Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 3, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

HUGH HEWITT'S TIRED PERRY MASON ACT....For the record, I have no opinion about whether John Zogby's recent poll of U.S. troops in Iraq is accurate and reasonable. Mark Blumenthal has a sensible discussion of it here. But here's Hugh Hewitt doing his usual ambush interview schtick in an interview with Zogby on Thursday:

HH: [After lengthy hectoring about the poll's methodology, which Zogby had already said he would only discuss off the record for security reasons.] Why were no demographics released?

JZ: All the demographics were indeed released, Hugh.

....HH: John, I've got your entire thing here. You have not released the demographics.

JZ: You are clearly uninformed.

HH: You have not released the demographics.

JZ: (click)

HH: You have not...he hung up. He hung up. That's John Zogby, not a pollster.

Guess what? Zogby had indeed released the demographics. Here is Hugh's excuse for not knowing this:

In fairness, his office had sent the demographics info (which had not been released yesterday and still isn't on the web) but did so in a PDF file that we were only able to read after downloading a new version of Adobe. When we were talking, we didn't have the demographics. Had Zogby simply told me the demographics were now out after previously being withheld, that would have been fine.

Could Hugh possibly be any more pathetic? Zogby did send a copy of the demographics directly to Hugh's office but had the gall to do so in the latest version of Adobe. Hugh's crack staff was apparently stymied by this, and Hugh thinks that Zogby should have performed some mind reading to figure this out. Telling him that "all the demographics were indeed released" wasn't enough. Instead, he should have told Hugh that "the demographics were now out after previously being withheld." Right.

The entire right wing choir, of course, is now crowing about how Zogby was too gutless to answer Hugh's questions and hung up on him. But go ahead and read the transcript and see if you wouldn't have done the same. The real question isn't why Zogby hung up, the real question is why anyone who's not already a Republican shill ever bothers to appear on Hugh's show in the first place.

Kevin Drum 1:11 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (130)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Stone-age mindsets - modern technology; not an easy match.

Posted by: elfranko on March 3, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Since I don't own one of these so-called "letter openers," I don't have to pay my Mastercard bill.

Posted by: Matt on March 3, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

CLICK THE LINK. ALWAYS CLICK THE LINK. Hugh Hewitt exposes what a FRAUD John "the Lying-Based" Zogby is.

Link

"The "poll" is quite obviously crap when one sees the questions, and Zogby's refusal to answer basic questions that do not go to security underscores his defensiveness. The survey instrument is shot through with absurd choices while missing obvious questions, such as "How important is success of this mission?" and "Describe your morale?" It would have been interesting to ask if the troops have heard of Cindy Shaheen, or their opinion of the antiwar activists, though of course an antiwar activist paid for this circus."

Posted by: Al on March 3, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

As Al notes above, the poll was bought and paid for by left-wing, anti-war extremists. And Zogby gave the left-wing, anti-war extremists exactly what they purchased. Move along, nothing to see here.

Posted by: Al on March 3, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Adobe hates America.

Why are you afraid to admit this, Kevin?

And Al, once again, shows that if you only read HH's defense, you would see that all non-Bush-worshipers are liars!

Why are you afraid to admit this, Kevin?

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on March 3, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

YES! Cheney and Al nail it!

*Everyone Loves Bush.* And pollsters are all liars -- that is why we MUST have Diebold to protect our "Democracy"!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on March 3, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Al, I already specifically recommended to everyone that they click the link. It's only by reading the entire transcript that you get the full measure of Hugh's nitwittery.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on March 3, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Boy, the right sure is stupid and pathetic, huh? Just look at the comments here.

Posted by: matt on March 3, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

What version of prehistoric Adobe could they be using, I wonder, that does not consume five minutes of processor time at startup to inform you of all the splendid new gizmos and "critical" updates you need to install?

Posted by: Fcb on March 3, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

I mean, OK, someone you don't like sponsored a poll whose results you don't like. That means it's not real. To miserable, cowardly little dead-ender twits who can't face up to reality.

Posted by: matt on March 3, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

'not easily found on his website', Jesus, what a pathetic backpedal. Why can't this dolt Hewitt be a man and acknowledge his mistake and apologize?

Posted by: matt on March 3, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

What's most absurd about this "controversy" is how contrived it is, given the underlying numbers.

Look, nearly THREE-QUARTERS of the troops surveyed said they thought all US troops should be withdrawn within a year.

THREE-QUARTERS!

How do you get around a staggering number like that? This isn't some case where a somewhat defective methodology could possibly affect the underlying point, which is that a majority of American troops, at bare minimum, think we should get the hell out of Dodge.

Hewitt and others are very conspicuously straining at these gnats because they simply can't stand to swallow the camel in the underlying message.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 3, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

I am utterly shocked that Hugh Hewitt is a nitwit. My life has lost its meaning for me now.

Posted by: lib on March 3, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

I can't see why the Bush worshipers are taking this line about the poll being off. Wouldn't it be manlier and more effective to accuse the troops of hating the troops?

Posted by: shortstop on March 3, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Couldn't help noticing other similarities to general tactics.

1) Evade the issue by stirring up so a squawk about something - anything. e.g. National Guard problem? Forged documents, forged documents. Or Kerry beat us in a debate again? Lesbian daughter, lesbian daughter, etc.

2) Blame someone else for your own incompetence. Anywhere else we've seen this lately?

Posted by: Samuel Knight on March 3, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

I heard the interview.

Zogby was awfully defensive.

By the way, Zogby admitted the poll was paid for by somebody who is rich and anti-war.

George Soros, maybe?

Posted by: Paddy Whack on March 3, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps someone who was paying attention could answer this question. When, exactly, did Hugh Hewitt become a right-wing jackass?

I remember watching the guy when, I believe, he first started, on Los Angeles PBS station KCET, doing a show called "Life and Times." He was clearly on the show to hold up the relatively conservative O.C. viewpoint, but he was hardly a "talking-points spouter." He would make interesting points, believe it or not.

At some point in the last decade or so did he just decide there was no money in being rational?

Posted by: hank on March 3, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

As Al notes above, the poll. . . .

Posted by: Al

---

Somebody can't keep their fake names straight.

Posted by: Matt on March 3, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK
This isn't some case where a somewhat defective methodology could possibly affect the underlying point, which is that a majority of American troops, at bare minimum, think we should get the hell out of Dodge.

Actually, it is; a defective methodology can produce just about any results, particularly if it is engineered to do so. Interviewing less than 1% of a population, you can, with a non-representative methodology, get 100% results where the real number believing something is 1% or less.

Note that I am not endorsing any challenge to the methodology, only noting that it certainly does matter.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 3, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe Zogby didn't hang up. Could be that Hewitt's people can't work the phone lines either.

Posted by: Otto Man on March 3, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK
By the way, Zogby admitted the poll was paid for by somebody who is rich and anti-war.

