He Said What Now?

Charles Krauthammer offers up his latest entry in his unending campaign for the title of America's Worst Journalist: "The news from Anbar is the most promising. Only last fall, the Marines' leading intelligence officer there concluded that the United States had essentially lost the fight to al-Qaeda. Yet just this week, the Marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, returned from a four-day visit to the province and reported that we 'have turned the corner.'"

Turned the fucking corner!

Was he kidding? Making one of the ironic jokes the kids use these days? Remember when Al Gonzalez said "mistakes were made" and it become clear the US Attorneys scandal was much worse than it first seemed to many? Iraq's turned so many corners by now that it doesn't know which way's up or down. Or, as president Bush put it "An Iraqi first lieutenant named Shoqutt describes the transformation of his unit this way: 'I really think we've turned the corner here. At first, the whole country didn't take us seriously. Now things are different. Our guys are hungry to demonstrate their skill and to show the world.'" That was in November. November 2005. Back in July 2004 Bush observed that "We've turned the corner in extending freedom throughout the world."

Does Krauthammer really expect people to buy this crap? Honestly, I don't think he's even thought about it. After all, he's a Demented Rightwinger; the Washington Post will publish anything he writes, no matter how terrible, and he'll never be fired, because for the Post to do anything else would be to show how liberal that liberal media is.

4/13/07 9:57AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

The most bizarre part of the column was this:

"The situation in Baghdad is more mixed. Yesterday's bridge and Green Zone attacks show the insurgents' ability to bomb sensitive sites. On the other hand, pacification is proceeding."

Parliament is blown up and the situation is "mixed"? Truck bombs blow bridges, cars and drivers to kingdom come and "pacification is proceeding"? What would disaster look like? The man has taken leave of his senses.

Posted by: Bloix on April 13, 2007 10:25 AM

The Washington Post prints several columns by right wingers. They also publish the crap written by anti-semitic columnist Robert Novak twice a week.

Posted by: SLC on April 13, 2007 10:25 AM

We're winning!

Posted by: Rich Lowry on April 13, 2007 10:26 AM

A polygon with infinite corners is a circle, and it seems that we're stuck on one.

Posted by: Alex S. on April 13, 2007 10:32 AM

I believe we are in the last throes of the insurgency. Its just a few dead-enders. Democracy is messy.

Posted by: Max on April 13, 2007 10:33 AM

Wait, Krauthammer is a JOURNALIST?

Posted by: Jimmm on April 13, 2007 10:33 AM

Matt,

You said: "fucking."

Charles Krauthammer may be the wrongest person in the history of punditry. And he have done his part to sentence tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis to death with his overwhelming ability to be wrong about everything. But Charles has never, in his whole life, used the word "fuck."

Therefore his soul is purer than yours. Sorry.

-- Owenz

Posted by: owenz on April 13, 2007 10:36 AM

Clearly, these people don't read This Modern World.

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18512

Posted by: Terry on April 13, 2007 10:39 AM

Oh no, an Atrios link. Batten down the hatches!

Jon Stewart had a good bit last night ridiculing Bush for claiming Dems are trying to undermine the mission, "just as we're starting to make progress." Complete with a montage of all the other times he's said we're making progress, time and time again for the last several years. It's absolutely absurd.

You can learn a lot by studying the history of Vietnam and the ways in which the government tried to sell people on the notion that we were making progress in that war, even though we generally weren't. It's the same old tricks that will be played on generation after generation until someone learns the lessons of history.

Posted by: Steve on April 13, 2007 10:40 AM

Yeah, Krauthammer's article is about a 7.3 on the Luskin scale.

Posted by: Nat on April 13, 2007 10:41 AM

"The man has taken leave of his senses."

Trust me on this...

That's a "corner" he turned long ago.

Posted by: LWM on April 13, 2007 10:42 AM

"Turned the corner"
An old expression from the Vietnam war. The only one I haven't heard lately is "Light at the end of the tunnel."

Posted by: Stitch on April 13, 2007 10:43 AM

...

Let's a have a parade!

We'll call it the Flowers and
Chocolates parade. YAY!

Wasn't it Paul Wolfowitz that
said he wouldn't be suprised it they
had a George W. Bush statue in the city center
by next year?

JESUS FUCK-ALL CHRIST can we leave this hell-shit hole yet?

when we elect a democratic president with a huge
majority in both houses we can undo this national nightmare
with extreme prejudice.

It'll be like the Neuremberg trials.

...

