deserted and some were shot on sight by their officers. The French public were horrified.

Yet the Allies won.

Feb 28, 2006 - 8:19 am 21. Mike Driehorst:

For another perspective, milblogger BlackFive has a similar post:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/02/please_dont_hur.html
Just a passerby, awaiting to claim my award from December.
– Mike

Feb 28, 2006 - 9:41 am 22. Shochu John:

Old Dad says, “No one on either side wanted to be there. In the aftermath, whole French divisions deserted and some were shot on sight by their officers. The French public were horrified.”

Interesting. This notion gives me an idea. Given the evidence suggesting almost 3/4 of our soldiers want us out of Iraq within a year, putting them firmly to the left of Hillary Clinton on the issue, one wonders if the pro-war folks’ message to the troops will change from “We support you!” to “Buck up, you cowards!”

First pundit to suggest that the troops are giving aid and comfort to the enemy wins a rubber chickenhawk.

Feb 28, 2006 - 11:20 am 23. Bostonian:

“Given the evidence suggesting almost 3/4 of our soldiers want us out of Iraq within a year”

Come on, pal, prove it or don’t bother wasting time posting here.

Hint: “I’d like to be home within a year” is very different from “the US should pull out of Iraq within a year.”

I can’t believe I ever regarded you as a serious person.

Feb 28, 2006 - 11:45 am 24. Shochu John:

Bostonian,

Sorry, I thoguht you were paying attention to the thread. A story about the poll was already cited above, and it does not say “I’d like to be home within a year.” It says, “the US should pull out of Iraq within a year.”

Or more precisely, “An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year”

The cite on Zogby of the full results, where you can find the above quote: http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Perhaps you should be more careful before accusing others of not being serious.

Feb 28, 2006 - 12:10 pm 25. RogerA:

SJ–the thread, as it started out was a discussion about pundits calling each other names–you might have missed that–at no time in the basic posts did our host reference the Zogby-Lemoyne poll (and Souchu–seriously: dont you think that the Lemoyne College folks just might have some point they want to make? Come on, now). The Zogby poll was injected by IVV late in the thread. Now, the poll may be accurate; I dont know; but it doesnt square with other polls taken over the last couple of years, and given the sources of the poll, I don’t think it passes the initial sniff test.

Be that as it may–lets assume Zogby is accurate in his polling (which would really be quite astounding–he does a fair amount of soft shoeing about the mechanics of the poll on his website; doesnt discuss weighting or any of the other issues one might raise when polls are announced).

Let’s cut to the more basic issue: I suspect you dont have much experience with the American soldier–I have no doubt believing the American soldier would like to come home, and depending how the questions were asked (Zogby didn’t provide the survey questions in the press release)–but much would depend on what the follow-up questions were–I suspect you would find, that if asked, they would say of course they want to come ASAP–Hell, that was my position about serving in Viet Nam–but they also may just want to stay there until the job is finished.–but thats just me–In short, I can believe soldiers said that (although I think Zogby is a bit disreputable); I can also believe they understand they have a job to finish.

Feb 28, 2006 - 5:44 pm 26. Bostonian:

Shochu, I did not read every one of your comments. I rarely do.

Zogby has an ax to grind and it shows in his history. I am just as impressed by his polls as I am by Mary Mapes’s investigative journalism.

Feb 28, 2006 - 5:52 pm 27. Shochu John:

RogerA,
“SJ–the thread, as it started out was a discussion about pundits calling each other names–you might have missed that–at no time in the basic posts did our host reference the Zogby-Lemoyne poll”

So, what’s your point? The conversation tends to take its own course. My comment was based in part previous comments. This is a discussion is it not? Some people don’t read them all, and that’s fine, but perhaps they ought to avoid making rude remarks about others failing to provide sufficient information when it is they who have not read the provided information. Also, I shall note that, originally, my musings about the implications of this poll were in reference to possible future blatherings from the puditocracy. This is related to the original post as well as subsequent comments.

As to the poll itself, I am certainly not in a position to vouch for its quality. I described it as “evidence” and not “proof.” Though I am curious as to why you consider Zogby so disreputable. Furthermore, the things you cite as “soft shoeing about the mechanics of the poll on his website” may be because what is on the web site is what they show you without paying the 20 clams for all the sordid details. You conclude, “In short, I can believe soldiers said that (although I think Zogby is a bit disreputable); I can also believe they understand they have a job to finish.” That very possibility was one of the options. “23% said they should stay ‘as long as they are needed.’”

Feb 28, 2006 - 10:14 pm 28. zefal:

kerry was also caught lying about meeting with “both sides”; when he resigned from the vvaw; when he claimed he was captain of the swiftboat when it was in a brutal attack but only became captain of said swiftboat after that incident when he replaced the captain that had been wounded.

Hasn’t released his combat records like he said he would. Hasn’t released his military medical records so we can see the reason behind the 3 purple hearts he received in a 3 month period for the 18 missions he went on in that period. Said he would tell us the dates of his forays into Cambodia but hasn’t. Claims Douglas Brinkley has exclusive rights to is journal so therefore he can’t release it. Douglas Brinkley says otherwise. What is john boy hiding?

The fact is he’s contradicted himself so many times over the last 35 years he can’t keep his lies straight.

Mar 1, 2006 - 3:57 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: