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 29, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

ANDREW SULLIVAN NEEDS A NEW AWARD....Hugh Hewitt, in the process of grilling Time's Michael Ware about his reporting from Iraq, says he doesn't buy Ware's argument that reporting from behind enemy lines is a good thing. Then he lets loose with this:

MW: ....Let's look at it this way. I mean, you're sitting back in a comfortable radio studio, far from the realities of this war.

HH: Actually, Michael, let me interrupt you.

MW: If anyone has a right...

HH: Michael, one second.

MW: If anyone has a right to complain, that's what...

HH: I'm sitting in the Empire State Building. Michael, I'm sitting in the Empire State Building, which has been in the past, and could be again, a target. Because in downtown Manhattan, it's not comfortable, although it's a lot safer than where you are, people always are three miles away from where the jihadis last spoke in America. So that's...civilians have a stake in this. Although you are on the front line, this was the front line four and a half years ago.

This just might be the most fatuous thing I've ever heard. But it does make me wonder: do you think he really means it? Do you think Hugh literally, genuinely thinks of himself as being on the front lines every time he visits New York City?

As for Hugh's broader question, look at it this way: if the Western media had pulled out of Moscow during the Cold War we would have spent several decades thinking that the GUM department store was a treasure trove of consumer goodies instead of the cheerless and barren place it really was. In other words, of course it's a good idea to have someone providing us with a pro-Western view of what our enemies are doing especially when enemy propaganda is already available 24/7 just by watching al-Jazeera or surfing the web or reading non-American newspapers. You'd think a guy who broadcasts on the radio, extols the virtues of the blogosphere, and supposedly understands the global nature of the war on terrorism could figure that out.

Kevin Drum 8:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (134)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Who is Hugh Hewitt? Why do we bother with a nitwit?

Kari

Posted by: Kari on March 29, 2006 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

especially when enemy propaganda is already available 24/7 just by watching al-Jazeera

Bomb those fuckers! Bomb those fuckers now!!!!

Posted by: ogmb on March 29, 2006 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

Hewitt's comment,if serious, is the saddest thing I have heard in a long time.

Posted by: Mudge on March 29, 2006 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

Do you think Hugh literally, genuinely thinks of himself as being on the front lines every time he visits New York City?

Number of Americans killed by terrorists in New York: 3500.
Number of Americans killed by terrorists in Iraq: 2200.

Sounds like New York is more dangerous than Iraq to me Kevin.

Posted by: Al on March 29, 2006 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

On the face of it, I would have to conclude that Hugh Hewitt is an abject coward. No courage whatsoever.

Posted by: LeisureGuy on March 29, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

Al suffers from the GOP malady of not getting facts right. Number killed in World Trade Towers = 2752.

Posted by: LeisureGuy on March 29, 2006 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

Kari: You raise an excellent point. The answer is that we both live in the same city, and sometimes my embarrassment over that gets the best of me.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on March 29, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

i saw Hugh Hewitt on the Newshour a while back, they introduced him a either a "media critic" or "commentor on the media"
(iirc it was after Katrina, during the navel gazing about whether Anderson Cooper and some of the other reporters should have gotten so worked up over the state of things down or or should they have been objective {meaning ignored things and pretended everything was fine}, but i digress)
aannyhoo, it took me about 1.5 minutes to figure out this guy was a FauxNews-esq hack, clearly uninterested in an actual discussion or listening to what the other participant had to say (a reporter from NBC who {shock and amazement} had actually been in MS and NewOrleans for the better part of two weeks).
so this is a ReaLly longwinded way of saying: HH is just a hack and he probably does believe his own propaganda, as most hacks do.

Posted by: e1 on March 29, 2006 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

This "AL", is he a self parody?

Posted by: Richard Feynman on March 29, 2006 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

Al, be serious. First just the numbers. Fewer than 3500 died in NYC to start and that was out of roughly 8 million residents. In Iraq, it is 2300 of 150,000. Do the math. Do the math for total correspondents versus dead ones too..

If Hewitt actually felt threatened, he wouldn't be there. It is a ruse. An excuse. An attempt to appear brave. Use an office in Newark if you have the heebie jeebies..

Be serious.

Posted by: Mudge on March 29, 2006 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

This "AL", is he a self parody?

I hope not, becuase he raises a valid point. A point I noticed nobody has bothered to address.

Posted by: ub40 on March 29, 2006 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't know that New York, and the Empire State Buildign was on the front lines in the Great War on Terrorism. Forget Iran--We need to invade New York! Can't let those al Qaida terrorists take over the rest of our good, decent, Bible-thumping, Christian America, when the terrorists have taken a toehold in New York!

Think we can send some B-2s to bomb the Empire State Building?

Posted by: Eric Hopp on March 29, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK


KEVIN DRUM: it's a good idea to have someone providing us with a pro-Western view of what our enemies are doing especially when enemy propaganda is already available 24/7 just by watching al-Jazeera or surfing the web or reading non-American newspapers.

Yeah! I mean, I can't remember how many times I've been out golfing and at least a couple members of my foursome say let's skip the back nine because they want to get home and tune in to al-Jazeera's "enemy propaganda." It's bigger than FOX! We definitely need something to counter it or half the country will convert to Islam.

Okay, I admit it . . . I don't golf. Don't watch al-Jazeera much either. Looked at it once or twice following a link, as well as seeing a few reports from other networks regarding their reporting, usually focusing on their bias. From that limited exposure, my sense is that their broadcasts are far less laden with propaganda than is our MSM.

Whoever you or Bush or anyone who discusses either the Iraq "War" or the "War on Terrorism" thinks is the "enemy," I do not agree. My enemies are those who are or would do harm to others. In my opinion, there are far more of such persons in this country--mostly at the helm of it (or at the helm of corporations)--than there are anywhere where al-Jazeera, including its propaganda, is watched.


Posted by: jayarbee on March 29, 2006 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

Kinda reminds me of that Santorum comment where he told a group of supporters that putting his bumper sticker on their car was on par with joining the military, in terms of supporting the war on terror.

Poor Hugh. It must be difficult to work in a state of abject terror all the time. But he struggles on, and that is why he used to describe himself as the "Jack Bauer of the blogsphere." As far as I could tell, that description was not meant to be funny.

Posted by: JoshA on March 29, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, if Osama could have planted a dream agent in the United States he could hardly have done better than Hugh Hewitt.

The logical response, not to mention the tactically appropriate response to a nutjob criminal in a cave is to superficially ignore him and then, one day, capture him.

In Osama's wildest dreams he probably could not imagined that one lucky attack could permanently cause guys like Hewitt to play right into his hands.

The Empire State Building in 2006 is the frontlines in the so-called war on terror.

Perhaps the most amazing statement posted here, and that takes some work.

Posted by: hank on March 29, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

ub40, who evidently has drunk WAY too much red, red wine: I hope not, becuase he raises a valid point. A point I noticed nobody has bothered to address.

Okay. Leaving aside the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis now dead: When we hit the magic number of getting 3,500 of our own people killed in an invasion we made against a non-enemy state based on lies, can we stop? Will that work for you?

Posted by: shortstop on March 29, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

Hewitt also seems to be zero in terms of geography. The Empire State Building is in Midtown Manhattan and not in downtown Manhattan.

But you know, the thing thats really repulsive is that Hewitt is that he praises Ware all over on his courage and the like in the interview. Ware said that he had talked to insurgents as a reporter (he also mentioned that Zarqawi had a death sentence on him). After a lot of prodding from Hewitt, Ware said that he had heard of one document, whcih mentioned that another insurgent leader had met Zarqawi at one point in Baghdad in 2002.

Hewitt then goes to his blog and starts essentially calling Ware a traitor for talking to the insurgents (does he call the US Envoy the same for talks with insurgents) and highlights that one document as proof that Saddam was tied to AQ.

Posted by: erg on March 29, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

especially when enemy propaganda is already available 24/7 just by watching al-Jazeera or surfing the web or reading non-American newspapers.

Why does the Financial Times hate America?

BTW-Kevin, when was the last time you watched Al-Jazeera, or are you simply bloviating as you have recently seemed wont to do?

Posted by: justmy2 on March 29, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

In Hugh's addled mind, I'm sure wherever he happens to be at the moment is "the front line." He probably keeps a wary eye on the hummus when he's at Trader Joe's.

Posted by: tom on March 29, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

Hugh needs to stay in Irvine - squeaky clean, master-planned, dull as a bowl of bran.

It was made for him. Or he was made for it.

Posted by: lin on March 29, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

I spent a five hours up at the water tower last night. It gave me the willies knowing that a muslimist might be moving up through the bush to put plutonium in the tank. Turns out it I only ran into a skunk, but Chuck who was on guard duty after me shot a mule deer.

Posted by: Charlie on March 29, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

Well, if Sullivan does need a new award, and it is supposed to recongize those with hawkish views who much prefer the safety of remaining stateside, might I suggest The George W Bush Tang Award?

Posted by: Diplomat on March 29, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Kevin Drum: The answer is that we both live in the same city, and sometimes my embarrassment over that gets the best of me.

Well, dude, prank him! The burning bag of dog poop remains so popular because it's cheap and effective!

tom: He probably keeps a wary eye on the hummus when he's at Trader Joe's.

Splendid!

Posted by: shortstop on March 29, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Safety-wise, do you think any of the troops in Iraq would hesitate for a moment to trade places with Mr. Hewitt?

Posted by: Bobarino on March 29, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK


fatuous (fch-s) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

1. Vacuously, smugly, and unconsciously foolish. See Synonyms at foolish.

2. Delusive; unreal: fatuous hopes.

Posted by: ferd on March 29, 2006 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

When was the Empire State Building a target of terrorists? It was hit by an airplane in 1945, but that was a US Air Corps B-25 that was off-course.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on March 29, 2006 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

Well, this is news; I thought the frontline might be a pulpit in a church in South Carolina or Georgia.

Posted by: wingnut on March 29, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

When was the Empire State Building a target of terrorists?

The big monkey had ties with bin Laden and the Saudi royals.

Posted by: shortstop on March 29, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, are you drunk or something?

HH: "Although you are on the front line, this was the front line four and a half years ago."

Kevin: "Do you think Hugh literally, genuinely thinks of himself as being on the front lines every time he visits New York City?"

He didn't say that!!!!!

He also said "in downtown Manhattan, it's not comfortable, although it's a lot safer than where you are".

IOW: another complete stinker of a post.

It included deliberate misunderstanding, misrepresentation and assault and battery on a straw-man. It was worthy of Duncan Black.

Posted by: am on March 29, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINK

Who is Hugh Hewitt? Why do we bother with a nitwit?

Kari
Posted by: Kari on March 29, 2006 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: ditto ^ nth on March 29, 2006 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

Hewitt = fatuous.

Man bites dog.

Next post, please.

Posted by: pebird on March 29, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

ub40:I hope not, becuase he raises a valid point.A point I noticed nobody has bothered to address.

Oh shutup and get off the dole, ya lazy limey git.

Posted by: John Bull on March 29, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

BTW:

If Hewitt really thinks the Empire State Building is (could be) a target - why does he sit in it.

Hewitt = fatuous.

Move along, next post, please.

Posted by: pebird on March 29, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

what a nauseating nut job. Here in NYC we know perfectly well we are not on the front lines, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a total dithering idiot. That guy makes me embarrassed to be an American.

Posted by: Diana on March 29, 2006 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

Al,
As to be expected, you can't ever tell the truth. According to wikipedia, 2595 people from from the twin towers died. Now, since you are referring to Americans who died in Iraq, we need to adjust that for Americans in the twin towers. Since 236 foreigners died, that would bring the total down to 2359.

Now, to Iraq.

According to icasualties.org, there have been 2325 US military fatalities. I'm sure there have been at least 35 US civilian fatalities. That would include private contractors, such as the ones killed in Falujah.

So, Al, after we remove your lies we find out that you are full of shit, as usual.

Posted by: DR on March 29, 2006 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

Al,
I just found it: 126 American contractors killed in Iraq (at icasualties.org).

And we haven't even included journalists.

Posted by: DR on March 29, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmmm ... "pro-western point-of-view" vs. "enemy propaganda"

Nothing "loaded" in those two turns-of-phrase, eh?

Posted by: sidewinder on March 29, 2006 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

The Hugh Hewitt Weenie Award for Vicarious Courage.

Posted by: Wombat on March 29, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Now that it's clear that Iraq is safer than NYC, I would like my A Train Distingushed Service Cross. And my Brooklyn Bridge Crossing Cluster.

Also, my Golden Lobster with Wings demoting the 25 missions I've flown out of Logan Airport without fighter escort.

And some Cheetos. Yeah.

Posted by: HeavyJ on March 29, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

With people like Hewitt working there, the "Empire" State Building is appropriately named.

The world revolves around him, it seems.

Posted by: pj_in_jesusland on March 29, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

Well actually... not to dispute your main point... the Moscow Gum department store in 1965 was pretty cool. Three levels, large atrium, individual shops full of junk... basically a model of the US malls that would arrive soon after, in the late sixties, early seventies.

Posted by: morris on March 29, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, I work in downtown Manhattan, right by Ground Zero! I had no idea until now that I was in the front lines every day!

You know what I am? A hero. I'm a goddamn hero.

Now I wonder if I can get my firm to award me combat pay? That extra $7.50 a day would buy me one more cocktail....