Posted by: wellstoner on April 13, 2007 10:44 AM

Matt, Matt, Matt

You fall into his trap--He wishes he was a journalist. He is not even a pundit--if that term is defined as person who gives authoritative opinions. I think being a member of pundit class requires being correct at least periodically, which excludes Chuck and his Fox pals. There is a perfectly good English word for what he really is: propaganist. All it has in common with journalist is "ist".

And secondly, "Honestly, I don't even think he thought about it." What the veracity of it or whether it served the cause of the dear leader? Jeesh. Keep making mistakes like this, Matt, and we may be forced to downgrade your status too.

Posted by: Ned on April 13, 2007 10:48 AM

I'm not sure why this particular column should spark so much outrage in Matt, other than that someone got paid (and probably well paid) for writing the same right-wing schtick we've all read hundreds of times already: "I Just Spoke Personally To A Real American Soldier In Iraq And He Says The Situation Over There Is Improving."

I'm actually surprised, given the intellectual laziness of columnists, that it's not used more widely. For example, "I Just Spoke Personally To A Real Manager at GM And He Says The Company Is Doing Very Well."

Posted by: James Gary on April 13, 2007 10:50 AM

I was floored by his use of the word "pacified" to describe the plan of action in Iraq. Echoes of Caesar.

Posted by: jcasey on April 13, 2007 10:52 AM

I just spoke personally to a real assistant coach for the Knicks and he says the team has finally turned around.

Posted by: Michael Bérubé on April 13, 2007 10:57 AM

you are in a maze of twisty passages all alike.

Posted by: pbg on April 13, 2007 11:10 AM

Wait 'til that train attached to the light at the end of the tunnel runs over his ass--oh, wait, Kraphammer isn't any closer to Iraq than I am, here in my grave in South Carolina, is he? And, ironically, I'm still less brain-dead than he is.

Posted by: William Westmoreland on April 13, 2007 11:10 AM

Our Iraq adventure is like driving on San Francisco's Lombard Street--no matter how many corners you turn, you're still going downhill.

Posted by: jlw on April 13, 2007 11:17 AM

Krauthammer is a better journalist than Yglesias, though that's not saying much.

Posted by: daveinboca on April 13, 2007 11:18 AM

Whatever happened to Luskin, btw? The man was a bottomless cup of slapstick/supply-side ineptitude.

Posted by: pinson on April 13, 2007 11:19 AM

"For example, "I Just Spoke Personally To A Real Manager at GM And He Says The Company Is Doing Very Well.""

No, the business press is too important to screw up. It will be another decade or two of wealth concentration before they have an all-propaganda version of the WSJ and a private real-news paper just for the really superrich.

Posted by: Rich Puchalsky on April 13, 2007 11:21 AM

I'm just waiting for the first administration flunkie to say that the war has been brought within measurable distance of its end.

Posted by: r€nato on April 13, 2007 11:33 AM

"How many times will we turn a corner before we realize we're going in circles!" - jpb

Posted by: Volum on April 13, 2007 11:34 AM

My favorite bit of the article:

"The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide."

Of 15 Republicans up for reelection that year, 6 got tossed. This in a country where incumbents have an average 95% chance of survival. Who does Krauthammer think he's fooling?

Posted by: vaskeli on April 13, 2007 11:47 AM

***Warning! Joe Klein, Washington Post editors/ombudsmen and everyone else sensitive to indelicate images should skip this message***

Time for Right-Wing Moron Jeopardy.

A: "We have turned the corner"

Q: What did Cheney, Bush, and Krauthammer jabber endlessly to each other when I flushed?

Posted by: Ottnott on April 13, 2007 11:48 AM

Steve called it... that Jon Stewart big last night on Iraqi "progress" was one of the most brilliant assessments of the admin's pro-war delusions since 2002. I wish they'd stop calling themselves "fake news" -- through comedy, they are providing media and political critiques better than anyone today. It blows my mind how they can keep getting better...

...although I think the rich manure from our government makes it easy for them to grow.

Posted by: Lettuce on April 13, 2007 11:54 AM

Kraut- worst diagnostician in the history of psychiatry. Perhaps he is suffering from a brain cloud. (bad movie reference)

Posted by: clb72 on April 13, 2007 11:58 AM

We've so many corners M.C. Escher would be confused.

Posted by: Chris on April 13, 2007 12:17 PM

Everyone knows the newspaper business is in decline. It isn't obvious what to do about that overall, but what part could be easier to fix than an op-ed page?

First of all, some new blood would be good - op-ed pages are largely composed of aging (or in Broder's case, aged) white male blowhards.

