Comments on: Money for nothing, and bombs for free.

Money for nothing, and bombs for free.

delmoi — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:08:00 -0800

Getting rich by getting it wrong How the elite pundits who pushed the war profited in money and prominence, despite being completely wrong. Mean while many pundits who opposed the war from the start were sidelined.

By: i_am_a_Jedi

i_am_a_Jedi — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:18:06 -0800

Glenn Greenwald's blog has a lot of must-read commentary on this issue also.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:25:57 -0800

If you think the U.S. is a meritocracy, I have a bridge to sell you.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:37:49 -0800

You mean the people who were most eager to go to war *profited* from it? How could this be?

By: toma

toma — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:45:59 -0800

It's about time someone wrote this, good post. I'm amazed that I see only the talking heads who got it wrong on Sunday mornings.

By: BillyElmore

BillyElmore — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:48:16 -0800

Halliburton is hiring I understand. Things seemed to have worked out quite nicely for them. War is a racket they say.

By: toma

toma — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:48:56 -0800

It makes me wonder if daring to be inept is the new hallmark of leadership.

By: Staggering Jack

Staggering Jack — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:55:53 -0800

I never knew Zakaria had a role as confidential advisor to the administration. I did know that Friedman was a sucker, though. Thanks for the post.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:03:57 -0800

It's about time someone wrote this, good post. Thanks. I'd been seeing this theme talked about on a lot of blogs, but there was nothing really concrete to link too, and the krugman podcast, I felt, didn't make a good link since you had to listen to it.

By: Artifice_Eternity

Artifice_Eternity — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:11:06 -0800

Yes, nice to see all of this pulled together in one place. I sometimes fantasize about starting a production company whose sole purpose would be to do in-depth documentaries on individual media pundits. Each time we'd pick a particular talking head -- Tom Friedman, David Brooks, Bob Novak -- and detail, with exhaustive quotations and video clips, all the idiotic things this person has said. Then we'd look at how they continue to be lauded as wise men (and women -- Peggy Noonan definitely deserves her turn under the microscope). BTW, Friedman is still at it.

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:13:03 -0800

You guys ever have those nights where you can't sleep. You lay there brain stuck in that endless self-critical loop. I have this little trick that helps me sleep. I envision sitting accross from a table with David Brooks and George Will. And I ask them to tell me about Iraq. And as they are stuck in that endless loop of spin, obfuscation and self-righteous pomposity I grow ever more sleepy. So sleepy. And just as drift off ... gently drift off... I visualize myself... LEAPING ACROSS THE FUCKING TABLE AND DRIVING MY FINGERS INTO BROOKS BEADY LITTLE EYE SOCKETS... AHHHH THE SATISFYING SQUISH... using his skull as one would a hammer I bash him into Will repeatedly. Oh the blood! The sweet gore! The screams and pleading strangely interrupted by both men stopping their pathetic crying momentarily and compulsively yet totally incorrectly predicting what I will do next. "Y.. you will let us go, we will heal 100%, and go on to best you... and..." What I actually do is ass-fuck their corpses. Bet they never saw THAT coming. And after that I sleep like a baby.

By: rob511

rob511 — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:22:21 -0800

Crazy like a fox in a henhouse.

By: bardic

bardic — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:28:53 -0800

Nice post. In addition to Greenwald, digby has been hammering this home as well. The so-called "kewl kidz" of punditry are hardly a meritocracy. To be a part of their circle has nothing to do with how intelligent and, frankly, competent your analytical abilities are, but is based entirely on your pedigree within the system itself. Bill Kristol, a man who has not been right about a single thing regarding Iraq, WMD, how our occupation would empower Iran and destabilize the region, etc., was just named one of TIME magazine's "Star Columnists." It would be funny if it weren't so sad. As for David Brooks? Matt Taibbi said it best: "Brooks worships the status quo because he has no penis and wants to spend the rest of his life buying periwinkle bath towels without troubling interruptions of conscience." Zakaria is one of the few guys who's still worth reading, but my sense is that he's much more of a real investigative journalist than any of these other hacks could or ever have been. But this insider-crap is really corrupting. It's a mutual-admiration society of the worst sort.