So? Clearly, if you are commissioning a poll, you are rich (whether a wealthy individual or a group that is wealthy collectively if not individually.)

And, as in any area of research, what matters is the methodology and results, not who paid for it; Admittedly, if there is a defect in the methodology that produces skewed results, you can look at who paid to see if there is a reason to believe the defect is deliberate rather than sloppiness, and knowing who paid can tell you what methodological defects to particularly look out for.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 3, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Zogby wilted under some tough questions.

Poor baby!

Posted by: BigRiver on March 3, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, it is; a defective methodology can produce just about any results, particularly if it is engineered to do so.

Notice that I qualified my statement by saying "somewhat defective methodology". Certainly there was nothing suggested even in the Hewitt interview that would imply the sort of defects you're describing.

Talk about straining at gnats.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 3, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

"Somebody can't keep their fake names straight."

Either that or it's the equivalent of the Monty Python Australian college skit, in which all the faculty are named Bruce.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on March 3, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

paddy whack,

awfully defensive.

No no no. Reread the memo. Hillary is "angry" and the Minnesota Vikings are awfully defensive. Awfully offensive too.

Posted by: Tripp on March 3, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

As I recall when you try to use out of date version of adobe tries to open a newer edition pdf file a pop-up will be triggered telling the user to download the latest edition of adobe. One can only supose that Hewitt's people didn't notice the pop-up or can't read.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 3, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

"Zogby wilted under some tough questions. "

If some nitwit kept asking me the same question that I had truthfully answered over and over again, I'd hang up on them too.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on March 3, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK
want to go home - duty to their country comes first. Posted by: 18%Cheney
There's a difference between fighting and dying for a noble cause and fighting for a lie told by serial liars like Bush and 18%Cheney

America told in 1995 that Iraq had no WMD
. ... Vice President Dick Cheney asserted in an August 2002 speech (8/26/02) that the Iraqi regime had been "very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents," and continued "to pursue the nuclear program they began many years ago." To back this up these claims, Cheney added, "We've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors, including Saddam's own son-in-law"a reference to Kamel.
In a Chicago Tribune op-ed (9/10/02), former head of the U.N. weapons inspection team Scott Ritter pointed out that Cheney had left out a critical part of Kamels story:
Throughout his interview with UNSCOM, a U.N. special commission, Hussein Kamel reiterated his main pointthat nothing was left. "All chemical weapons were destroyed," he said. "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weaponsbiological, chemical, missile, nuclearwere destroyed."

Has anyone else found them at Zogby, because I still couldn't?
Posted by: 18%Cheney

You need to look under Bush's desk in the White House, the one under which he was searching for WMD.

Posted by: Mike on March 3, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Tripp, who put a quarter in you this week? You're cracking me up.

It is really fun to watch the trolls tap dance on this one. What will they say when Rasmussen determines that 70 percent of the troops want out? "Do over!"

Posted by: shortstop on March 3, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Serously, where is Hewitt hoping to go with this?

At the end of the day, this whole thing was cleared by the military. The US Military let Zogby's guy do this poll. So, in order to discount this poll, you don't just have to believe that Zogby is a bad pollster who hired a nut who's making things up. You've also got to believe that the US Military allowed some nut to go in and conduct a bogus poll, and that for some unknown reason, the military is not denouncing him as a nut right now.

That's just stupid. Hewitt is such a loser, and if his audience believes him, they're morons.

Posted by: theorajones on March 3, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

yeah, Zogby wilted under tough questions like the false 'you have not released the demographics' stated flatly after being corrected. That John Zogby sure is a bad pollster!

Posted by: matt on March 3, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

standard wingnut responses:

1) Claim there's no truth in a non-linked statement, demand proof;
2) When data is provided, claim it's a lie or "just one person's opinion",
3) When a preponderance of corroborating data is provided that can't be dismissed make personal attacks, e.g. 'you're unamerican'
4) When you've completely lost the argument blame Clinton.

It's so predictable and tiresome.

Posted by: Joshua Norton on March 3, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

"HH. ...You have not released the demographics.
JZ: You are clearly uninformed.
HH: You have not released the demographics."

Is this comedy? Are these human beings? What robot interviewer would rather repeat such a crazy assertion as "you have not done something" than ask (being an interviewer, questions should trump statements, no?) "when and/or how have you done it?" And what kind of interviewee would rather say "you are clearly uninformed" than offer (being an interviewee, information should trump folded-arm grumpiness, no?) "here they are, I sent them to you, or you can find them there?" Or better yet "What would you like to know about the demographics?"

What two people cannot reach consensus about what one of them has done? (cue the marriage jokes, but I'm serious---these are important professional people performing, presumably, prosocial services).

Posted by: brent on March 3, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

So Zogby was too much of a baby to actually defend his poll and the subsequent withholding of the methodlogy, and we're supposed to conclude that Hewitt is a hack? Please.

You may not like Hugh, but it's true that all Zogby had to do was say the data was out and explain what it was. That he wasn't willing to says all anyone needs to to know about the poll.

Posted by: Tom on March 3, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop,

Tripp, who put a quarter in you this week? You're cracking me up.

Well, I'm pretty close to getting some good news on the home front so I guess I'm feeling my oats. And no, it is NOT more kids. I've already done my part towards populating the planet with softhearted MN liberals thank you very much.

Posted by: Tripp on March 3, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin seems torn up that somebody asked Zogby some hard questions. I can't decide who needs the hug, Kevin Drum or John Zogby.

Posted by: MountainDan on March 3, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

"Zogby wilted under some tough questions. "

Well thank Zeus that the conversation ended before getting into the real heavy stuff like "I know you are but what am I?".

Posted by: Joshua Norton on March 3, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

What will they say when Rasmussen determines that 70 percent of the troops want out? "Do over!"

I'm waiting for the Jackie Gleason "Homina homina homina."

Posted by: Tripp on March 3, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin seems torn up that somebody asked Zogby some hard questions.

Insisting that someone has not done something that, in fact, they have is not asking any kind of question, much less a hard one.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 3, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

And what kind of interviewee would rather say "you are clearly uninformed" than offer (being an interviewee, information should trump folded-arm grumpiness, no?) "here they are, I sent them to you, or you can find them there?" Or better yet "What would you like to know about the demographics?"

My guess is that Zogby may not have known all the details about the form in which the data was sent, that it was in two installments, etc.

He would likely have been told by his staff that the information went out, which it did, and that should have sufficed for his purposes and Hewitt's, had Hewitt and his staff any modicum of humility and integrity.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 3, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Old Coot The Morning After A Blizzard: "You did not publish a paper this morning."
Newspaper Ombudsman: "Yes we did. Maybe your paperboy hasn't been able to shovel out his driveway yet. He should be there by noon."
Old Coot The Morning After A Blizzard: "You did not publish a paper this morning."