Second, as Ned said above, being a member of pundit class should require being correct at least periodically.

Commentary is the one area of a newspaper where there is competition in great abundance. And newspapers are not only not taking advantage of that fact - they're ignoring its existence. One would think from the way they act that the primary purpose of a newspaper was to enshrine a certain group of people as opinion-makers.

Posted by: RT on April 13, 2007 12:29 PM

"the Washington Post will publish anything he writes, no matter how terrible, and he'll never be fired, because for the Post to do anything else would be to show how liberal that liberal media is."

Why would the Washington Post fire him? His views are consistent with the WP editorial page. On foreign affairs the WP editorial page reads like it is edited by Charles Krauthammer. Is there much of a difference between Krauthammer & Hiatt? Not in foreign policy.

Posted by: DonB on April 13, 2007 12:29 PM

"But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide."

What a hypocrite.

Krauthammer treated Bush's 2000 election loss and razor thin 2004 win as landslides.

Posted by: DonB on April 13, 2007 12:35 PM

Krauthammer is a better journalist than Yglesias, though that's not saying much.

You draw this conclusion based on what merits?

And as far as punditry goes, Yglesias is far more accurate than Krauthammer could ever hope to be (since that requires observing and commenting on reality).

Posted by: John S. on April 13, 2007 12:48 PM

Krauthammer helped write W's inauguration speech when he was "re-elected", along with Bill Kristol. Then last year in one of his articles he claimed it was one of the greatest inauguration speeches ever, without mentioning that he helped write it.

Posted by: Scott on April 13, 2007 01:01 PM

"Wasn't it Paul Wolfowitz that
said he wouldn't be suprised it they
had a George W. Bush statue in the city center
by next year?"

Actually, it was Richard Perle and it was supposed to be a grand square in centrl Baghdad named for Dubya.

Posted by: FastMovingCloud on April 13, 2007 01:06 PM

It wasn't Wolfie but another highly credible neocon, Richard Perle, who gave us that zinger about the inevitable statue of bush in Baghdad.

Posted by: buma on April 13, 2007 01:06 PM

What a stupid and lazy blog posting. So is Gen. Conway correct, or is he not? Matthew doesn't say, and he does not know. He just blathers on and even curses a bit.

Posted by: a on April 13, 2007 01:11 PM

So is Gen. Conway correct, or is he not?

No, he is not right.

This has been another edition of short answers to stupid questions.

Posted by: owenz on April 13, 2007 02:01 PM

What ends badly and is perpetually turning the corner?
.
.
.
A death spiral.

Posted by: Brendan on April 13, 2007 02:07 PM

@ Owenz - I worked at TNR some years ago and know for a fact that Charles K used the "F" word in at least one instance! And a couple of other things that are not so pure. I hope this didn't ruin your day. ;-)

Posted by: Sources Say on April 13, 2007 02:29 PM

You draw this conclusion based on what merits?
And as far as punditry goes, Yglesias is far more accurate than Krauthammer could ever hope to be (since that requires observing and commenting on reality).

"Blogger" and "Journalist" aren't synonymous, right? So Yglesias isn't a journalist. Ergo, Krauthammer's Journalismo is greater than Yglesias'.

Posted by: DataShade on April 13, 2007 03:06 PM

What a stupid and lazy blog posting. So is Gen. Conway correct, or is he not? Matthew doesn't say, and he does not know. He just blathers on and even curses a bit.
Posted by: a on April 13, 2007 01:11 PM

The point was that Krauthammer is using a phrase that's so maligned by the Everyman that it's now a term of mockery, like "mistakes were made" or "doing a heckuva job!"

Thanks for stopping bye!

Posted by: DataShadde on April 13, 2007 03:08 PM

First Fück Krauthammer, then Fück WaPo, and then Fück Bush.

Posted by: Fück Bush on April 13, 2007 03:12 PM

Rich Lowry is a comedy-monger.

Posted by: Nikki on April 13, 2007 03:40 PM

To Owenz:

Krauthammer is actually quite enamoured of the word "fuck." See below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22191-2004Jul1.html

Posted by: Frank on April 13, 2007 04:16 PM

"The Washington Post will publish anything he writes, no matter how terrible, and he'll never be fired, because for the Post to do anything else would be to show how liberal that liberal media is."

It's nice work if you can get it, and you can get if you try -- to suck Fred Hiatt's dick, I mean.

Posted by: Peter Principle on April 13, 2007 05:13 PM

Just watching that slow-talking drawlin' imitation of Goebbels named Jim Lehrer on PBS backing the slow-molasses quislings like Matt who trash people on the ground who do think we're making progress with the surge.

Slow Jim Lehrer and silly Mark Shields simply follow instructions from the nomenklatura named Pinch and pilot fish.

Posted by: daveinboca on April 13, 2007 07:19 PM

Things have changed in Anbar, for the better. It has NOTHING to do with the surge, however. It is rosey to say that it means that "Victory" is nigh, that the "insurgency" is over.

The GOP Senators wouldn't even vote confidence in the Presidential measures that Krauthammer thinks that Dems are undermining, so ... bleh, to his biased view of it.

Posted by: Amicus on April 13, 2007 07:38 PM

"So is Gen. Conway correct, or is he not?"

Um, I think the whole point of the "lazy blog posting" was that a destroyed bridge and a bombed parliament pretty clearly say that Gen. Conway and Emperor Krauthammer are wrong.

Posted by: Chris Wren on April 13, 2007 07:44 PM

krauthammer is a victim of traumatic brain injury. he's been in a wheelchair ever since he jumped or fell into a swimming pool that didn't have enough water in it. it is reasonable to conclude that his brain was also affected by that terrible injury. indeed, krauthammer has referred to al gore, when gore criticized the iraq war, as being "off his lithium" even though there is no evidence gore was ever on lithium or ever had psychiatric problems. krauthammer, remember, is a psychiatrist. it is as reasonable for him to speculate that gore, whom he has never examined and who, again, has no history of psychiatric illness, is suffering from a mental illness that requires lithium drug treatment, as it is for me to speculate that krauthammer's brain was damaged (probably irreversibly) when he jumped or fell into that too-dry swimming pool, the accident that has left him in a wheelchair.

Posted by: samg on April 13, 2007 10:10 PM

"Parliament is blown up and the situation is "mixed"? Truck bombs blow bridges, cars and drivers to kingdom come and "pacification is proceeding"? What would disaster look like? The man has taken leave of his senses."

Wasn't there a knight in Monthy Python and the Holy Grail who referred to his cutoff arm as a "nick"?

Posted by: John A. Broussard on April 14, 2007 03:05 AM

"Does Krauthammer really expect people to buy this crap?"

Not exactly. Krauthammer is talking to the people who already believe this crap. They need constant reassurance and they need to be told what to say. He isn't trying to convince anyone. He's trying to hold onto the base.

Posted by: James E. Powell on April 14, 2007 07:18 AM

Here's some bad news. The new owner of the Chicago Tribune and LA
Times, Sam Zell reportedly thinks Krauthammer is a great columnist. I was hoping the Trib would stop carrying clowns like him and Jonah Goldberg but it doesn'tt look like that's gonna happen. Doesn't look like the Trib's slide is gonna stop either.

Posted by: markg8 on April 14, 2007 10:17 AM

What we need now isn't propaganda but an honest appraisal of our situation in Iraq. Until we're willing to have that there is no hope of finding a way out that doesn't leave an even more dangerous situation behind us. It's unlikely that anything will change until we elect a new president and even then...

Posted by: Paul Katz on April 14, 2007 11:05 AM

Your harsh words about Krauthammer do not help your cause. K is a rhetorician for the most part, and yeah, the article you're commenting on is kinda silly. But calling him names and dropping the f-bomb only impresses the small minds on your side of the debate.

I'm on the other side. Believe me. I'm with Krauthammer.

Posted by: Bob Ellison on April 14, 2007 11:59 AM

"I'm on the other side. Believe me. I'm with Krauthammer.
Posted by: Bob Ellison on April 14, 2007 11:59 AM
Post A Comment"

Is this supposed to impress anyone? Just about the only people still with him are the evangelical base and movement neocons. At this point, you are a lunatic fringe. Of course you will be mocked.

Posted by: Reality Man on April 14, 2007 12:46 PM

Matt,

This post was a low point for you. I half expect you to call him a nappy headed ho next time. You can disagree with Krauthammer and the people he quotes who have recently reported from Iraq, but Krauthammer's column was actually fairly substantive and reasoned. It deserved a more substantive and reasoned response.

Why not question the hammer, for example, on whether or not the recent, tentatively positive, trends in Al-Anbar are actually due to the surge or other factors?

Posted by: Fred on April 15, 2007 03:09 AM

thanks.
best regards.

Posted by: mirc on September 23, 2007 01:53 PM

thanks
it's cool

Posted by: forum on September 23, 2007 01:55 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet