Matthew Yglesias (August 10, 2007) - The Krauthammer Go-Round (Media)

It's Marty's fault. Now he has to rip what he has sown. Look forward, though, to a Jamie Kirchick Plank post endorsing SourKraut.

Posted by Farty Meretz | August 10, 2007 9:16 AM

Meant "reap"

Posted by Farty Meretz | August 10, 2007 9:18 AM

Heh, something about sowing the wind comes to mind...

Posted by TW Andrews | August 10, 2007 9:30 AM

Mostly I've thought, "Hoisted by their own petard. Ha!" But Krauthammer's too fucking evil.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 10, 2007 9:31 AM

"Normatively repugnant views"?

Define normative. And then defend it.

Posted by David Shaw | August 10, 2007 9:32 AM

Oh, come on. I haven't read anything so (unintentionally) COMICAL in ages!

The very picture of Charles Krauthammer ,of ALL people, criticizing Beauchamp by solemnly intoning "The only thing we learn from Scott Thomas Beauchamp is what literary ambition can make men say."

ha ha ha ha Oh, STOP!! My ribs are hurting. ha ha ha ah

Posted by Don Williams | August 10, 2007 9:39 AM

It's instructive, as usual, to see a political dalliance with thugs taking the usual course. See 'Red Harvest'. And, no, the lesson that one should draw is not 'we should get some thugs of our own.'

Posted by MattF | August 10, 2007 9:54 AM

this ferociously pro-war magazine

It's really like Matthew thinks that if he says this often enough, it might become true.

This is why you've got to love the Reality-Based Community - their complete divorce from... reality.

Posted by Al | August 10, 2007 10:03 AM

I meant "reap"

I think it works better in the original.

Posted by LittlePig | August 10, 2007 10:04 AM

Also, Krauthammer is a Contributing Editor, not a Senior Editor. Sloppy, sloppy.

Posted by Al | August 10, 2007 10:06 AM

This is why you've got to love the Reality-Based Community - their complete divorce from... reality.

Posted by Al

Yeah, Al, if you define reality as being the choice between nuking Iraq or only using conventional weapons to destroy it. That's a pretty "unrealistic" definition of reality, only applicable to the Very Serious Foreign Policy set.

Posted by LittlePig | August 10, 2007 10:07 AM

Your first paragraph/sentence is a horrendous bit of prose. I had to read it more than once to untangle all the subordinate clauses.

Posted by Walker | August 10, 2007 10:08 AM

Al's absolutely correct. TNR may have initially been supportive of the Iraq war, but they have been in back-pedal mode for some time now. I guess the poor little dimwit, Matt, is still unhappy about TNR's rejection of him and his questionable "services."

Posted by For Frank | August 10, 2007 10:12 AM

I'm surprised Krauthammer can get up from, uh, worshiping the mighty Decider long enough to write anything. What a disgusting waste of protoplasm.

Posted by I [Heart] Shrubya | August 10, 2007 10:14 AM

I find sickening Al's name, and spit and move on. Scummy troll.

Posted by Jennifer | August 10, 2007 10:21 AM

Well, gee, if TNR is just so determinedly anti-war, it should be easy to find all of those articles and statements that demonstrate this, right?

What's most hilarious, though, is Al pretending that he has any connection to reality, since his hallmark for years has been such a complete disconnection that he has troll followers all over the place mocking him.

Posted by PaulB | August 10, 2007 10:23 AM

I meant "reap"

I think it works better in the original.

Posted by LittlePig

Rip what has been Sewn?

.

Posted by agave | August 10, 2007 10:29 AM

It gives a good idea of where Matt is coming from when he calls TNR "ferociously pro-war," and now leads me to simply laugh at his sob story yesterday (and that of Glenn Greenwald) about how the foreign policy establishment won't take them (and those like them) seriously.

TNR would be better labeled as "cautiously" or "moderately" pro-war.

Posted by Dan | August 10, 2007 10:30 AM

Your first paragraph/sentence is a horrendous bit of prose. I had to read it more than once to untangle all the subordinate clauses.

Posted by Walker

By the time I got to 'of' I was lost. Had read it more than twice.

.

Posted by agave | August 10, 2007 10:31 AM

"and now leads me to simply laugh at his sob story yesterday (and that of Glenn Greenwald) about how the foreign policy establishment won't take them (and those like them) seriously."

ROFL... Thanks for confirming your lack of reading comprehension, dear heart, since that isn't even remotely what either Matthew or Glenn actually said.

Posted by PaulB | August 10, 2007 10:33 AM

paulb, i think that dan must be a performance artist: no one could intend to be taken seriously by recommending "moderately" pro-war as a substitute for "ferociously" pro-war.

as for david shaw: read any column by charles krauthammer and you'll see what "repugnant" is all about.

Posted by howard | August 10, 2007 10:41 AM

I think Krauthammer’s column is bad, but my take is a bit different from others’. I think he's more skeptical of Pvt. Beauchamp than I am inclined to be (which is, however, more skeptical than I was at the outset), and he doesn't adequately acknowledge the degree to which the dread of imminent deployment to a chaotic, no-end-in-sight war with no front lines could itself be psychologically damaging. But while it’s plausible that the pro-war TNR decided to publish a piece critical of the impact of the war is because it indeed fits into a certain genre of commentary (not “virulent” per se, merely anti-war), such a rationale would not be blameworthy but a sign of sound journalistic judgment -- part and parcel, indeed, of what a pro-war magazine probably ought to do so by way of understanding and weighing the costs of the conflict it is choosing to support.

Posted by jason | August 10, 2007 10:46 AM

I just want to submit that the phrase is...

Hoist on one's own petard ...

not hoisted.

sorry to be picky, but this has been driving me nuts for awhile now.

Posted by blaze | August 10, 2007 10:54 AM

What I'm curiously about is why Matthew thinks TNR remains pro-war. Sorry, not just pro-war, but ferociously pro-war. I mean, I'm not a subscriber, so I don't know all the personalities there, but the editor is anti-war and so are most (all?) of the senior editors. As far as I can tell, the only people they've got who are pro-war are one blogger and and one person whose title is "editor-in-chief" but who in reality is now just a blogger/writer.

Who does Matthew think are so ferociously pro-war at TNR?

Posted by Al | August 10, 2007 10:59 AM

After the innumerable screw-ups by the Bush administration in Iraq, the trillion dollars of wasted money and the thousands upon thousands of needless deaths, ANY magazine that can still come out in favor of the war in Iraq -- well I think it's safe to say that they are "ferociously" pro-war regardless of how "moderate" or "cautious" their prose may sound.

Posted by DanF | August 10, 2007 11:02 AM

What Paul B said. Al continues to assert that the TNR is now anti-war but has yet to cite a single editorial in which they've repudiated their strong support of the war.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | August 10, 2007 11:05 AM

Perhaps TNR has blemished its reputation for being dovelike by recently publishing huge articles, that it advertised via email, by Paul Berman (on why Moslem intellectuals are generally in league with the devil and shouldn't be let into the U.S., which I believe was the subtitle) and Fouad Adjami - which was not only advertised by email, but that had Marty Peretz writing for days, frothing with admiration.

Now, it is possible that TNR's penchant for sharing writers on Iraq with the WSJ editorial page has nothing to do with their support for the war, and they secretly oppose it. And there has been a tone of regret about the war in the magazine. Honestly, this war has made it much harder to work up for the next war, against Iran, that Peretz is much more ardent about. Still, TNR has not been leading any anti-recruitment drives, lately.

Posted by roger | August 10, 2007 11:13 AM

Well, if we're getting persnickety, "hoist with" rather than "hoist on":

For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his owne petar

Posted by Dept of Liberal Studies | August 10, 2007 11:24 AM

Re Al's comment "What I'm curiously about is why Matthew thinks TNR remains pro-war. "

---------
Maybe Al could get up off his butt and look at TNR's archives in the months prior to the invasion of IRaq. For example:

Self Service.
By: Krauthammer, Charles
3/3/2003

"To hear United States Democratic leaders and Democratic political candidates declaim on war is to conclude that liberals are totally incoherent on the subject of power. Hence, the cacophony of liberal voices about war with Iraq. Not only do these voices contradict each other, but some contradict themselves, not only day to day but even within the same speech--for instance, presidential candidates John Kerry and Edward Kennedy, who make elaborate cases as to why deterrence is to be preferred over war in Iraq and then absurdly add that, of course, Iraq must be disarmed. To speak definitively about liberalism's view of power, one has to look at what it did when it ran U.S. foreign policy. Strikingly, the very same party that voted overwhelmingly against going to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait ordered U.S. troops to intervene in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, and dramatically escalated U.S. intervention in Somalia. Liberalists have great difficulty seeing national interest as a justification for wielding power. They are quite willing to use power for disinterested reasons of humanitarianism. They cannot deal coherently with war in Iraq, though, which not only requires a complicated notion of self-defense but which necessarily will result in U.S. aggrandizement through the extension of U.S. hegemony in the Arab world."