Posted by: Matt on March 3, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK
So Zogby was too much of a baby to actually defend his poll and the subsequent withholding of the methodlogy, and we're supposed to conclude that Hewitt is a hack?

Yeah, its a shame Zogby didn't defend the action that Hugh Hewitt falsely attributed to him.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 3, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Did any libs read the transcript? Zogby was incredibly defensive, and bascially wouldn't divulge any information about how the poll was conducted.

So, Zogby says he can't divulge methodology for security reasons, that seems trustworthy to people here. But if the US government, which actually has real security to be concerned about, does says this then it's obviously duplicity. No bias going on here...

Posted by: Tom on March 3, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Is Zogby responsible for knowing that the info was on his website, as opposed to having been sent out as an Adobe PDF?

If he tells Hewitt that the information has been sent, is Zogby not right to insist that it is so, and that Hewitt should check his information on this point?

How could anyone but an arrogant ass like Hewitt presume to say that Zogby was himself mistaken, without checking it out very carefully first?

Posted by: frankly0 on March 3, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Zogby was incredibly defensive, and bascially wouldn't divulge any information about how the poll was conducted. So, Zogby says he can't divulge methodology for security reasons

Thank you for answering your own silly point.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 3, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

The grilling Zogby got from Hewitt is no worse than the grilling Russert gives to politicians every Sunday.

Admit it: Zogby choked.

Posted by: MountainDan on March 3, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

On the argument that the poll might have had some bias in the selection of its 1% of U.S. soldiers, I think a reasonable response is, "So what?" At a bare minimum, the poll records that about 850 soldiers believe that they are in Iraq "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks." 850! It's not reasonable for anyone to believe this, much less several hundred soldiers putting their lives on the line for it.

Posted by: RSA on March 3, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Admit it: Zogby choked.

Actually, I think Zogby puked. In Hewitt's general direction.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 3, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

"Is this comedy? Are these human beings?"

I think some of the awkwardness of the exchange (including the eventual hangup) is probably due to the sudden, on-air realization by Zogby that Hewitt was going to ask questions he had agreed not to. If you're Zogby, you probably don't agree to go on a conservative talk radio show unless you can be sure (or at least promised, which apparently means very little) you won't be required to answer relatively complex (and likely loaded) questions on things like poll methodology in one or two sentences before you're interupted, as you always have to with these stupid shows.

When Hewitt whipped them out anyway, Zogby panicked. Probably not the best response, but not that surprising considering he knew he and his findings were about to get sandbagged on the air.

In general, polls are always a little iffy -- but I agree with TheoraJones that the U.S. military isn't going to let some Sheehan-esque activist run willy-nilly around Iraq asking loaded, anti-war questions, unless they've completely lost control of their media operation (and I don't think they have). On top of that, why would Zogby set himself up to be beaten to a bloody pulp by an outspoken conservative if his poll was propaganda? Why wouldn't he just talk to left-wing blogs or certain, targeted MSM outlets? It makes no sense.

Look, if you believe in a close examination of polls or polling methodology, fine -- good for you, in fact. I know I do all the time. But believing in the ones that back your views up, and nixing anything else as ideological talking points, well, um, I can't say that's very smart. That's why fake populists are such a joke.

Posted by: tron on March 3, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

So, Zogby says he can't divulge methodology for security reasons, that seems trustworthy to people here. But if the US government, which actually has real security to be concerned about, does says this then it's obviously duplicity. No bias going on here...

He means the security of his business model, moron. It's proprietary and confidential business information which he can't release so that he can keep his competitors from finding out.

Here's another difference: Zogby works for Zogby. The US government works for us. They do, therefore, have different responsibilities when it comes to oversight by the elected representatives of the American public.

Posted by: Stefan on March 3, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone ever notice the similarity between the old Perry Mason show musical intro and Beethoven's Egmont Overture?

Posted by: Hostile on March 3, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

It seems that John Derbyshire of National Review Online has joined the cut and run camp:

Numerous readers told me that the Zogby poll of troops in Iraq has been definitively and conclusively debunked. The most detailed critical analysis of the poll that I've seen does not bear this interpretation. Here it is; read for yourself. Nor do I consider the fact of Zogby having Arab antecedents to be dispositive, as rather a lot of my emailers seem to. And if the fact of an antiwar organization having been involved in commissioning the poll invalidates the poll results, what should I think of the next poll I read commissioned by anyone with an axe to grind? Which is to say, pretty much any poll at all.

Nor is it the case, as Rich's e-mailer claimed, that I used the Zogby poll as my "all purpose rejoinder." I used it as a rejoinder to the single, absurd proposition that my declaring a negative position would cause dismay and demoralization among the troops in Iraq. That proposition remains absurd. If anyone has anything better than the Zogby poll, let's see it. (And I'm sorry, but "Ralph Peters says..." or "Vic Davis Hanson says..." doesn't cut it. These are apologists for the current policy.)

To Rich's Russia-1917 point ("What [George Will and Derb] are saying is that because violent minorities have in the past taken over countries, all is lost in Iraq and we should give up trying to check a violent minority there.") No, that's not what we are saying, Rich. What we are saying is, that the fact that most people want a peaceful life -- most Russians in 1916, most Iraqis in 2006 -- tells us very little about the fate of nations. To tell us this fact is to tell us nothing. Who doubts it? So why do Ralph Peters et al keep telling us it? The desire of most people for a peaceful life simply isn't a very big factor in historical developments, as history amply illustrates.

Rich's "having come this far, it would be folly simply to throw up our hands" sounds a lot like Macbeth's "returning were as tedious as go o'er." Remember what happened to him. There is a time when throwing up your hands is the right thing to do, and the greater folly is persisting in a misguided enterprise, when more urgent matters need our attention.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

Posted by: Stefan on March 3, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

And yet more from noted anti-American pro-terrorist traitor John Derbyshire of the National Review:

Cliff: Ralph Peters, if you read closely, was riding around Baghdad in a Humvee. Security conditions in the city would not have permmitted him to stroll around on his own. That is three years into the occupation.

It's nice that the Baghdadis are driving their cars, running their businesses, and going to their jobs. Perhaps, after one year or two years, they got tired of sitting at home doing nothing. This tells us nothing about the future of Iraq.

Of course most Iraqis would like to live normal lives, and do not wish to be blown up. The same, I am sure, was true of most Russians in 1916, or most Germans in 1932, or most Iranians in 1978. This is facile stuff. Getting from what most people want, to a political order that will provide it, is some trick, as the history of the human race surely demonstrates. Can the Iraqis pull it off? Can we pull it off for them? Those are the issues.

Yes, I know, Rummy said it's going to be "a long, hard slog." But --- three years into the occupation, and we still haven't secured the capital city? For goodness' sake.