By: toma

toma — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:31:26 -0800

Right on, tkchrist.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:56:00 -0800

Nice work if you can get it... and make it through the day without deep-throating the business end of Mossburg.

By: Kronoss

Kronoss — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:23:31 -0800

They forgot Bill Clinton.

By: rougy

rougy — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:51:43 -0800

Ahhh, yes. There's always time to blame it on Clinton.... Amazing how much the righties loath the man, until he says something that they want to hear. Did Clinton call for the invasion of Iraq while he was still president? Gee...I forget....

By: stammer

stammer — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:02:15 -0800

I think this puts the lie to arguments that guys like Kristol and Friedman are stupid. They're very smart: they know there's a lot of powerful people who want to be supplied with progressive-sounding, humanitarian-seeming arguments for imperialism and globalisation-at-gunpoint, and they provide that. That their product is technically "bad" journalism is irrelevant; they're the NoKa Chocolates of the fourth estate.

By: lumpenprole

lumpenprole — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 00:32:14 -0800

They forgot Bill Clinton. Yeah! I'm totally not voting for him again! Wait, what were we talking about.....

By: oaf

oaf — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 00:38:03 -0800

You mean the people who were most eager to go to war *profited* from it? How could this be? Isn't that economics in a nutshell?

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 02:18:14 -0800

They forgot Bill Clinton. posted by Kronoss at 8:23 PM PST on January 12 Yes, it's another bad mark on ihs already shitty record. What's your fucking point?

By: vito90

vito90 — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 07:25:48 -0800

It's a good read, and what makes it good is it hurts just to read it.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:34:30 -0800

Here's a nice book on the subject: Gusterson and Batesman's Why America's Top Pundits Are Wrong. Sometimes, print beats the web to the punch!

By: Kronoss

Kronoss — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:40:21 -0800

By: Kronoss

Kronoss — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:44:35 -0800

That is to say, by symbolic I mean that even though he's no longer President, what Clinton says is still considered the Democratic opinion by many. Sorry for mucking up an interesting thread.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:08:57 -0800

My first comment was dumb. I just wanted to point out that lots of prominent Democrats supported the war and, you know, still lead the party (Although Clinton is more of a symbolic or unofficial leader). I know a lot of Democrats have admitted to regretting such support, but I haven't heard that from Clinton. posted by Kronoss at 8:40 AM PST on January 13 I'm sorry I jumped down your throat, Kronoss. It's just that I see that tactic used so often by hawks and the right, as if Clinton was universally hailed by the anti-war contingent (or progressives in general) as a Great Man, when in fact he was little more than a moderate Republican.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:24:49 -0800

Clinton (both of 'em) suck(s).

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:06:15 -0800

Did Clinton call for the invasion of Iraq while he was still president? I think he bombed some "weapons labs" in Iraq at one point.

By: mongonikol

mongonikol — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:36:39 -0800

Here's what Bill said about it all to Chris Wallace. (Remember?)

By: mongonikol

mongonikol — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:42:32 -0800

Actually, this one is more watchable, no edits.

By: mongonikol

mongonikol — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:58:29 -0800

Umm...wait...maybe this one has no edits...it looks like the best of the three.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:40:15 -0800

Cheney's Dead-Enders

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:39:19 -0800

mongonikol: I'd never seen more then the first ten minutes of that, and I suppose I never will. However, nothing in that interview has anything to do with Iraq, or his position on it (other then saying it harmed the operation in Afghanistan)

By: peeedro

peeedro — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:44:31 -0800

What I actually do is ass-fuck their corpses. Bet they never saw THAT coming. I recommend fisting, because they really can't see it coming.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:10:47 -0800

... in a conversation afterwards with several people, McGovern said that he's been trying to get on television to talk about Iraq. But producers and hosts are telling him that they "already have too many anti-war people on." How many is "too many"? I'm guessing that number may be as high as one.

By: avriette

avriette — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 05:45:12 -0800

... as if pundits should be consulted at all on the question of whether to go to war.

By: bad grammar

bad grammar — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:25:01 -0800

Definitely not a meritocracy, at the stratospheric levels of the media. I'd say a pornocracy, but that might lead into winger digressions about Clinton and Monica. A sycophantocracy.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:48:35 -0800

Greenwald on Ritter.