-----------
Whether TNR now wants to crawdad back from its drumbeating --and I think the evidence is dubious -- is beside the point.

If Bush lied us into IRaq, he got a lot of help from TNR.

If someone leads you over a cliff , it doesn't matter if , on the way down,
he says "Maybe we shouldn't have taken that last step" or "It's Bush fault because he didn't give us a parachute"

Posted by Don Williams | August 10, 2007 11:25 AM

Shorter Al: Even though I don't read TNR my listserv said it was anti-war so it must be. They are harsh critics like Ken and Mike!

Posted by Rob | August 10, 2007 11:27 AM

TW Andrews, you don't sow the wind you inherit it. "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind". Proverbs 11:29. And I'd say the quotation is really apt, if the "house" is the United States.

Posted by Mike Toreno | August 10, 2007 11:29 AM

Washington Fabulist trashing TNR. All I can say is TNR deserves all the trashing it gets from its neocons friends like Krauthammer.

This also shows how fanatically Krauthammer is attached to the neocon ideology, to the point where he will slander his own friends. Ideology above friendship, truth, loyalty.

Posted by DonB | August 10, 2007 11:37 AM

TNR is a great magazine with some great jounalists. I agree with what they say maybe 50% of the time, but it always makes me think and reshape my opinions.

TNR is now basically pro pullout, but it was pro invasion as well.

What amazes me about this story is that anyone would think that the articles, even if true, would have any effect on whether we should stay or not.

I don't think TNR had an agenda, but all that said I do think, it was a piss poor editorial decision to publish those articles, which don't seem to have any journalistic value even it they were true, other than to say war is hell. As if we didn't already know that.

Posted by Dave | August 10, 2007 11:45 AM

it really is a shame that this blog is haunted by so many right-wing trolls. the more time goes by, the more i value sites that allow you to troll-rate people out of the conversation if they're just spewing. i suggest more people look into it...

Posted by onceler | August 10, 2007 11:45 AM

This must be a different Al-bot from the one over at Kevin Drum's. That one never posts twice to the same thread. Neither makes a lick of sense, though.

Speaking of making no sense, I just want to hoist my house up and inherit the petard.

Posted by jimBOB | August 10, 2007 11:46 AM

nt

Posted by This thread smells like trolls | August 10, 2007 11:50 AM

Al continues to assert that the TNR is now anti-war but has yet to cite a single editorial in which they've repudiated their strong support of the war.

They did back in 2004.

Posted by Al | August 10, 2007 11:53 AM

Trolls are so cute, especially when they drool.

Posted by zak822 | August 10, 2007 12:02 PM

TW Andrews, you don't sow the wind you inherit it. "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind". Proverbs 11:29.

"For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind" Hosea 8:7

Posted by MasonMcD | August 10, 2007 12:06 PM

"This must be a different Al-bot from the one over at Kevin Drum's."

The Al-bot over at Drum's blog is, in fact, a parody based on Al, himself. That's why Al skittered away from there -- he got tired of everyone laughing at both him and the parody, since they were basically saying exactly the same things.

Posted by PaulB | August 10, 2007 12:26 PM

Why so many insults to Al? Al may be a troll, but here at Yglesias's blog we only got the finest quality of trolls, and I tend to enjoy Al, although I rarely agree with him.

In this case, I think he has something of a point - TNR may not be forthrightly anti-war at the moment, but describing their position as of the present day as being "ferociously pro-war" seems misleading. They are a publication which supported the war to start out with (ferociously), and whose current position is probably best described as ambivalent and incoherent, with different figures within the magazine holding different positions, and, so far as I can tell, no especially clear editorial position on whether or not we should withdraw.

Posted by John | August 10, 2007 12:33 PM

Oppose?

Regret?