I find Peters' columns increasingly irritating.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

Posted by: Stefan on March 3, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

the astonishing degree of stupidity on display here is really something: from cheney's projection into what the troops felt a week after d-day to al's insistence that there must be something wrong with the poll because it didn't ask the questions al would have asked to Tom's meaningless discussion of security to MountainDan's pathetic notion that zogby "wilted."

sheesh, it's amazing to see what the residents of the ever-shrinking right-wing bubble actually do all day to convince themselves that reality isn't happening.

face facts: there is no clear-cut mission. there is no "victory" to be had. there is no way that we will have an outcome worth the costs in blood and treasure. and the troops know it: don't turn them into pawns for your little right-wing drivel.

Posted by: howard on March 3, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

I love the BigRiver, Tom and Mountain Dan sock-puppet show! Pass the popcorn!

Posted by: shortstop on March 3, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe if HH got a fresh reinstall of his OS he'd realize that he's shilling for the people who're fucking America?

Or does he do that willingly?
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on March 3, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK
the grilling Russert gives to politicians every SundayPosted by: MountainDan
Herr Russert is quite deferential to all his Republican guests and they constitute the majority appearing on his worthless program. Posted by: Mike on March 3, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

theorajones: Serously, where is Hewitt hoping to go with this? [...] if his audience believes him, they're morons.

You answered your own question. Hewitt knows that his audience consists of right-wing morons, so he gives them what they want so they'll keep listening, which keeps up his ratings, which keeps up the advertising revenue.

This is simply the Rush Limbaugh model, based on classic Nazi propaganda techniques, which has been widely copied by right-wing talk radio hate mongers all over the country: constant repetition and reinforcement of the message that the right-wing moron demographic wants to hear, which is that they are poor downtrodden victims of the "liberals" (in the Nazi propaganda it was "Jews") who control the government, the media, etc, and that some "strongman" leader, whether Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush (or Hitler) is their saviour.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 3, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Actually if you open a pdf created with a new version of Adobe Acrobat with an old version of reader you are warned that it was created with a newer version and that some things may not work correctly! It than opens up!

Posted by: mat1492 on March 3, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

The right is so predictable...if you do a poll and don't get results you can spin to your advantage, you question the pollster, the people who funded the poll, the version of Acrobat you release data on, etc. You do everything, really, but look at the answers given to the questions asked, because they're incovenient.

Thanks for posting this, Kevin. These people are really pathetic. How they believe that they're fit to govern is beyond me, and people who continue to perform as their unpaid shills is even more mystifying. If I was being lied to, maybe I'd want to repeat the lies and demand that they be accepted as truth.

Or maybe I'd be an American and get myself a spine.

Posted by: Brian on March 3, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: And, as in any area of research, what matters is the methodology and results, not who paid for it

This is self-evidently wrong. Research bought and paid for by tobacco companies on the effects of cigarettes are simply different than research on the same subject by an independent group. One would have to be crazy to believe otherwise.

Likewise, polls sponsored by the RNCC or DCCC that - surprise! - show their candidate doing well are inherently suspect.

Posted by: Al on March 3, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

I can't see why the Bush worshipers are taking this line about the poll being off. Wouldn't it be manlier and more effective to accuse the troops of hating the troops?

Next they'll say that all the troops don't deserve their medals, or that all their IED wounds were actually self-inflicted, or that the soldiers' mothers are all crazy sluts.

Posted by: Stefan on March 3, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK


s-a: the right-wing moron demographic wants to hear, which is that they are poor downtrodden victims of the "liberals" (in the Nazi propaganda it was "Jews") who control the government, the media, etc, and that some "strongman" leader, whether Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush (or Hitler) is their saviour.


its called bunkered aggrievement....

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 3, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

So now Kevin is going after radio announcers who don't ask questions the way he wants? And Kevin is upset because someone didn't open an email attachment - when the darn demographics should be up on the Zogby website anyway? Much time on your hands, Kevin? This is political commentary? "HH is a big old meanie who doesn't ask questions the right way and doesn't have the latest version of Reader."

Wah wah wah. Poor widdle Kevin got his panties in a snitch for this? What rank hypocrisy on Kevin's part. Seems a little funny to me, as someone who has emailed Kevin and received responses from him at least 50 times. When I chastise kevin because he hasn't truthfully expressed the other side's view, his response is to write to me and tell me that isn't his job. When I ask Kevin to post about an issue on which he is mum (presumably because it doesn't make him or his side look too great), his response is to tell me that he gets to write about what he wants.

Seems very hypocritical for someone like Kevin, who holds these views, to now start complaining that someone isn't asking questions the way he wants them asked. My guess is that he woke up on the wrong side of the bed today and didn't have his normal bran muffin. What a waste of time.

"While Kristof and the Democrats paint the picture that these numbers are evidence of a military ready to cut and run, they don't take into account the fact that the Pentagon's existing plan calls for troop reduction of almost half in the next 6 months and about 75% by the end of the year. So it's reasonable to assume, since the responses are consistent with the existing troop reduction plan, that the respondents were taking this plan into account when answering the question. Hardly the bombshell the Left wanted to portray."

"Check out this inconsistency: A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency.

What a huge contradiction. If the US military is begging to get out of Iraq, why does the majority want more troops and bombing missions when it would certainly require them to stay longer?"

"another contradiction: A majority of the troops serving in Iraq said they were satisfied with the war provisions from Washington. Just 30% of troops said they think the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate troop protections, such as body armor, munitions, and armor plating for vehicles like HumVees."

"that Zogby poll that purported to show that 90 percent of U.S. troops think "war is retaliation for Saddams role in 9/11," among other claims. The questions from the poll ... immediately make clear why the results matched the sponsor's desired outcome. For instance, here's that question about Saddam in context: Please rate the statements in questions 8 through 14 as reasons for the Iraq invasion, using the following scale: 1 - Not a reason 2 - Minor reason 3 - Major reason 4 - Main reason 5 - Not sure [...] 12. To retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks

The question asserts Saddam's role in 9/11 as a given."

Posted by: sunbeltjerry on March 3, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK
Research bought and paid for by tobacco companies on the effects of cigarettes are simply different than research on the same subject by an independent group.

Yes, it is. Largely because the methodology is deliberately distorted or the results actually forged (which, ultimately, is a methodological failure, though one that is hard to detect from a description.) There is also a "publication bias" in that often industry-sponsored research goes to the sponsor who then decides, based on the results, whether to make it known.

OTOH, when research is independently conducted, when the sponsor doesn't exert post-result control over release, etc., the funding is of, at best, secondary importance. Funding is, in any case, a guide to what problems to look for, not a problem in and of itself.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 3, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

"While Kristof and the Democrats paint the picture that these numbers are evidence of a military ready to cut and run, they don't take into account the fact that the Pentagon's existing plan calls for troop reduction of almost half in the next 6 months and about 75% by the end of the year."

While the Pentagon has always claimed that that is their plan, it is never what they actually do. Similary, it is my plan to have an income increase of 1000% by the end of the year -- though I wouldn't count on it.