Posted by: Stefan on March 29, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

Why don't liberals defend America's efforts to promote human and civil rights in the Muslim Middle East? Our country's own triumphs over slavery, segregation, and disenfranchisement are theirs, too, so why can't they be more affirmative in supporting these principles in countries where they are also needed?

Probably because they are too busy hating Bush and being anti-American rectal probes.

Posted by: Toby Petzold on March 29, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

He also said "in downtown Manhattan, it's not comfortable, although it's a lot safer than where you are".

I can assure you that downtown Manhattan is quite comfortable. At least I didn't notice any car bombs as I went out for sushi for lunch today....

Posted by: Stefan on March 29, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

enemy propaganda is already available 24/7 just by watching al-Jazeera

Kevin, seriously, you need to watch some more Al-Jazeera. It's not "enemy propaganda", and most of what it reports on is not "enemy propaganda". You're right that it's pretty easy to get access to vicious anti-American sentiments in the Arab media, but Al-Jazeera is a serious network that deserves a lot of respect.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 29, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

am wrote: "Kevin, are you drunk or something?"

Nice start -- a lovely little ad hominem attack.

"He didn't say that!!!!!"

Well, yes, actually he did, am. Perhaps you should learn to read? Let me walk you through this.

1. Michael Ware points out that he is on the front lines while Hugh is "sitting back in a comfortable radio studio, far from the realities of this war."

2. Hugh immediately interrupts. There is no reason to do so unless he is going to disagree with Michael's point, which is precisely what he proceeds to do.

3. Hugh points out that he is sitting in a building that could be attacked at any time: "I'm sitting in the Empire State Building, which has been in the past, and could be again, a target."

4. Hugh further points out that there is a risk being where he is, "Because in downtown Manhattan, it's not comfortable"

In short, Hugh is guilty of precisely the sin he is being accused of.

"IOW: another complete stinker of a post."

Talk about self-referential...

Posted by: PaulB on March 29, 2006 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

what brooksfoe said.

Al-Jazeera is a serious network that deserves a lot of respect.

Posted by: morris on March 29, 2006 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

Toby Petzold wrote: "Why don't liberals defend America's efforts to promote human and civil rights in the Muslim Middle East?"

Wow, the nutballs are coming out of the woodwork now. Amazing what these guys come up with. I wonder if they actually believe the tripe they write?

Posted by: PaulB on March 29, 2006 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps Toby Petzold will tell us how torturing and murdering Moslems in our custody is promoting freedom and human rights in the Muslim Middle East.

Posted by: Wombat on March 29, 2006 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

...especially when enemy propaganda is already available 24/7 just by watching al-Jazeera or surfing the web or reading non-American newspapers.

Yep, these newspapers here in Australia are so full of 'enemy propaganda'.

Murdoch being so anti-American, and all.

BTW, regarding al-jazeera:

When Al Jazeera first broadcast across the Arab world, the Americans hailed its appearance as a symbol of freedom amid the dictatorships of the Middle East. The New York Timess messianic columnist Tom Friedman praised it as a beacon of freedom always a dangerous precedent, coming from Friedman while US officials held out the stations broadcasts as proof that Arabs wanted free speech

http://bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidDate=2005-11-29&hidType=EDT&hidRecord=0000000000000000074513

Don't forget that Saddam threatened to throw al-Jazeera out in 2003. Iran has threatened the same; as has Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Tell me al-Jazeera is not doing something right, whatever its faults.

Posted by: floopmeister on March 29, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

"Our country's own triumphs over slavery, segregation, and disenfranchisement are theirs, too."

Slight correction:

"Our country's own triumphs over slavery, segregation, and disenfranchisement are theirs alone."

Posted by: HeavyJ on March 29, 2006 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

Oh forgot to warn you all - you shouldn't probably read that link I gave because it's from a non-American source, and is possibly therefore 'enemy propaganda'.

Hey, if I'm non-American, does that make me an 'enemy'?

Or does it only apply to media?

Posted by: floopmeister on March 29, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

Wombat:

Perhaps Toby Petzold will tell us how torturing and murdering Moslems in our custody is promoting freedom and human rights in the Muslim Middle East.

Perhaps you'll explain why the actions of a few sadistic idiots guarding a prison a couple years ago is enough to vitiate the moral value in all other actions performed bravely and well by our military in Iraq.

Your answer, I would guess, is that helping Islamofascist murderers propagate anti-American propaganda is your life's work and your sole desire.

Posted by: Toby Petzold on March 29, 2006 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

"Why don't liberals defend America's efforts to promote human and civil rights in the Muslim Middle East?"

Too busy writing you a prescription, I'm afraid.

And do you have health cover, young man?

Posted by: floopmeister on March 29, 2006 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

Your answer, I would guess, is that helping Islamofascist murderers propagate anti-American propaganda is your life's work and your sole desire.

Damn, I was too slow with the anti-hysterics sedative, I see.

Posted by: floopmeister on March 29, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

Have y'all ever seen that video of the dead Car Swarm Person in Israel accidentally falling from the litter as he was being carried along by his mourners ---and quickly hopping back on to continue with his [performance art]?

Posted by: Toby Petzold on March 29, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

floop:

And do you have health cover, young man?

Yes, I'm wearing a prophylactic right now. Feel me?

Posted by: Toby Petzold on March 29, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

Your answer, I would guess, is that helping Islamofascist murderers propagate anti-American propaganda is your life's work and your sole desire.

Damnit, he's onto us! Our secret is out! Who told? WHO TOLD???

Posted by: Stefan on March 29, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

AM is exactly right. Hewitt did not say he was on the front line. How can Kevin and everyone else mischaracterize what he plainly said? What he said was not very persuasive, and not even very smart, but it was not a claim that he was on the front line of the war on terror. Doesn't basic and obvious accuracy and fairness mean anything around here.

Hewitt is very pro-Bush, but he also is a smart guy who conducts perhaps the best interviews of any conservative media person. He is always well prepared and asks meaningful questions. He also treats his guests with respect, as indicated by Ware's comments at the end of the interview:
"Thank you very much. It's been a great pleasure. Take care, Hugh"

In the Ware intereview and after, Hewitt raised at least three legitimate questions: (1) is it a good thing for a free press Western journalist to spend time with the enemy and report on the enemy; (2) since Ware expressed fear about labeling terrorist acts as evil, has he been compromised in his ability to tell the truth by his contacts with/fears of the terrorists; and (3) whether Ware had reported, as he claims he did, on a document stating that Zarqawa was in Baghdad before the war.

Sorry, but there are all intelligent and significant questions. I think the answers are probably yes, yes, and no.

Ware is an interesting guy, bright and apparently pretty courageous. However, if you listen to him, and particulary if you get to see him talking, he comes across as a person who embellishes the facts -- not really lying, but embellishing to support his view. I know that assessment is subjective, but watch him closely the next time he is one television.

Posted by: brian on March 29, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

I agree. Ware is very courageous. He deserves to be listened to.

Posted by: Toby Petzold on March 29, 2006 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, I'm wearing a prophylactic right now. Feel me?

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that was a hat.

Posted by: floopmeister on March 29, 2006 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

Petzold:

Perhaps you'll lay off the kool-aid long enough to recognize that when it comes to mistreating prisoners in our custody, the fish rots from the head down. Ask Don Rumsfeld or John Yoo.

Posted by: Wombat on March 29, 2006 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

Even if you don't like Bush or are critical of the way in which we have taken on the Islamofascists in the Middle East, you still have to be able to stand up sometimes and say to these Muslims that they should be more like yourselves: anti-Christian, anti-American, and anti-Bush.

Ooops...

You know what I mean! Give a cheer for freedom of choice.

(I know, I know: y'all don't always sound like Jew-hating mass murderers!)

Posted by: Toby Petzold on March 29, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

Wombat: you've got it all wrong.

A despicable act by a Muslim is indicative of the corruption of the whole society.

Hence one video of one person doing something (which none of us has seen, apparently) is a meaningful example of a general Muslim perfidy.

A despicable act by an American soldier is an example of a bad apple.

Hence:
Perhaps you'll explain why the actions of a few sadistic idiots guarding a prison a couple years ago is enough to vitiate the moral value in all other actions performed bravely and well by our military in Iraq.

Of course, I won't waste my time pointing this out to him.

Posted by: floopmeister on March 29, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

Why would Donald Rumsfeld have issued an order to our prison guards asking them to please film themselves forcing Iraqi prisoners to masturbate in front of others or siccing a dog on one of them?

That's just stupid.

Posted by: Toby Petzold on March 29, 2006 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

I strolled around the GUM department store in June of 1985. It wasn't so bad! Certainly no worse than some of the bottom-end department stores in downtown Cincinnati in the 1970s and 80s.

Posted by: edon on March 29, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, I wasn't thinking of the Car Swarm Person's faking his own death as being indicative of the Palestinian culture. They very much want to die in actuality so as to ascend to paradise and deflower virgins.

But if carrying exploded Palestinian corpses around or standing on the wreckage of destroyed vehicles were a job, there'd be zero unemployment in Gaza.

Posted by: Toby Petzold on March 29, 2006 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINK

Where did the orders to "soften up" prisoners come from? Do you deny that that Rumsfeld and Yoo, and the military discussed how to evade US law and the laws of war on how to treat prisoners?

As to the stupidity of some of the individuals at Abu Ghraib...well, you exist, don't you?

Posted by: Wombat on March 29, 2006 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINK

"Take the gloves off" D. Rumsfeld

"The Geneva Conventions are 'quaint'" Gonzales.

Do you want to argue that a policy of extreme interrogation, up to and including torture, was not a high level policy?

These soldiers were encouraged to be brutal, as a piolicy. It was a systemised decision to suspend the Geneva Conventions and the rights of POWs. What we saw on those photos was the natural result of an environment in which the normal rules of civilised behaviour had been suspended. If they were stupid enough to film themselves, that's beyond the point.

Now explain to me how one man faking something is indicative of systemic cultural/social corruption.

Posted by: floopmeister on March 29, 2006 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

They very much want to die in actuality so as to ascend to paradise and deflower virgins

The first suicide bomber in Beirut was an atheist member of the Lebanese Communists (can't remember the name of the group).

BTW, why do female suicide bombers want to do it, then?

Posted by: floopmeister on March 29, 2006 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Petzold, assuming he's not simply a troll, found time to grace us with this: Your answer, I would guess, is that helping Islamofascist murderers propagate anti-American propaganda is your life's work and your sole desire.

Why is that so many right-wing nutjobs are so quick to assume the worst about the motives of anyone questioning the competency and integrity of people like Hewitt? Do they find it that hard to defend their positions that they must immediately launch attacks? Or do they hate first and then develop political positions based simply out of their hatred of "liberals"? It often seems like the latter must be the case.

Posted by: Vanya on March 29, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

That wasn't even the most ridiculous part of the interview. His real, definitive, end all question, used in classic Hewitt parlance in an attempt to demonstrate the bias of the anti-Bush reporter he is interviewing, is "were the Soviets better off under Stalin than Kruschev?" What? What the hell does that prove? Nothing. Except that Hewitt could not compete with the knowledge, honesty, objectivity and credentials of the man he of course wants to discredit because he has written anti-administration stories. So he throws out a completely irrelevant question to try to make the guy look like a lib. What a fool.

And Brian, if Hewitt conducts the best interviews of any conservative media person, than they are farther gone than I have thought. Sure he is prepared. But he prepares in a way to try to discredit or promote the person he is interviewing, based on his perceptions of that persons politics.He is not "very pro-Bush" he is a complete unrelenting partisan. The sad thing is that he does seem like a smart guy. But the stupidity of his interviews with media members shows just how far he will go to promote the liberal media myth that he has become obsessed with.

Posted by: paulE on March 29, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

The whole Hewitt interview with Ware was grotesque. Hewitt simply insinuated relentlessly that Ware should not be reporting the stuff he reports on, even if it is true. Instead, Ware should be sitting in a briefing room stenoing down the US military's official version of the war. To do otherwise implies that the US military is "lying." Hey, Hugh! The US military pays people publish lies as news stories in Iraq! Remember?

And then Hewitt makes this demented remark about his existential discomfort in midtown Manhattan, apparently to establish that he is not completely out of his depth in discussing Iraq with someone like Ware. Truly pathetic.

Posted by: SqueakyRat on March 29, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if Hugh realizes that he has indirectly contradicted two primary Republican talking points: 1) that we are fighting them there so that we don't have to fight them here, and 2) Bush has made us safer.

Posted by: PaulB on March 29, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

Vanya wrote: "Mr. Petzold, assuming he's not simply a troll"

Of course he's a troll. His every post on this thread has confirmed this fact. Sheesh....

Posted by: PaulB on March 29, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Hewitt more than insinuated Ware should not be doing reporting of that type, Hewitt stated:

But I would prefer that you not report on the insurgents...
According to Hewitt, they're evil, and no contact is justified.

I wish Ware had asked him if Hewitt felt the same about any type of reporting involving contact with evil, such as drugs, slavery, child porn, etc. Heaven forbid anyone should offend Hewitt's, or the faith-based community's, delicate sensibilities with a glimpse of reality.

Posted by: has407 on March 29, 2006 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

"were the Soviets better off under Stalin than Kruschev?"

I don't even know what the "right" answer to that is supposed to be. Yes, because while Khrushchev wasn't perfect, he at least wasn't a paranoid mass murderer, and he emptied most of the gulags? No, because an incremental improvement in the leadership personality doesn't change the fact that the Russians were still living under godless Communism?