Ha! ... The only opposition and regret that exude from under these creatures scales is regret that because of a lack of desire on the part of the designers this international crime called a "war" is a failure in the eyes of those who stand looking and a huge success for those who sought to profit from it. Consequently the conscienceless rooting cheer section has been left with the dead horse's head in their beds and absolutely no credibility in a shrinking mainstream market that shows them for the sophomore talentless paycheck whores they settled on being.

Posted by lower tiberius | August 10, 2007 1:13 PM

Re Don Williams

I must say that I find Mr. Williams restraint rather amazing. A day or two ago he neglected the opportunity to blame WW2 on the Jews. Today, he neglects the opportunity to inform the readers of Dr. Krauthammers' ethnic background. Maybe tomorrow he will do some more quote mining and find a positive comment from Haim Saben about Palestinians.

Posted by SLC | August 10, 2007 2:04 PM

If there is an "Al-bot" over at Drum's, don't we need an "SLC-bot" on this site?

Posted by Justin X | August 10, 2007 2:32 PM

Although I shouldn't feed the trolls -- Al claims that TNR repudiated their strong support of the war in their editorial in the April 28, 2004 issue. That editorial was titled "Were we wrong?" (NOT of course "We were wrong!") and waffled around (e.g. "With all these tragedies, how can there still be a moral case for the war in Iraq? Because Iraqis today--no matter how scared and how bitter--are, in some meaningful sense, free.") without ever renouncing support for the war. Final lines: "Americans no longer have the power to redeem this war. But Iraqis still can." Al, as always, is a lying sack of ...

Posted by bob | August 10, 2007 2:51 PM

@bob: Beat me to it -- also, Beinart was on C-SPAN a few days later, towing the 'if only we'd sent in more troops' line. That editorial was nothing more than a launching point for new talking points with which to defend the Iraq War, rather than a true mea culpa.
http://www.newshounds.us/2004/06/20/yes_we_were_wrong.php

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | August 10, 2007 3:01 PM

Let's keep in mind, shall we, the point that Krauthammer totally fails to mention (although the Weekly Standard DID mention it!): one of Beauchamp's earlier questionable TNR stories ( http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070205&s=diarist020507 ) concerned a Iraqi boy who supposedly had his tongue cut out by barbaric Iraqi insurgents for befriending US troops -- and then continued to befriend them afterwards. Which, of course, by itself blows to smithereens Krauthammer's contention that either Beauchamp (whatever his honesty) or TNR published his stories to try and "discredit the US war effort".

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | August 10, 2007 4:00 PM

And now for today's TNR Beauchamp Update ( http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070806&s=editorial081007 ):

“...[W]e continue to investigate the anecdotes recounted in the Baghdad Diarist. Unfortunately, our efforts have been severely hampered by the U.S. Army. Although the Army says it has investigated Beauchamp’s article and has found it to be false, it has refused our—and others’—requests to share any information or evidence from its investigation. What’s more, the Army has rejected our requests to speak to Beauchamp himself, on the grounds that it wants ‘to protect his privacy.’

“At the same time the military has stonewalled our efforts to get to the truth, it has leaked damaging information about Beauchamp to conservative bloggers. Earlier this week, The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb published a report, based on a single anonymous ‘military source close to the investigation,’ entitled ‘Beauchamp Recants,’ claiming that Beauchamp ‘signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods—fabrications containing only “a smidgen of truth,” in the words of our source.’

“Here’s what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles. Moreover, on the same day he signed these statements for the Army, he gave us a statement standing behind his articles, which we published at tnr.com. Goldfarb has written, ‘It’s pretty clear the New Republic is standing by a story that even the author does not stand by.’ In fact, it is our understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that he has not recanted them. The Army, meanwhile, has refused our requests to see copies of the statements it obtained from Beauchamp—or even to publicly acknowledge that they exist.

“Scott Beauchamp is currently a 24-year-old soldier in Iraq who, for the past 15 days, has been prevented by the military from communicating with the outside world, aside from three brief and closely monitored phone calls to family members. Our investigation has not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to discount his personal dispatches. And we cannot simply dismiss the corroborating accounts of the five soldiers with whom we spoke. (You can read our findings here.)