Remember, the original plan was to be down to 30,000 soldiers by the autum of 2003 -- how's that coming along?

Posted by: Stefan on March 3, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

jeez - i can never beat cmdicely to the punch.

so we'll pause, instead, and look at the idiot piffle of sunbeltjerry. despite the mind-reading, the "left" (whoever it is) didn't portray this as a "bombshell," and i assume that the point from wherever sunbeltjerry is extracting this from is conceded that the troops do want to go home.

the so-called "inconsistency" is meaningless: you can want to go home and favor more bombing. indeed, the right-wing line is that the military hasn't been tough enough in iraq or we could be "winning," so why shouldn't some of the troops on the ground feel the same way?

the "contradiction" is meaningless.

and the saddam/9-11 question could have been answered with a (1) and it wasn't. the critique is meaningless.

in short, whomever sunbeltjerry is pulling this from is another example of the amazing way that people can type and operate a computer yet not be able to think.

Posted by: howard on March 3, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Just 30% of troops said they think the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate troop protections, such as body armor, munitions, and armor plating for vehicles like HumVees."

What the fuck do you mean "just 30%"??? Fully one-third of our troops think they're not getting enough protection and that's dismissed with a "just"? That's a rather big number.

Posted by: Stefan on March 3, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

I followed the link. I read the transcript, and not only was HH a boor, he was asking idiotic questions and going into areas it had previously been agreed he would not go into.

Zogby was right to hang up, and I recommend this same technique (challenge the questions and when you get no satisfaction, hang up) to everyone who is interviewed by a right-wing hack.

The only thing better he could have done was to tell HH to 'Shut up'

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 3, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

So now Kevin is going after radio announcers who don't ask questions the way he wants? And Kevin is upset because someone didn't open an email attachment - when the darn demographics should be up on the Zogby website anyway? Much time on your hands, Kevin? This is political commentary? "HH is a big old meanie who doesn't ask questions the right way and doesn't have the latest version of Reader."

What questions? Hewitt wasn't asking questions; he was directly accusing Zogby of not providing the demographics. When Zogby said he had provided them, Hewitt's response should have been, "Where?" But instead he repeated his accusation. Then, when he learned Zogby had indeed provided the data, Hewitt responds as if Zogby is being unreasonable or deliberately obscure by sending it in a more up-to-date version of the software than Hewitt has. He sounds like David Horowitz, who pulls similar shit.

Seems a little funny to me, as someone who has emailed Kevin and received responses from him at least 50 times. When I chastise kevin because he hasn't truthfully expressed the other side's view, his response is to write to me and tell me that isn't his job.

Kevin is correct. This is a liberal blog. It's slanted by its very nature. Anyway, I suspect that when Kevin didn't "truthfully express" your side's view, he probably did but did so without the ideological spin you'd prefer.

When I ask Kevin to post about an issue on which he is mum (presumably because it doesn't make him or his side look too great), his response is to tell me that he gets to write about what he wants.

You can "presume" all you want. But Kevin is correct again. Start your own blog, asshole.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on March 3, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

I love how conservatives can't even accept without crying "fraud" that soldiers might not want to be in Iraq. WHO IN THEIR FREAKING RIGHT MIND WOULD WANT TO BE IN IRAQ???? Lot's of Iraqis probably don't want to be in Iraq right now. As a matter of fact, the only one who DOES want to be in Iraq is IRAN. And they will be, shortly.

Posted by: Sammy on March 3, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

that Zogby poll that purported to show that 90 percent of U.S. troops think "war is retaliation for Saddams role in 9/11," among other claims. The questions from the poll ... immediately make clear why the results matched the sponsor's desired outcome. For instance, here's that question about Saddam in context: Please rate the statements in questions 8 through 14 as reasons for the Iraq invasion, using the following scale: 1 - Not a reason 2 - Minor reason 3 - Major reason 4 - Main reason 5 - Not sure [...] 12. To retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks
The question asserts Saddam's role in 9/11 as a given."

But if the question asserts Hussein's role as a given, then that contradicts the right-wing claim that Zogby's questions were "anti-American." After all, the lunatic conspiracy theory that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 is a staple of the Republicans, not of any objective observer. Therefore to "assert the role as a given" is to parrot a right-wing and not a left-wing talking point.

And that aside, why didn't they just answer "1 -- not a reason"?

Posted by: Stefan on March 3, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if Hewitt is talking about the same PDF file found on the Radioblogger site:

http://www.radioblogger.com/images/Media%20-%20WF%20-%20US%20Military.pdf

That file appears to conform to version 1.4 of the PDF specification, and it opens without any problem in Acrobat 5.1 (from September of 2002, three and a half years ago).

Is Hewitt's excuse false as well as lame?

Posted by: johnchx on March 3, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney, what makes you think that your 3:02 question is meaningful? we don't know how they would have answered, although from my modest reading in the subject, my guess is they would have answered (1), just like the soldiers could have.

but that's just my guess, which is as meaningless as yours. if you have any actual data, please present same. otherwise, idiotic counteractuals aren't worth our time.

Posted by: howard on March 3, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Howard, it's hardly worth it to respond directly to Lynne Cheney. It just encourages her.

Posted by: Stefan on March 3, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if George Soros is funding any other "polls."

Posted by: Paddy Whack on March 3, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

"I wonder if George Soros is funding any other "polls.""


Wow, I like this idea. Propose a theory (based on nothing, except "famous left-wing guy is rich") on a thread, wait another 50 posts, and then treat your theory as fact.

Shazzaam!!! I gotta try this.

Posted by: tron on March 3, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

Hewitt is such a joke, he reminds me of the stiff loser in high school who got slammed up against the lockers daily by the lettermen and could never get a date.

I read a transcript of an interview with Laurence O Donnell a few weeks back, regarding the Cheney incident. O Donnell mentioned that he spoke with some lawyers and a D.A. about this case, and the ENTIRE interview all Hueewww Heuuuuit did was repeatedly ask for the names of the lawyers, which O Donnel denied him. Nothing else mattered what O Donnell was saying, he was whipping Heeewww rather well and sensing this, Ol Heeeeewww took a page from the Bukkake Hannity book, and change the subject but fast.

Bottom line, no matter what poll is being conducted and no matter who is doing the poll, things in Iraq are screwed and there is no hope for us to accomplish anything positive there. We WILL leave their, tail firmly between legs, sooner or later, with our army damn near broken, our influence squandered, and an Iran-Iraq alliance based in theorcracy that is nuclear armed.

Mission Accomplished!

Posted by: The Gorn on March 3, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if George Soros is funding any other "polls."

I wonder if Richard Mellon Scaife is funding any other "trolls."

Posted by: Stefan on March 3, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

At the end of the day, this whole thing was cleared by the military

Good point. And even further, Zogby's poll was printed in that bastion of liberal thought: Stars and Stripes.

Posted by: Windhorse on March 3, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

I assume that all the individuals trying to slam this poll of U.S. troops are not healthy and between the ages of 18 and 40.

