Jon Chait's attack on Bill Kristol's supposed "thuggery" in support of the current American strategy in Iraq would be considerably more interesting if it were possible to discern where Chait's own magazine stands on the question. The new issue of TNR, in which Chait's anti-Kristol broadside appears, contains articles on Mitt Romney and Karl Rove, the netroots and the psychology of Bush voters, and sundry other topics. It leads with editorials on Sudan (which expresses support for "an outright NATO invasion of Darfur") and Presidential library fundraising. And it marks the seventh straight issue in which TNR's editors - who passive-aggressively endorsed the surge back in May - have seen fit to say exactly nothing about what the United States should be doing, whether militarily, politically or diplomatically, about the minor difficulties we currently face in Iraq. Which leaves the reader with the impression, fairly or not, that TNR's take on the most important foreign-policy question facing America is that Bill Kristol is a jerk.
« Lost in the Bureaucracy | Main | The Iraq Debate, And My Place In It » Which Side Are You On?22 Aug 2007 11:38 am Comments (21)
Chait used to be one of my favorite writers, but I really think he's projecting his own dyspepsia on Kristol in this piece. The reason Kristol and others jumped all over Beauchamp was because his vignettes were ludicrous on their face to anyone with a passing familiarity with the military. Maybe Chait should find a barstool next to Dan Rather and whine about how unfair it is when your sources con you into publishing asinine articles. 
You guys are such kidders. Have you not noticed that there has been no official refutation of Beauchamps statements, just attributed refutation via the pages of the Weekly Standard. You are not that dumb. Cmon. The guy basically told the truth with a few small errors and was silenced by the brass. Period. It's as plain as day. Also, "Bill Kristol's supposed thuggery"??? The republican mind is another country.
Yes, yes, we all know the sad story of TNR's tergiversations on the war. And they excuse Kristol's behavior how?
Well Ross, the magazine has made it clear it supports the surge, and if it hasn't written an editorial reversing course, I say it's safe to say they still do. And I'll echo a previous commenter and ask what, in your opinion, is "supposed" about Bill Kristol's thuggery? Which side are you on indeed....
Calling Bill Kristol a "jerk" is like calling Ted Bundy a "misogynist." It's undoubtedly true, but in light of his actual character, it's almost a compliment.
I agree, but it would be nice if this blog also would occasionally wrestle with what our Iraq strategy should be instead of just taking easy potshots at magazine editors. It seems to me the essential problem is that there are no more good ideas about Iraq, so commentary is inherently limited by the facts on the ground to either bad ideas, really, really bad ideas or soap opera. OTOH, maybe I just haven't heard the good idea yet...
The good idea is to GTHO. That's "Get The Hell Out." It should only take us a few months. In the complete and utter absence of any better alternatives, it's time to get off of the pisspot.
Look, TNR's got a lot to answer for on the war. But Chait's case against Kristol is airtight. He's said a bunch of idiotic, offensive things about war opponents and is spewing lies about the actual conditions in Iraq, defending George W. Bush's failed war to the bitter end (and without regard to the thousands of brave American servicemembers that he helps to kill). I get the feeling that Kristol is Ross' friend. Ross likes the fact that Kristol has convinced him that he is really against abortion and not just cynically using pro-life voters. And maybe Kristol is a nice guy generally-- that can get you far in Washington. But notably, Ross doesn't mount any DEFENSE of Kristol's conduct as detailed in Chait's article, which uses Kristol's own words to hang him, over and over again. "Supposed" thuggery doesn't do it, Ross. Either tell us why Chait is wrong, or join in his condemnation of your friend.
You guys are such kidders. Have you not noticed that there has been no official refutation of Beauchamps statements, just attributed refutation via the pages of the Weekly Standard. You're dead wrong. Doug Coffey, Bradley manufacturer BAE Systems spokesman, stated that what Beauchamp described in his dog-killing story was all but impossible to do with the vehicle his company makes. TNR, by the way, rather deceptively tried to keep him hidden, as they didn't want anyone actually presenting the full story to Coffey, in context. U.S. Army PAO Renee D. Russo flatly called his burned woman claim (once that claim had been moved to Kuwait, that is. Nice fact-checking, TNR) a "myth or urban legend," a detail TNR staffer Jason Zengerle decided his readers shouldn't know about. Army LTC Andy Sams also denied the woman exists, as have dozens of other soldiers at both bases. William "Big Country" Coughlin, a contractor at the Kuwait camp, says there simply is not such a person at the base, and that he would know. U.S. Army Col. Steven Bolyan, Public Affairs Officer for U.S. Army Commanding General in Iraq David Petraeus stated directly: An investigation of the allegations were conducted by the command and found to be false. In fact, members of Thomas' platoon and company were all interviewed and no one could substantiate his claims. Major Kirk Ludeuke, Major Steven Lamb, Beauchamp's First Sergeant Hatley, and others have all stated that these events flatly never took place, with Luedeke and Hatley being part of his unit. All of that is just concerning "Shock Troops." His other two stories are also full of falsehoods, from changing the tires of a vehicle equipped with run-flat tires and an automatic inflation system (and hence, no spare) in "War Bonds," to claiming the presence of a kind of ammunition that doesn't exist and making the assinine claim that "only Iraqi police have Glocks" when they are perhaps the most popular and widespread handgun in Iraq, a fact TNR's editors would have uncovered in five seconds had they attempted to fact-check "Dead of Night" at all (they obviously didn't). Most reasonable people would consider it rather official refutation when a half dozen Army officers, non-coms, civilian contractors and other experts go on the record to say that the stories made up by Beauchamp were false. Then again, you may not be reasonable.
The good idea is to GTHO. That's "Get The Hell Out." Dead wrong. It took us over a year (and perhaps two, I forget the details) to pull out in Gulf War I when we had far, far less material and resources in the country than we have in Iraq now, and that was without anyone shooting at us. It would take a minimum of 18 months, and probably closer to several years to withdraw in an orderly manner. Or would you rather we just left our equipment there?
Here's my opinion on TNR's position on Iraq, for what its worth http://alendalux.blogspot.com/2007/08/best-defense.html
Confederate Yankee writes: "It would take a minimum of 18 months, and probably closer to several years to withdraw in an orderly manner." What's that smell? Ah, yes, it's the smell of Confederacy horse manure. Six months, tops, chuckles.
CY, I remain skeptical. Why debunk a false story through republican partizans? It's fishy. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/016467.php What is most funny about it is that ulitmately it is completely immaterial to supporting or opposing the President's Iraq policy.
"Which leaves the reader with the impression, fairly or not, that TNR's take on the most important foreign-policy question facing America is that Bill Kristol is a jerk." If TNR can successfully convey that message to America, we will all be much, much better off.
A comment over at QandO: Speaking of PVT Beauchamp. It appears from this that Beauchamp got busted down a rank.
CY reports: "U.S. Army Col. Steven Bolyan, Public Affairs Officer for U.S. Army Commanding General in Iraq David Petraeus stated directly: An investigation of the allegations were conducted by the command and found to be false. In fact, members of Thomas' platoon and company were all interviewed and no one could substantiate his claims. " Imagine that. The Army can be trusted. Just ask Pat Tillman's family. And surely no one associated with Saint Petraeus would ever dissemble.
The New Republic itself has tendered a revision of one of the "diarists" published, that the mocking of the burned woman occurred in Kuwait, rather than Iraq. Informing your readers that your correspondent has misplaced an incident in which he was a protagonist in space (wrong country), time (nine months), and circumstance (it putatively occurred prior to his deployment to Iraq, making the anecdote non-sequitur if your object is to demonstrate the degrading effects of war service on sensibilities) does not enhance the confidence of the reader in either the correspondent or his editors. Again, that fellow Coffey is not an employee of the Army, and his reported statements are congruent with what other experts (e.g. Stuart Koehl) have said about that particular military vehicle. The whole controversy is tangential to the question of what to do in Iraq. However, it is another piece of evidence toward the thesis that the press corps, when subject to the sort of scrutiny that only it could apply a generation ago, behaves similarly to cornered politicians. Which is not what reporters wish to hear.
Nearly every problem with TNR (and the problems are many and serious) can be attributed to the fact that it is run by children.
If Chait and TNR were upset and vented their furstration at Kristol, you can bet dollars to donuts that they will react to the possible busting of their "budding Hemingway" with even more vitriol. This is all part of TNR as "victim". The question that TNR is trying to obscure .. who is the victimizer ? Of course, it is the fabulist, Mr. Beauchamp.
My favorite part about TNR is that they don't always agree with one another. You should read non-editorials in isolation from the other articles or else the magazine makes no sense since its writers don't agree. Do writers in The Atlantic always agree? Are David Brooks and Thomas Friedman not allowed to disagree with the NYT editorial page? If the Chait piece contradicts something Chait says, then there is a problem. Otherwise, no.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream 
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
The Atlantic, October 2008 Is Pornography Adultery?The Atlantic, June 2008 Redeeming Dubya
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Absolutely right.
It seems clear that the magazine is rent by internal divisions, and it's interesting to watch TNR's writers try to write on the war without stepping on the toes of Foer, Peretz, or the new Peretzian owners.
Posted by DivGuy | August 22, 2007 12:11 PM