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 29, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

PaulE

I think you are correct that Hewitt often tries to promote or discredit a guest. But he does so in a respectful, informed manner, and he allows the person to have their say. He makes no bones about being a partisan, but is there a better partisan interviewer on either side? I would like to know who.

I think you just don't like Hewitt's politics and it is slanting your opinion of his interviews. The question about Stalin versus Kruschev was a logical and fair question. Ware had just said that he could not say whether Iraq was better off after the removal of Saddam. He claimed a lack of personal knowledge of the Saddam era, so Hewitt asked about another situation where he would not have had personal knowledge but presumably would have an opinion. I thought Ware was weak in responding that he did not have a clue about the Stalin/Kruschev comparison. I don't see a problem with the question. The job of conducting a good interview is hard. Most of the "neutral" network guys are not very good (largely because they do not listen to the answer and follow up). Hewitt is good, even if tactical and partisan.

Posted by: brian on March 29, 2006 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if Hugh realizes that he has indirectly contradicted two primary Republican talking points:

Excellent. Trolls, over to you.

Posted by: craigie on March 29, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, why do female suicide bombers want to do it, then?

No lesbians where you come from i guess.

Posted by: dennisboz on March 29, 2006 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

As for Hugh's broader question, look at it this way: if the Western media had pulled out of Moscow during the Cold War we would have spent several decades thinking that the GUM department store was a treasure trove of consumer goodies instead of the cheerless and barren place it really was.

And without Will Duranrty we might have spent the 1930s thinking that there had been a terror famine in the the Ukraine that killed millions.

In other words, of course it's a good idea to have someone providing us with a pro-Western view of what our enemies are doing -

Is it necessary to imbed with the enemies to determine what our enemies are doing? Murrow was in London, not in Berlin.

especially when enemy propaganda is already available 24/7 just by watching al-Jazeera or surfing the web or reading non-American newspapers.

Will a reporter who gets close to the baddies in Iraq be fed anything OTHER than propaganda? The guys with the IEDs and car bombs and leveled mosques would seem to have credibility issues.

Posted by: dennisboz on March 29, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

Murrow was in London, not in Berlin.

And the Nazis were bombing London, not Berlin, you nincompoop. Murrow was "on the ground" and "behind the lines". The point is to be standing with the civilians, where the bombs are falling, to report on what it feels like. Hugh Hewitt, on the other hand, is broadcasting his uninformed jingoistic propaganda from a comfortable studio thousands of miles from where the bombs are falling, like, say, Lord Haw-Haw.

Will a reporter who gets close to the baddies in Iraq be fed anything OTHER than propaganda?

Jessica Lynch. Pat Tillman. WMDs. Operation Swarmer, "the largest air assault since the beginning of the war".

Embedded reporters are only going to be fed propaganda. If you don't get that by now, you're an eedjut.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 29, 2006 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

I believe I saw Petzold kicking around Eschaton's comments about a year ago or so. I may be misremembering, but I seem to recall that he had his panties in a twist because some devious liberal was trolling him by posting naughty things under his name.

Posted by: Cyan on March 29, 2006 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, why do female suicide bombers want to do it, then?

Fellas. Must I explain everything? The FSBs are promised a heavenly hand with the laundry prior to the six hours of foreplay.

Posted by: shortstop on March 30, 2006 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

Fellas. Must I explain everything? The FSBs are promised a heavenly hand with the laundry prior to the six hours of foreplay.

What, no post-coital meaningful conversation?

;)

Posted by: floopmeister on March 30, 2006 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK

Heh! I KNEW someone was going to say that! But I personally prefer to go without it. Meaningless conversation is fine.

Posted by: shortstop on March 30, 2006 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

Heh! I KNEW someone was going to say that!

Nah, you didn't really. Be honest - you were expecting us to roll over and go to sleep rather than say anything, weren't you.

Posted by: floopmeister on March 30, 2006 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

Bwa! Hand me a towel so I can wipe the seltzer off the monitor.

Posted by: shortstop on March 30, 2006 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK


Hewitt did not say he was on the front line.

He said it could be the front line. Ware was pointing out the realities of living in a war zone, Hewitt defended himself by claiming that this was the war zone 4.5 years back. Pathetic and stupid.


(2) since Ware expressed fear about labeling terrorist acts as evil, has he been compromised in his ability to tell the truth by his contacts with/fears of the terrorists;

Here is what Ware said

"Well, I certainly...I mean, one has to be careful that as the Islamic army of Iraq reminded just last week on Al Jazeera, the insurgent groups study very closely everything that we hear, say and write. And given that we're within their grasp, one always must be diplomatic. Suffice to say, it's very hard to relate to the goals or tactics that the hard-line Islamists employ."

He all but agreed. Hewitt is full of shit to suggest otherwise, and he must know (unless a total moron, which is possible) that Ware would risk his life by answering.

Read Thomas Friedman's description of reporting in Beirut in the early 1980s. This is par for the course in any war zone.


and (3) whether Ware had reported, as he claims he did, on a document stating that Zarqawa was in Baghdad before the war

Ware
"No. I did uncover some documents, however, that referred to his presence, here in some form. Now it seemed to be covert and unofficial, and one can only guess. However, I did receive a document written by one of his right hand men, a man who was killed in 2004 by a U.S. JDAM in his vehicle, who wrote an after action report of the first battle of Fallujah, in the course of which he said well, you know, Abu bil-Bloggs (phonetic spelling) was killed at this point. You know Abu bil-Bloggs. He was the one who saw Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war."

Ware clearly did not attach much importance to this document (not surprising at all, given hos doubtful the provenance seems to be someone mentioning a third party who saw Zarqawi). He says he published it, but its possible he might not have remembered or it got edited out. Or it might be there. Someone would have to search Nexis. The provenance is very doubtful, certainly. I would not consider it worth reporting unless I had more some other confirmation. And even if all true, Ware seemed to think it was an undercover visit.

Hewitt of course refers to it as a very significant find (it is an indication of how weak your case is if you find such a threadbare story to be significant. Hewitt completely neglects Ware's much longer and definitive comment on Iraq's WMDs. Why is that not 'very significant"?

Posted by: erg on March 30, 2006 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK


I thought Ware was weak in responding that he did not have a clue about the Stalin/Kruschev comparison

Possibly. On the other hand, if he had been partisan, he would have replied -- so you think the US occupation is similar to khruschev in Russia ?

Posted by: erg on March 30, 2006 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

Poor Kevin Drum.

Jealous that Hugh Hewitt has a new book out, jealous that Hugh Hewitt has more influence, jealous that Hugh Hewitt is an accomplished laywer.

Awwwww, poor widdle Kevie!

Posted by: FrequencyKenneth on March 30, 2006 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK

ummm... didn't this cretin publish a domenech-edited book this week, Painting the Map Red...

shouldn't this thing carry a disclaimer?

Posted by: ankh on March 30, 2006 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

Bwa! Hand me a towel so I can wipe the seltzer off the monitor.

Snore...

Posted by: floopmeister on March 30, 2006 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

erg,

Thanks for the respectful response. I don't know that Ware is partisan as much as he appears to have a large ego and a strong view that the war was a bad idea.

I do think his fear of declaring terrorism evil does show that he is at least constrained, if not compromised, in telling the truth about the terrorists.

On the document issue, he actually started by refering to "documents" and then described one in terms that I thought indicated he thought it was genuine -- an "after action report" "written by his right hand man." The "documents" reference might reflect what I said before about his tendancy to embellish, or it could be a simple slip of the tongue or an indication there are other documents and he just described one. In any event, I think it is pretty significant that Ware has a document reflecting Zarqawa was in Baghdad prior to the war, and that seems like big enough news that it should have been published.

Overall, I think reporters are overrated in their skill at presenting an objective, accurate report. There is so much opinion these days in what should be factual reports. Read any NYT story about the war, or about politics, and you will see it -- I think opinionated fact reporting lets the bias in even more.

I realize a reporter's job is very hard, particularly in Iraq, but I think over the years reporters have glorified themselves when often there work is at least sloppy or superficial, if not biased.

Posted by: brian on March 30, 2006 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK

***HUGH HEWITT's RESUME:

BA from Harvard, law degree from Michigan. Assistant to President Nixon at San Clemente. Hosted a PBS show for 10 years, winning 3 Emmys. Law Professor at Chapman University. Radio show heard on 70 stations. Author of 5 books. Influential blogger.

***KEVIN DRUM's RESUME:

Former writer for Washington Monthly. Blogs 3 hours a day. Plays tennis several times a week. Takes pictures of his cat. Lives off his wife's salary. Classic under-achiever.

Posted by: BigRiver on March 30, 2006 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK

Assistant to President Nixon at San Clemente.

Isn't that the kind of thing you try to keep off your resume?

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 30, 2006 at 1:42 AM | PERMALINK

you had me at ``fatuous.''

Posted by: secularhuman on March 30, 2006 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK


In any event, I think it is pretty significant that Ware has a document reflecting Zarqawa was in Baghdad prior to the war, and that seems like big enough news that it should have been published

Given its doubtful provenance, I don't know if I would have published it without some verification. We have person X writing that person Y met Z in Baghdad before the war. I can't comment on how solid the paper backup is, but it seems to me to be weak. And again, I don't know why it would be a big deal, we already have some rumors and reports that Z was in Iraq, and possibly had a leg amputated in Baghdad. This just adds another rumor. Maybe I would have included it if i was profiling Zarqawi, but as a stand alone item, its not worth a news item.

How come Hewitt thinks thats very significant and doesnt think Ware's detailed comments about WMD are not ? That seems to be far more significant.

Posted by: erG on March 30, 2006 at 1:45 AM | PERMALINK

Shit, I'd love to live off my wife's salary, if she wasn't living off mine.

Posted by: BigFrequencyMountainBarkAllthesameloser on March 30, 2006 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

erg,

You keep on referencing "doubtful provenance." I don't see anything in Ware's description that casts doubt on the document. Some of your arguments are legitimate to perhaps question the information in the document as hearsay from a dead guy, that would not preclude reporting on it (with whatever qualifications might be appropriate).

I did not see anything in his WMD comments that was new. But Hewitt is a partisan, and he picks out what he likes.

The question is whether Time's Chief Correspondent in Baghdad having a document reflecting Zarqawa'a presence in Baghdad prior to the war is a significant piece of information. I think it clearly is. And if he has not reported it previously, then Hewitt broke some news in the interview and it seems like Ware has some explaining to do about why he did not report on the document.

Posted by: brian on March 30, 2006 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

Anytime that moron is outside of Orangutang County, he's probably peeing his pants because he's surround by People Not Like Him. (Actually, I have to stop calling that Republican cesspool by that nickname, it's an insult to an animal much more intelligent than 98% of the Republican clones wholive there)

Posted by: TCinLA on March 30, 2006 at 3:15 AM | PERMALINK

I believe I saw Petzold kicking around Eschaton's comments about a year ago or so. I may be misremembering, but I seem to recall that he had his panties in a twist because some devious liberal was trolling him by posting naughty things under his name.
Posted by: Cyan on March 29, 2006 at 11:57 PM

You are not the only one that remembers that particular member of the Trolletariat from Atrios back then. He seemed to be about the equivalent of Charlie/"Chuckles" at this blog in both tone and content.

As for HH, anyone that thinks being in a building in a city in America has any risk equivalence to those fighting in uniform or even those operating within a war zone at all is delusional, period. He is at risk of falling down the stairs and breaking his neck, he is at risk of tripping over his feet and falling onto the floor to break his neck, the elevator cable could break plunging him to his death. All of those are at least as likely if not more so than his being in a building in NYC at just the right time for a successful terrorist attack able to cause serious death/destruction to that building. This is just totally asinine, self serving, self aggrandizing and playing big macho man while trying to discredit someone that actually does place his life on the line to do his job. All it shows is HH's insecurities and inadequacies and his recognition of them and how the contrast with this guest particularly highlighted them. Not to mention his shtick of being so gung ho about having death done in his name but far less so in either doing it for himself or being in a position where he is at significant risk (significant here would be say 20% or one in five chances of serious harm and say one in 5 of death) Ware certainly fits that when HH clearly does not.

Kevin calls this one exactly right, and it is curious to note how the Trolletariat came out in force to discredit this reality just as they have for a time discredited so many other realities, although that finally appears to be coming to an end and the truth as it always does eventually wins out. Poor HH will end up going down in history, if he does at all that is, as one of the better examples of early online/blogging propagandist and dupe for a criminal regime that tortured and murdered freely with his blessings and cheerleading. Deep down he probably knows that although I rather doubt he is consciously aware of it, but that would also explain his vast insecurities and need to diminish those that really do risk for the facts and first hand confirmation of what is reported from a war zone instead of simply sitting back and trusting what the government tells him as HH clearly does.

Sucks to be him in the long run. One can kill the truth for a time but it always comes back to haunt one in the end. The amount of truth he has murdered will makes his particular haunting exceptionally painful when it arrives I daresay.

Posted by: Scotian on March 30, 2006 at 5:32 AM | PERMALINK

The Petzold troll:

[liberals] are too busy hating Bush and being anti-American rectal probes.
...
helping Islamofascist murderers propagate anti-American propaganda is your life's work and your sole desire
...
you still have to be able to stand up sometimes and say to these Muslims that they should be more like yourselves: anti-Christian, anti-American, and anti-Bush
...
y'all don't always sound like Jew-hating mass murderers!

I really do love this act. But it's taking a bit longer than usual to get to the "you mindless lefties lower the level of discourse" post.

C'mon slacker, get to it. We don't have all day.

Posted by: R.Porrofatto on March 30, 2006 at 7:51 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop
Just so you know, we're not all pigs like floopmeister. Some of us are not so rude as to roll over and go to sleep just to avoid conversation. I, for one, go to the kitchen for snacks.

By the way. As a native New Yorker I'd like to thank Hughie for saying that living here is like being on the front lines. This is a great improvement over the usual attitude from Hughie's Heartlanders that New York is behind enemy lines, or simply, the enemy.

Posted by: R.Porrofatto on March 30, 2006 at 7:55 AM | PERMALINK

Hewitt, like all his war-mongering draft-dodger, (yet, patriotic, pro-defense gun lovers), of course he believes he is in danger. How else can such contemptible. . .men (I'm being exceedingly generous here)claim to be old-fashioned, American patriots? From my CIC, Bush, to Cheney, to most GOP members of the Senate, House, pseudo-intelligensia, conserva-pundits (Brit Hume, Al Gore's St. Alban's classmate is a draft-dodging patriot, but Gore, a Vietnam vet--remeberHume defenders, Gore wore the uniform and was ordered to'Nam, a HUGE difference from obtaining deferments--a a liberal pinko, liberal)on down, military service ais a rarity among these lovers of "muscular " foreign policy and premption.

Posted by: tec619 on March 30, 2006 at 7:57 AM | PERMALINK

Every frightwinger who posts comments on a blog imagines themselves to be fighting the war on terror. That's the excuse the cowards use when asked about their plans for enlistment

Posted by: gus on March 30, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

R. Porrofatto: Just so you know, we're not all pigs like floopmeister. Some of us are not so rude as to roll over and go to sleep just to avoid conversation. I, for one, go to the kitchen for snacks.

Heh. Bring me some Oreos. I swear to God, I don't want to talk. I just want cookies. And the best pillow.

Posted by: shortstop on March 30, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

"especially when enemy propaganda is already available 24/7 just by watching al-Jazeera or surfing the web or reading non-American newspapers"

As a Canadian living in Mexico I am totaly scared now as I read non-American newspaper full of enemy propanganda. Does that make me one of the enemies?

Lucito

Posted by: JLP on March 30, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

Murrow was in London, not in Berlin.
And the Nazis were bombing London, not Berlin, you nincompoop. Murrow was "on the ground" and "behind the lines". The point is to be standing with the civilians, where the bombs are falling, to report on what it feels like. Hugh Hewitt, on the other hand, is broadcasting his uninformed jingoistic propaganda from a comfortable studio thousands of miles from where the bombs are falling, like, say, Lord Haw-Haw.

Murrow was behind the allied lines, not behind the German lines. Murrow did not go and hang out at the airfields in France to try and get the other side of the story of the Blitz. That seems to be comparable to what Ware has been doing. Ware could report on what the insurgents/badguys/whateverthehelltheyare are doing without ever hanging hooking up with them.
Will a reporter who gets close to the baddies in Iraq be fed anything OTHER than propaganda?
Jessica Lynch. Pat Tillman. WMDs. Operation Swarmer, "the largest air assault since the beginning of the war".
Embedded reporters are only going to be fed propaganda. If you don't get that by now, you're an eedjut.

Reporters will be fed propaganda. To suggest that it is ONLY propaganda is false. But I think it safe to say that our side has a far higher truth/bullshit ratio than the other side does. The downside of using propaganda on our side is much higher since the survivability of bullshit is much lower as you own examples show.

Posted by: dennis Boz on March 30, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

I work in 30 Rockefeller Plaza; since it was already attacked(by anthrax), can I get combat pay?

Posted by: Phil on March 30, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

That poor, poor Hughie - What if King Kong descends?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 30, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, while Murrow was reporting from London during the Battle of Britain, William Shirer was reporting from Berlin (definitely behind "enemy" lines, although the US was neutral at the time). Murrow was in more physical danger than Shirer.

Posted by: Wombat on March 30, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

Not to nitpick but I thought the GUM department store was the one potemkin consumer showplace in the USSR back in the old days. If I'm right that's a bad example. And probably the only place the CIA and the neocons visited to see how average Soviet citizens were fairing.

Posted by: Mark Garrity on March 30, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Shirer had to trim his reportage in order to remain in Germany, but only a moron would call him a pro-Nazi because of that.

Posted by: Wombat on March 30, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Hewitt could report from South Dakota. Religious extremists would never strike there - professional courtesy ya know.

Posted by: ckelly on March 30, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

Hewitt could report from South Dakota. Religious extremists would never strike there - professional courtesy ya know.

ckelly has been especially funny lately!

Posted by: shortstop on March 30, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

he comes across as a person who embellishes the facts -- not really lying, but embellishing to support his view. I know that assessment is subjective...

Brian can "see it" in Ware's eyes.

Posted by: ckelly on March 30, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

The thing that got me, after reading a few of his previous "gotcha" interviews, was how blindingly obvious his maneouvering is. You could see him setting up the "supporting the enemy" line about five exchanges ahead of time; obviously imagining himself to be a grandmaster of craftiness as he lures his prey into the trap.

Only problem was that Ware, knowingly or not, treated it as a straight-up interview and simply by telling the truth walked straight through through HH's devious snares.

"Curses, foiled again..."
(No, I doubt that he said that- I'm sure he ran back to the adulation of his wing-nut fans, who are undoubtedly falling over themselves with glee) .

Posted by: MikeN on March 30, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

Funny thing is that those of us who actually live in the shadow of 9/11 and the threat (however real) of further attacks go on with our lives and vote blue, while those who are in no real danger have the bejesus scared out of them and reliably vote red, as if they were being protected from something. Hopefully, HH was wearing sneakers and carrying a flashlight with his parachute, cipro, gas mask and masking tape at the ready.

Posted by: Artie on March 30, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

The empire state building was hit by a plane in the fourties or fifties. It didn't fall. I think he should feel safe there.

Posted by: Chris on March 30, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry I didn't see this thread sooner. No time to read the whole thing. But I will say that, as I drive down to Wash DC on business and overtop the last mountain on I-70 heading south for Frederick, I genuinely think...

"Gosh, I sure hope the blinding white flash doesn't come today."

I give it, or something similarly heinous, about a 20-30% chance of happening in a major city in the near future. Still, sitting in the Empire State Bldg sipping cappuchino is not equivalent to prowling the mean streets of Baghdad.

Posted by: Red State Mike on March 30, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry I didn't see this thread sooner. No time to read the whole thing. But I will say that, as I drive down to Wash DC on business and overtop the last mountain on I-70 heading south for Frederick, I genuinely think...

"Gosh, I sure hope the blinding white flash doesn't come today."

I give it, or something similarly heinous, about a 20-30% chance of happening in a major city in the near future. Still, sitting in the Empire State Bldg sipping cappuchino is not equivalent to prowling the mean streets of Baghdad.

Posted by: Red State Mike on March 30, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

The next terrorist attack in the US will be by an American veteran who served in the illegal Iraq invasion and occupation.

Al Jazeera is no more a propaganda entity than CNN.

Hugh Hewitt and Red State Mike are yellow bellied cowards, unable to discern their own aggression from fear of retaliation.

Posted by: Hostile on March 30, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Another over the top Hostile post - Yes, Hughie is a coward - RSM, who I disagree with often, is not.

Yes, the cowardly Hughie is a typical Chicken Hawk, Chris - However, there is a huge difference between a very large AirBus or Boeing hitting the Empire than the 10 ton B-25 which struck the 79th floor back in 1945 - The building survived, although 14 people did not. Several survivors were severly burned from the burning fuel.

Don't think "terrorists" are looking for left over B-25s from the making of Catch 22.

But, Hughie and his buddy Bill O'Reilly, who has walked down some "mean streets", he whines, are afraid of their own shadows.

But, remember, Hughie, Bill and that talk show host from New York who constantly shows up on FAUX, never served, but are in the front lines here fighting those dreaded twin evils, "Liberalism" and "Secularism".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 30, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, while Murrow was reporting from London during the Battle of Britain, William Shirer was reporting from Berlin (definitely behind "enemy" lines, although the US was neutral at the time). Murrow was in more physical danger than Shirer.

Excellent point. My specific example doen't really work since we weren't at war with Germany during the Blitz. Were there any American reporters working behind enemy lines after 12/7/41?

Posted by: dennis Boz on March 30, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

dennis Boz,

I would refer you to the last AP wire from Berlin in December 41 - It was sent by a German AP staffer, Rudolph Josten - the wire said "American journalists do not exist for you."

Joe Morton of the AP went into Slovakia with commandoes - He was captured and executed at Mauthausen along with several soldiers and officers.

Like to hear from the spirit of Mark Kellogg - the AP reporter who rode into the valley floor at Little Big Horn with George Custer - He and the others did not ride out.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 30, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

There is a article over at Huffpo about the Saudis' secret nuclear program. Is there going to be a confrontation or are the Saudis not enough of a threat to the flow of capital?

Posted by: bblog on March 30, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

How could reporting on the enemy be considered controversial? You can't effectively fight something you don't understand. You've got to be a real bubble-boy to think it's bad to tell us what they're up to or what they're saying. It's goes without saying the reporter won't be able to give the full story, just like an embedded reporter won't give out the exact longitude, latitude, TO&E & OOB of the US unit he is reporting on.

Posted by: American Citizen on March 30, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

How could reporting on the enemy be considered controversial? You can't effectively fight something you don't understand.

Both sides in that relationship want something. The jihadis want to get out their propaganda, the reporters wants...not sure. Fame? Truth? Affect events?

The jihadis will attempt to control the message and spin it their way. And they'll do it far more aggressively than any Repub or dem spin doctor, using threats of violence. We depend on the reporter to filter that out and report the truth behind it anyway.

But there's been enough counter examples to suggest that reporters are influenced by the bad guys. See CNN's withholding stories in Iraq. Ergo the distrust. In short, our enemies control reporter access at a level our government never could, and anything the reporters report on is stuff the enemy wants us to have (which is a stronger statement than "willing to let us have".) What WE want to know is the stuff they don't want to tell us.

Posted by: Red State Mike on March 30, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Rumdumb has brought "freedom" to the Kurds - It allows Barzani to use that "freedom" to imprison Qadir, the journalist, for 18 months for reporting unfair, to Barzani's limited mind, news.

Now, if only Rumdumb can bring that same "freedom" to America to muzzle Maureen Dowd.

Freedom is on the march.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 30, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

The Term: Global War on Terror, reaches for concepts wholly mired in the abstract. At times I have come to see the term as a euphemism for a new age manifest destiny for Uncle Sam as defined by the boomers.

However, more often, I hear more ominous ideas in those syllables, such as, 21st century crusade, or contemporary holy war, which seem more accurate. Maybe they fit better because they illustrate our Presidents instinctively honest assessment. His gut description, his knee jerk reaction to the tragedy as it was unfolding.

Alarmed, I hear the casual and offhanded nature with which, War on Terror, rolls off our leaders tongs. I see it printed elegantly in the nations papers, and periodicals. I read as it gets hammered out on keyboards and echoes through blogosphere.

We all see and hear these words over and over and over, until we actually start to think we know what the hell they actually mean, but we dont, nobody does. We know they have violent overtones, at times offer a sense of control. In our denial, some fleeting sense of security, but at the end of the day, there is no doubt these are just figments of our collective imagination.

I try to think of how we got to this place, where so many smart people really havent the foggiest idea what the policy being implemented even means, or what it could possibly yield, so to me our seemingly endless reaction defines the front line of the War on Terrorism.

Posted by: Glenn on March 30, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

The Term: Global War on Terror, reaches for concepts wholly mired in the abstract. At times I have come to see the term as a euphemism for a new age manifest destiny for Uncle Sam as defined by the boomers.

However, more often, I hear more ominous ideas in those syllables, such as, 21st century crusade, or contemporary holy war, which seem more accurate. Maybe they fit better because they illustrate our Presidents instinctively honest assessment. His gut description, his knee jerk reaction to the tragedy as it was unfolding.

Alarmed, I hear the casual and offhanded nature with which, War on Terror, rolls off our leaders tongs. I see it printed elegantly in the nations papers, and periodicals. I read as it gets hammered out on keyboards and echoes through blogosphere.

We all see and hear these words over and over and over, until we actually start to think we know what the hell they actually mean, but we dont, nobody does. We know they have violent overtones, at times offer a sense of control. In our denial, some fleeting sense of security, but at the end of the day, there is no doubt these are just figments of our collective imagination.

I try to think of how we got to this place, where so many smart people really havent the foggiest idea what the policy being implemented even means, or what it could possibly yield, so to me our seemingly endless reaction defines the front line of the War on Terrorism.

Posted by: glenn on March 30, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

I am relieved that Hugh is around to defend me.

Posted by: NYC resident on March 30, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: You work pretty hard, and your blog has been of value. I'm glad that you enjoy your work and are getting compensated.

So I think it's fair to ask you to clarify your 'enemy propaganda' remarks, which I hope were an unfortunate shorthand. The number of regular, respectable commenters who objected (both to the 'enemy' and the 'propaganda' parts) calls for some response.

Posted by: Nell on March 30, 2006 at 9:25 PM | 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