Posted by: steve expat on March 3, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney:
Are you the same Cheney who agreed with tbrosz that the U.S. did not attack Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack? If so, maybe you as an 18-year-old would have opined that the allies invaded Normandy in response to the Pearl Harbor attack, but I doubt you would have found much agreement among the troops landing on the beaches. In any case, even agreement with your absurd belief would not be "probative."

sunbeltjerry:
question 12 asks if the respondents believe that Saddam's role in 9/11 was a reason for the invasion. If respondents do in fact believe that Saddam had a role, then they may give that role emphasis, even if their belief is incorrect (and there are people posting on this very thread who share that belief). Likewise, if someone believes this was a war for oil, or to retaliate for an attempt on George H. W. Bush's life, then they may emphasize those reasons, even if they are not correct.

In short, polls measure opinions, not observable reality.

Al:
Much research funded by tobacco companies did support the linkage between smoking and cancer. That research might have been flawed, but the source of the funding didn't automaticaly render it unreliable. The fact that tobacco companies suppressed such results indicates that they trusted the research and feared the results. In any case, you can't really compare public opinion polling with scientific research. They're apples and oranges, and shouldn't be placed together other than to make a nice fruit salad.

Posted by: keith on March 3, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

"Had Zogby simply told me the demographics were now out after previously being withheld, that would have been fine"

apparently saying, "All the demographics were indeed released, Hugh," wasn't good enough...

Posted by: freaktown on March 3, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Zogby is an arabist simpathizer.

Posted by: Troll on March 3, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

"Taking personal responsibility" means blaming the other guy for using the latest version of Adobe (and the Reader is free off the Internet...

That's Hugh Hewitt, not a legitimate commentator, not a worthy human being...

Posted by: Neil' on March 3, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

sunbeltjerry;

Your complaints are garbage. Kevin isn't complaining that HH didn't ask just the questions he wanted him to, but displaying for all honest observers the repulsive childishness and irresponsibility of Hewitt. It's a matter of who will admit that, not picking over various personal preferences. And if you don't believe that people should ask just the questions their critic thinks they should, then you already inadvertently blow away Hewitt's criticism of Zogby. I guess that was an accidental birdshit load.

Posted by: Neil' on March 3, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney:

are you an arabist simpathizer?

Posted by: Troll on March 3, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

don't lie to me. I can alwasy tell. I think it's teh right time to come out of the closest.

Posted by: Troll on March 3, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

WHY 18-year-olds would want to go home rather than spend another summer in Iraq, that's fine with me.

That's unbelievably insulting and patronizing to the troops. They aren't honorable? They don't believe in duty? They just want to go home and play video games?

You're an idiot.

They didn't say they wanted vacations, you dickless moron -- they said they want to PULL OUT entirely from Iraq.

That being said, I think you're mistaking this blog for one where anyone gives a fuck what you think.

Posted by: Windhorse on March 3, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Drum? Who cares?

If he'd had a Mac Preview might have opened it for him without downloading "Adobe" (was that the entire company or just one of their many apps?)

So, Drum?

Who cares?

Posted by: lettuce on March 3, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Yup...it's really hard to click the "OK button" for "would you like to update Adobe Acrobat" when a new file is encountered.

Really tough.

Posted by: Jimm on March 3, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Admittedly, the wait might be unendurable for the update, since it usually takes at least a minute or two.

Idiot.

Posted by: Jimm on March 3, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Wow this is a much more interesting thread than the crap Althouse has playing for us today. Go Kevin go!

Posted by: quxxo on March 3, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

Obviously HH did all this on purpose, and from now on every wingnut can forever call the poll "disputed", "flawed" &c.

Posted by: R.Mutt on March 3, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

So what version of Acrobat reader did Hugh have?

Hugh's explanation sounds a bit dog-ate-my-homework to me. Sounds like a simple fuckup on Hugh's part, with a dumb cooked-up excuse.

Posted by: tom on March 3, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

" Perhaps you are alluded to my argument (not sure what tbrosz's exact point was) that the U.S. attack of Iraq after 9/11 is analogous to the U.S. attack of North Africa?
Posted by: Cheney on March 3, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK"

Did the US attack North Africa?

I thought the US inserted themselves to neutralize Nazi armies.

So, would you compare that to US attacks Kuwait? No, lynne, the coalition (a real one, not some weak fantasy) expelled Iraqi armies from Kuwait.

A better analogy to what GWBush did with Iraq would have been, after Pearl Harbor, FDR invaded Vietnam, for rubber trees or democracy, er, um, damn, this governmentin is hard work.

Posted by: Sky-Ho on March 3, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

the real question is why anyone who's not already a Republican shill ever bothers to appear on Hugh's show in the first place

Yglesias goes on the show. Seems a careerist move.

Posted by: luci on March 3, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney:
tbrosz claimed that the U.S. did not attack Japan in response to the Pearl Harbor attacks, implying that attacking German interests somehow akin to invading Iraq in response to the 9/11 al-Qaeda attacks. I and others pointed out that the U.S. did indeed attack Japanese-held territories, and thus Japanese troops, shortly after the Pearl Harbor attacks. You then jumped in and asked if North Africa was held by Japan. You did not argue that this was an analogous situation; you supported tbrosz's false contention that the U.S. did not immediately retaliate against Japan. Go re-read the thread, you dimwit!

tbrosz, to his discredit, has never explained what on earth he could possibly have meant, nor has he retracted his inane claim. A simple "my bad" would have done. Instead, he has refused to acknowledge his own statements, even when called on them.

You, on the other hand, have a long history of misrepresentation and outright falsehood, so your mischaracterization of your own statements in your 3:53 post is unsurprising. Disappointing, yes; surprising, no.

As for your theoretical poll of 18-year-olds a week after the Normandy landings, I imagine that most of those troops would have said something like "now that we've established our beach heads, I want to finish the job and get rid of Hitler." Of course, this is not much like the Zogby poll, which did not ask troops what they wanted but rather asked what what the U.S. should do about a timetable for troop withdrawal.

Let's rewrite your question to make it truly analogous. Are you seriously going to assert that a substantial majority of the men who landed at Normandy would've said that the U.S. "should" leave immediately or in the near future, and that only a small minority would have said the U.S. should stay in Europe "as long as they are needed"?!

Posted by: keith on March 3, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

I knew someone who was at Omaha Beach(the only surviving combat correspondent). Most of the soldiers that made it off the beach wanted to go home by way of Berlin. Also, I met Zogby once many years ago, and I'd say he has a very good grasp of what people are saying in his polls. All IMHO.

Posted by: Killer on March 3, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

P.S. Sky-Ho - is English your second language? To answer your only question that I can decipher, yes, the United States attacked North Africa after Pearl Harbor, specifically Morocco and Algeria, on November 8, 1942. Here's a map FYI: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Operation%20Torch%20-%20map.jpg
That is analogous to our current invasion of Iraq

What Lynne Cheney is deliberately lying about, of course, is that we invaded Nazi-allied Vichy French Morocco in order to get at Hitler and Mussolini's armies in North Africa, to link up with Montgomery's British forces, and to prepare a staging point for the invasion of Sicily and Italy. Germany and Italy had declared war on the United States after Pearl Harbor, and were aggressors against us.

It is, therefore, nowhere analogous to our invasion of Iraq, because (a) Iraq did not declare war on the US and (b) we were the aggressors against Iraq.

Posted by: Stefan on March 3, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

...signs of a civil debate...

...would not include you, Chuckles.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 3, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney-
Counter-factual implies initial fact. your opinion of the position of WW2 soldiers is not. I only have the reporting of the only person on Omaha Beach whos job it was to report. My opinion of Zogby is only that, and I do not claim more.

Posted by: Killer on March 3, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK
Terrorists are aggressors against the U.S., Stefan, in case you haven't noticed - there's a reason certain countries are the "Axis of Evil" too

Yeah, because George Bush pulled names out of a hat.

Well, not exactly, as there were really three rogue states, sponsors of terrorism, with active WMD programs, working together on WMD and delivery systems, and heavily involved in proliferation of WMD and ballistic missile systems.

And Iran and North Korea were two of those countries.

The third, however, was Pakistan. But, given that they'd decided to pretend to cooperate with us while sheltering our enemies and continuing to work with al-Qaeda linked groups, Bush didn't want to call them out, and, anyway, he -- or at least, a lot of the PNAC types in his administration -- already had a hard-on to attack Iraq, so Pakistan got replaced.

So, while there is a reason Iraq was labelled part of the Axis of Evil, it has nothing to do with it being an aggressor against the US.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 3, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Chuckles,
If you had bothered to click Kevin's link to HH to click the Radio Blogger link to click the PDF link, you would have gotten the document with the demos. Must have been too much for you.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 3, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

And BTW, Chuckles, Radio Blogger also has the demos online in addition to the PDF (which is easier to read).

WADASH!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 3, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

OT: Round two of Joe Klein v. Lou Dobbs. Dang, CNN has gotten to be so entertaining these days due to Bush-bashing conservatives!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 3, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

LOL! Got ya goat, Chuckles! And you deserve it. Always.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 3, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

I thought you were leaving, Chuckles? Let me see if I can find an email for PaulB, see if he can join in. That'll really burn you up. He seems to really rub you the wrong way and that's always a good thing for a goony troll like you.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 3, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie and conspiracy nut are running neck and neck in their race to win the title "Most Abjectly Stupid and Shockingly Ignorant and Pathetically Dishonest Bush-Bootlicking Dumbass Ever To Comment On The Political Animal Site."

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 3, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK
try to sell that "Saddam was not an aggressor" bullshit to the American pilots being shot at over the No-Fly zone

You do realize those pilots were conducting armed incursion into the sovereign airspace of Iraq in violation of the terms of the UN SC-imposed cease-fire and were, therefore, aggressors themselves, right?

...or George H.W. Bush whom Saddam targeted for assassination.

...in 1993. To which the US retaliated. It hardly justifies a massive invasion in 2003.

We were not going to wait until the smoking gun was a mushroom cloud

So we attacked the one member of the "Axis of Evil" that we had the least reason to believe had an active nuclear weapons program?

I think it's time to roll the 9/11 footage again since you guys have forgotten what the terrorist did.

Apparently, you guys have forgotten who the terrorists were that did it.


Incredible, how fucking appeasers think they should run wars

I agree. What gives with Bush giving in to Osama's demands to pull troops out of Saudi Arabia? Or with his playing footsie with al-Qaeda's biggest state partner, Pakistan?

Can't stand it when appeasers think they should run wars.

it never works

As the past 5 years have demonstrated, quite effectively.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 3, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: I agree. What gives with Bush giving in to Osama's demands to pull troops out of Saudi Arabia? Or with his playing footsie with al-Qaeda's biggest state partner, Pakistan?

Using irony to get a point across to the Deltas will not be effective.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 3, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

if Hewitt is too fucking stupid to open an email attachment, then I'm surprised any intelligent person wastes time on his show.

Posted by: haha on March 3, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

Nope, it looks like Zogby is not going to release the poll demographics on his Web site before the...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Posted by: American Public on March 3, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

Chuckles: Apparently, you guys have forgotten who the terrorists were that did it.

Dubya used a Saddam link to AQ to justify invading Iraq, which the 9/11 Commission discredited.

But now Bush wants the Dubai port deal via UAE, which has proven ties to terrorists, black market nukes, and a Russian arms dealers, Victor Boot, who sells to the "Taliban and in Africa and other radical groups." [Cite.] Why take the chance?

So who's being forgetful?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 3, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans used to run on a "Contract with America." Now it seems they've switched to the "Contract with the United Arab Emirates." Hey, who are we to stop them....?

Posted by: Stefan on March 3, 2006 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps someone who was paying attention could answer this question. When, exactly, did Hugh Hewitt become a right-wing jackass?

I remember watching the guy when, I believe, he first started, on Los Angeles PBS station KCET, doing a show called "Life and Times." He was clearly on the show to hold up the relatively conservative O.C. viewpoint, but he was hardly a "talking-points spouter." He would make interesting points, believe it or not.

At some point in the last decade or so did he just decide there was no money in being rational?

Posted by: hank on March 3, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

Hank's question upthread got lost. Does anyone know the answer to this question? Juan, Pat, and Hugh were great on the Life and Times segment together. I really enjoyed it. WTF happened to Hugh?

Posted by: Max Renn on March 3, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans used to run on a "Contract with America." Now it seems they've switched to the "Contract with the United Arab Emirates."

It's part of their "Contracts with Foreign Powers" series, which includes the latest exciting installment, "Contract with India":

Bush Defends Outsourcing

Posted by: Windhorse on March 3, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, the next guest on the show I believe was Christopher Hitchens. Obviously, Hugh's show is loaded with neocons. Or, to some, less biased than the evening news.

Posted by: Chris on March 3, 2006 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK
Of course, soldiers (and the friends and families they left behind) want to go home - duty to their country comes first.

Hey Cheney!

Did you say, "duty to their country comes first"?

Or did you say, "I had other priorities"?

Just asking.

Charlie and conspiracy nut are running neck and neck in their race to win the title "Most Abjectly Stupid and Shockingly Ignorant and Pathetically Dishonest Bush-Bootlicking Dumbass Ever To Comment On The Political Animal Site."

They've got me on tenterhooks!

Posted by: obscure on March 3, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

... black market nukes...