“Part of our integrity as journalists includes standing by a writer who has been accused of wrongdoing and who is not able to defend himself. But we also want to reassure our readers that our obligations to our writer would never trump our commitment to the truth. We once again invite the Army to make public Beauchamp’s statements and the details of its investigation—and we ask the Army to let us (or any other media outlet, for that matter) speak to Beauchamp. Unless and until these things happen, we cannot fairly assess any of these reports about Beauchamp—and therefore have no reason to change our own assessment of Beauchamp’s work. If the truth ends up reflecting poorly on our judgment, we will accept responsibility for that. But we also refuse to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves.”
________________

Sure restores MY faith in the honesty of the US military.

Posted by BruceMoomaw | August 10, 2007 4:06 PM

TNR would be better labeled as "cautiously" or "moderately" pro-war.

LOL, reminds me of a girl I once knew, who got "cautiously" or "moderately" pregnant . . .

Posted by rea | August 10, 2007 4:31 PM

Peter Beinert's a pussy. How about saying instead:

Yes, it was right to invade Iraq. It will take decades to see the positive results of this, but the benefits from it will be transformative and even longer-lasting. It's worth finishing the job. If we lost our nerve after fewer than 4,000 KIA in the Civil War, World War II or other wars, where would we be now?
My reputation among liberal pundits is less important to me than America winning this war. I am applying for civilian jobs at DoD and State where I can serve in Iraq and help the effort. What are you planning to do to insure that freedom and democracy defeat fascism and religious intolerism in Iraq? Think about doing what is right, not what will help our side win elections or get the most heads nodding in agreement at your next cocktail party.

Posted by Harry | August 10, 2007 4:41 PM

which don't seem to have any journalistic value even it they were true, other than to say war is hell. As if we didn't already know that.

Posted by Dave

Gosh, ya learn something new every day! I thought war was a "cakewalk" which would be over in "six weeks, maybe six months but not six years". I also thought it included candy and flowers. That was what they told me, Dave.

Posted by Mooser | August 10, 2007 5:19 PM

The reality-based community shouldn't be overly concerned with the Beauchamp fiasco disturbing its narrative.

After all, you've still got Haditha.

Wait................Nevermind

Posted by daleyrocks | August 10, 2007 7:33 PM

"...inaccurate smears..."
"...senior editor..."

Posted by jummy | August 10, 2007 8:26 PM

mooser, i'm sorry to see that the "we were promised a thirty-minute war with zero casualties" propaganda contrivance has been beaten so thin that you have to resort to sneer-quoting renowned neocon insider, thomas friedman, to breathe life into it.

can't you just get that douche from the capitol hill blue blog to have two or three of his imaginary annonymous third parties "witness" bush or cheney or rove or somebody saying it?

Posted by jummy | August 10, 2007 8:42 PM

Harry writes:

"If we lost our nerve after fewer than 4,000 KIA in the Civil War ... where would we be now?"

Speaking Southern.

Oh, wait...

Posted by Hart Williams | August 10, 2007 8:44 PM

hart makes a goood point. we had to suffer four years of jimmy "solid south" carter, twelve years of relief, and then another eight years of hillbilly and albert.

Posted by jummy | August 10, 2007 8:47 PM

Leaving aside jimmy's attempt at partisan spin, recall and add, as well, the Republican leadership of Congress in both houses, post '96 Dole (and, pre-Dole, come to think of it), the rise of the GOP "solid South" et al.

The sword cuts both ways. But then, some can see only "red." Feel blue yet?

Posted by Hart Williams | August 10, 2007 9:39 PM

hart,

you shame me. and here i was assuming that your flacid bon mott about bush's presidency being as if the confederacy won the civil war was a cheap partisan nut-kick. someday i hope my soul can attain the cool, disinterested stillness you exhibit.

Posted by jummy | August 10, 2007 10:00 PM

"can't you just get that douche from the capitol hill blue blog to have two or three of his imaginary annonymous third parties 'witness' bush or cheney or rove or somebody saying it?"

LOL.... Ah, so it only counts if the president himself says it and not if everyone else in his administration including, for example, Rumsfeld, says it?

Of course that is what we were promised, moron, which is just one of the reasons the American public turned against it so quickly -- the reality didn't even come close to matching the claims.

Posted by PaulB | August 11, 2007 12:04 AM

The Krauthammer Go-Round

Comments (59)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories