The New Jesus Does Radio

Specifically, the Hugh Hewitt show. Andrew has concerns:

If I were eager to maintain a semblance of military independence from the agenda of extremist, Republican partisans, I wouldn't go on the Hugh Hewitt show, would you? And yet Petraeus has done just that. I think such a decision to cater to one party's propaganda outlet renders Petraeus' military independence moot. I'll wait for the transcript. But Petraeus is either willing to be used by the Republican propaganda machine or he is part of the Republican propaganda machine. I'm beginning to suspect the latter.

"Wait for the transcript" seems like the right thing to say. I've done the Hugh Hewitt show. It was a mistake. People shouldn't go on his show. But not everyone realizes that. At any rate, the transcript's up now and it's a mixed bag. Petraeus keeps resisting Hewitt's efforts to get him to say something like "this is just one front in the endless struggle against Iran-directed Islamofascism." At the same time, Petraeus seems unfazed by the fact that the core base of political support for an open-ended military commitment to Iraq is composed of lunatics like Hewitt. Hewitt's asking the questions so, naturally, the political situation in Iraq doesn't get brought up.

But it's precisely the dynamics of Iraqi politics that doom our mission there. It's nice that we've trained effective commando units, but on some level so what?

Comments

So wait, now the "endless struggle against Islamofascism is Iran-directed. When did this happen? When did Iran become the epicenter of it all? If Iran has been the "director" of all the "Islamofascism", why didn't we go to war with them instead of Iraq?

As for Petraeus, this makes me sad. If he is what Andrew thinks he is, then it's no surprise Republicans keep saying "wait for his report".

Posted by Joshua | July 19, 2007 8:57 AM

I think it looks better to write it as "Islam-o-fascism."

I am concerned about Gen. Petraeus. He's phenomenally talented, and if he'd been in charge from the beginning things might look different today. But now he's the hand-picked guy to do the Surge. He's a household name on that basis. And the president and the bitter-enders like Krauthammer are all, "we will do what the Great General tells us to do." I worry that Petraeus's personal interest in this policy could color his judgment-- and going on deranged GOP Pravda shows like HH does not alleviate my concern.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 19, 2007 10:02 AM

To phrase it slightly differently: rather than "lunatics like Hewitt," I would phrase it as "liars like Hewitt." The reason we are still in Iraq is the same reason we went there originally: lies. The Cheney regime lied to get us there, and we are still there only because enough Americans have been fooled by "respectable" liars like Hewitt to think that there is still a decent chance of one of our original missions (democratizaion) succeeding - which there isn't. To go on Hewitt's show amounts to a blatant admission by Petreaus (or whoever ordered him to go on the show) that part of his job is to be a propagandist for the war - i.e., to lie to the American people about how badly the war is going. Military leaders should report honestly on the progress of wars they are engaged in, so that the people, through their representatives in Congress, can have the ability to make informed decisions about the future course of these wars.

Posted by Doug Latto | July 19, 2007 10:14 AM

It was at least nice to see Petraeus reminding Hewitt that the Iranian government is an enemy of al-Qaeda, not its ally. Hewitt then immediately shifts his line of questioning to "the enemy in Iraq" (i.e. Muqtada al Sadr) without noting the shift. I guess he went into damage control mode right about then.

Posted by JP | July 19, 2007 10:20 AM

Oh geez. Glenn Greenwald, armed only with Lexis Nexis and indefatigability, takes a look at Petraeus's record of public statements. Not so great.

Democracy, religion, America, the military-- is there anything else this administration cares to try to discredit?

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 19, 2007 10:57 AM

I've done the Hugh Hewitt show. It was a mistake.

Why? Please say more.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | July 19, 2007 11:14 AM

Matt went on the Hugh Hewitt show? He's either willing to be used by the Republican propaganda machine or he is part of the Republican propaganda machine. I'm beginning to suspect the latter.

Posted by Algernon | July 19, 2007 11:17 AM

"he is part of the Republican propaganda machine", which is why he was chosen for the duty in Iraq.

He is ignoring the principles on counter-insurgency that he help establish, in return for the posting as supreme commander in Iraq. And for the rewards of the lecture circuit after his service career.

I won't knock a guy for looking to make a buck, but I'll sure slap him around for repudiating his own policy recommendations to get a high profile postings. His troops should not pay the price for his ambition.

Posted by zak822 | July 19, 2007 12:25 PM

wow, a cached version of hugh's show indicates that MY was a "weekly guest" on HH's show. that seems...uncomfortable.

Posted by jake | July 19, 2007 12:36 PM

"website", not "show".

Posted by jake | July 19, 2007 12:37 PM

I don't think it lasted for many weeks.

And, Algernon, clearly at that point Matt was willing to be used by the GOP propaganda machine. But only because at that point he thought he could subvert it.

Posted by neil | July 19, 2007 1:44 PM

Has Gen. Petraeus turned down any offers to appear on 'progressive' media outlets? Has he been invited?

This continuing attempt by 'progressives' to politicize military officers and diplomats is dangerous.

Posted by Fred | July 19, 2007 1:47 PM

The relentlessness of the Republican apologists is remarkable.

Posted by mpowell | July 19, 2007 1:55 PM

To career military officers "defeat" is clearly defined: When your losses in men and material reach such a level that you can no longer sustain the assault necessary to attain your objective.
In Iraq "acceptable losses" are occuring, in military math. Operational effectiveness is still high, tactical objectives are being set and met. Since we aren't being defeated we aren't losing.
If their objective is to improve security they can do that. If it's to train the Iraqi army they can do that. If it's to roll up a body count of AQI insurgents they can do that. Those are the objectives they've been given.
If the objective is to create a stable and unified nation and stop ethnic hatred and violence, they can't do that. That's neither within their capabilitites nor in their job description.
Quitting while you're not losing goes against everthing the military represents. There's always another strategy or new tactics to try. We know they can't win this war, they know they can't be defeated. So we have to stop it.

Posted by Roger Tompkins | July 19, 2007 4:24 PM

Let me see...........Do you have a show? LOL Another lunatic.

Posted by Art | July 20, 2007 11:18 AM

So, did Petraeus turn down an interview with the Atlantic? Maybe Andrew should put in a request, because the General seems willing to talk to almost anybody.

In just the last few weeks, a first pass page or two turns up interviews for WBZ Boston, Fox News Sunday, CNN, the BBC, Times Online, Christian Science Monitor, USA Today, CBS Evening News -- shoot, Spencer Ackerman posting over at TPMMuckraker says he's interviewed Petraeus twice -- and the General himself gave what looked like the entire MSM press corps a personally guided tour of Iraq in June. Brian Williams got the first official interview when Petraeus' took command, and he started the rounds with Charlie Rose, Jim Lehrer and NPR. If he's only just now getting to Hugh Hewitt, the poor guy must have been pretty low on the list.

Andrew casts himself a Brahmin to the Untouchable Hugh Hewitt, whose very shadow is infectious and must be swept away. The real play, of course, looks like an increasingly desperate attempt to discredit Petraeus before September. The idea that there are reporters -- or constituencies -- that you simply must not speak to, however, is fundamentally dangerous. The left should worry about that, not promote it.

Posted by JM Hanes | July 20, 2007 4:43 PM

Thank you JM Hanes. Petraeus is obviously making the rounds, talking to anyone who will listen. Sullivan (typical for him) and now unfortunately Yglesias are not engaging the substance of the general's message. Instead they're attacking his credibility through stupid and dangerous smears ("I saw him talking to Hewitt -- Shun him!"). Maybe Petraeus is wrong and misguided. If you think so, challenge his points.

Posted by ERF | July 21, 2007 3:33 AM

No doubt it was a mistake for the host of this blog to do the Hugh Hewitt show because he was over matched.

I've listened to Hugh for a few years now and he's tough on guests. they have to be ready. Hugh's an attorney and his interviews are more like cross examininations that the usual soft ball throwing that Mr Greenwald is used to.

I'm sure that the General would gladly appear on a liberal talk radio show. It's just that, well, those are kinda hard to find these day.

This is just the same old sour grapes by the same old nasty lefties. You guys are just stuck in denial and anger and it is not longer amusing our helpful.

Grow up.

Posted by skip | July 21, 2007 8:12 AM

I'm old enough to remember when The Atlantic was a revered publication, had famous authors contributing and set the "fog index" standard for sentence content.
It troubles me to see it pandering to ANY movement, but especially the War in Iraq.
This is not an ordinary conflict and will be won by SOF in the shadows as well as regulars in the sun,
The author has obviously not lived very long in the real world to attack something that may or may not succeed with such venomous certainty before it occurs.
But who needs facts? The public does and that's why it's important Gen. Petraeus gets his message before the public. He is certainly not on YOUR agenda for fair treatment.
Tom Kubitz
Freeport, IL

Posted by Tom Kubitz | July 21, 2007 3:04 PM

Hugh Hewitt is one of the best interviewers in the country. He prepares himself beforehand and he challenges incomplete, less than honest, and diversionary responses. And he does so with great equanimity, almost chuckling with delight while he pursues his prey. And unlike Yglesias and Sullivan, he is welcoming of political adversaries.

Posted by Michael Major | July 22, 2007 7:55 AM

The ignorance displayed by Iglesias and Sullivan is staggering. If you want to criticize Patraeus' interview how about actually reading the interview and offering something tangible about the contents?

Condemning Patraeus' character because he gave an interview to Hewitt says nothing about Patraeus but it does provide insight into the dark character of Iglesias and Sullivan, and their inability to do any deep thinking. If there was ever a reason to ignore them both, this is it.

Posted by Peter Boston | July 23, 2007 3:32 PM

I heard you on the Hugh Hewitt show. It was a mistake only because you were so intellectually and factually over-matched that I was genuinely embarrassed for you.

Also, it is not a wise idea to use Jesus' name in a careless and propagandistic way. Even if you don't believe He exists, there are many who do. Your use of His name is patently offensive.

Liberals are so narcisstic and self-congratulatory that your antics are obvious and silly.

Please think before writing - John

Posted by John Simon | July 24, 2007 1:47 PM