OK, to be precise, let me clear something up. The evidence doesn't show black market nukes per se but "black market nuclear technology" as well as "precursors to nerve gas." Duncan Hunter (R-CA) explains:

In -- in 2003, Dubai allowed a shipment of 66 high-speed triggers that are ideally suited for nuclear weapon detonations. The United States tried to stop the sale -- or the transshipment through the Dubai ports. We asked the UAE not to do it. They said, we are going to do it anyway.
They transferred those triggers to a Pakistani businessman with a close relationship with the Pakistan military. They similarly have allowed shipments of heavy water -- that's the material that you use to ultimately build a nuclear weapon -- coming from Russia and China, through Dubai, into India.
The point is -- and they have also allowed the precursors to nerve gas to be shipped through Iran. And, thankfully, we stopped that deal, because we found out about it. We made a string [sic] operation and stopped it.
The point is, Dubai cannot be trusted. They are the people who will sell or allow a transshipment of anything to anybody. And those people shouldn't be in charge of our ports. [Emphasis added. Cite]

Wow! Dubai blew off the U.S.'s request about shipping those high-speed triggers to Pakistan and heavy water from China and Russia to India and this all occurred in a post-9/11 world. Isn't Pakistan, um, close to where Osama and AQ hide out? Doesn't Pakistan have a terrorism-AQ sympathizer problem? And why isn't Bush discouraging nuclear proliferation in the first place? Why is he rewarding an "ally" with American assets (like our port terminals) who "cannot be trusted"?

As Hunter also says, "sometimes, they accommodate our enemies." Why risk it?

So Chuckles, who has forgotten about the WOT and national security?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 3, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK
Juan, Pat, and Hugh were great on the Life and Times segment together. I really enjoyed it. WTF happened to Hugh? Posted by: Max Renn
During one program, Hugh was so wound up with some politico he went into hyper drive. He talked over the others and monopolized the entire show. I emailed them to complain that his bullying manner was not even acceptable in a schoolyard. I think KCET just tired of the program and the commentators split. Pat used to wear those goofy hats ala Bella Abzug, remember?
- you're a fucking idiot as well! Posted by: 18%Cheney
It's good to see that you also think of yourself as a f*ing idiot. That about makes it unanimous on this blog.
Terrorists are aggressors against the U.S., Posted by: Cheney
It's obvious to all except the bitter-enders that the West was the first to invade and colonize countries in the Middle East after WWI. If you don't want to be hated, don't invade people's countries, interfere in their destiny, kill their women and children or overthrow their governments.
Trust me, though, you DON'T want to know what the NSA has on by "Alek Hidell / Lee Harvey Oswald" ; ) Posted by: Chene
One day you will probably find out what this administration thinks of people committing identify theft of one of its officials. Wait for the knock on the door. Listen for it.
I've never said that the U.S. did not attack Japan after the Pearl Harbor that the U.S. attack of Iraq after 9/11 is analogous to the U.S. attack of North Africa? Posted by: Cheney
Do you ever hear of the Doolittle Raid? The attack on North Africa was and is in no way analogous to the invasion of Iraq even by any stretch of your perfervid imagination. Posted by: Mike on March 3, 2006 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

about more info Car InsuranceDon't be punished for paying monthly
Want to pay your car insurance rate monthly? Most companies will happily charge you extra for the privilege. Not us. We let you break-up your payments into bite-size monthly morsels at no extra cost for car insurance qoute. Monthly cheap car insurance payments subject to status.
Buy online and save at least 10% discount car insuranceGet a car insurance quote online and we'll knock a tidy 10% off the cost.
Car Insurance mesothelioma

Posted by: apiddd on March 3, 2006 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

So according to the mystery pollster site ther are more unknowns about Zogby's study than knowns. Why did he pass the questions by the Center for Policy and Global Studies when they weren't the client? Why is here no info on the number of interviewees by location? Why did he give out the complete survey to only those reporters he trusted? Who are these reporters? Isn't Zogby the one who said Kerry would get 311 electoral votes? WHy should we trust this study? Why when asked about the number of unknowns, his response is to say "you have to trust me." Isn't that what Mary Mapes and Dan Rather said to us about the documents in Rathergate?

Posted by: Meatss on March 4, 2006 at 2:26 AM | PERMALINK

Meatss on March 4, 2006 at 2:26 AM |

Your comment is rather stupid.

Why did he (Zogby) pass the questions by the Center for Policy and Global Studies when they weren't the client?

Why don't you email him and ask him? Maybe he was trying to get a critique on the proposed questions. Your apparent assumption that he didn't pass the questions by other entities is noted--and how do you know that he didn't?

Why is here no info on the number of interviewees by location?

Again, why don't you email him and ask him? Maybe he has such information, but hasn't released it. Irrespective of that, of what possible relevance is it?

Why did he give out the complete survey to only those reporters he trusted?

Again, why don't you email him and ask him? Maybe it had something to do with his contractual relationship with his client.

One of the things that I find interesting about right-wing nut-cases is that they ask lots of questions of types like these in comment threads on weblogs, but are typically uninterested in actually emailing the people that might have the answers to their questions. It is typical of the "when did he stop beating his wife" question.

Posted by: raj on March 4, 2006 at 4:05 AM | PERMALINK

P.P.S. Keith and killer - I would be happy to discuss any proposed counter-factuals in a civil debate.

This raises some interesting questions.

1) Do the figments of Charlie's imagination, such as what US soldiers at Normandy "would have said," have sufficient connection to reality to qualify as "counterfactuals?"

2) Is it possible to have a "civil debate" with an infantile, dishonest man of legendary, blog-renowned stupidity?

Posted by: obscure on March 4, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

...sort of like being nagged to play tennis--on a full-size court--by a 3-year old child.

Posted by: obscure on March 4, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, right on that the only question is why would anybody but a Republican hack go on Hugh's show. It's truly a sad response to the modern political discussion that this guy is even relevant. Since the election he has really fallen into neverending hackdom.....but with Zogby he actually changed his MO. Instead of asking Zogby for whom he voted 700 times while Zogby replies that it isn't relevant(see any Hewitt interview with a political reporter for reference) he denies directly that Zogby has done something that it turns out he has. Now, he does follow the proven path by continuing to hammer on Zogby for the next few days, as if hanging up the phone on a hack proves something. But the best part is that he offers no actual evidence to discredit the poll, only that he, the great and all knowing Hugh Hewitt, has met no service members that would agree with the results of the poll-because of course Hugh moves outside of his sycophantic world so often....

Posted by: paulE on March 4, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

Spew Spewitt

Posted by: John on March 5, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

The day after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the United States. The U. S. was fighting on two fronts against enemies who had declared war on us. There is nothing in the North African campaign to expel the Nazis that is analogous to the attack on Iraq after the Twin Towers incident, for Iraq was neither an ally nor a participant in that attack.

In addition, WWII was a declared war against expansionist states infringing not only on American interests but actively seeking confrontation (while there may be some revisionist ideas that war was avoidable, I don't buy them).

Posted by: notjonathon on March 6, 2006 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly