At the pundits' table, the losing bet still takes the pot

Maybe I’m crazy but on PBS’s News Hour I could’ve sworn David Brooks claimed he was always against the invasion of Iraq. Chris Matthews & Tucker Carlson claim the same.

Then you have those who say they weren’t originally for the war. But “well since we’re there now we can’t just get up & leave…” (O really? Why not…?)

That’s the same kind of utter stupidity exhibited during the disastrous Vietnam War.

Follow the money…all around…

====

MONKEYFINGER

http://www.bartcop.com/bushFinger3.gif

Several times over the course of the 15 years that I wrote a col for the NY Observer I pushed the idea that pundits should be licensed just as drivers are, that punditical violations (egregious predictions, gross hypocrisy, slimy backtracking and verminous sinking-ship abandonment) be subject to a penalty-points system that could result in short- or long-term suspension of media access. It was a serious idea lightly-framed, but because no one reads/takes NYO seriously it got nowhere. Reed's piece eloquently makes the case for just such regulation.

There is one other extremely influential media mogul who is more of a gadfly than a pundit on political topics, but nonetheless, wields enormous power to shape opinion -- Oprah Winfrey. We needn't delve into what her financial status is; on a moral level, however, she is sort of a self-crowned saint. In the run-up to war, she had a whole hour devoted to the pros. After vociferous criticism from her viewers (including myself at that time--no more), she had an hour on the con side of the argument. But the damage was done. After we were committed to war, her advice was to "make the best of it." Yup, well, we all know she did.

I tivo'ed Matthews daily and can attest that he was against invasion, saying again and again, invasion would simply create more enemies and history showed we would be repelled. Yes, he can be a chameleon as he buddies up with guests on all sides, on all issues, and one just tuning in occasionally could mistake his position.)
Ritter was my guiding light and I was fascinated at how consistenly the media distorted his historical and current positions to make him look crazy and that he had done a 180 when in truth he was remarkably consistent. Every single time he was a guest the preface was, "So, you said this but now you say this!"
Pat Buchanan, an interesting voice, was openly against invasion and never budged an inch.

What about Bill Kristol? He is still flapping his mouth after all his "astute" comments on the middle east before the war. He knows nothing and the more he knows nothing the more people seem to listen to him.

Being a political junkie @ this time is not a good thing. I'm operating in information overload. I heard Vice President Cheney say yesterday on Fox News Sunday say regardless on what Congress or the American people think, He and President Bush or moving full speed ahead. If that is the case, the House and Senate needs to move full speed ahead and impeach them both. What over solution is there but to remove the people from office before they get us all KILLED!

I've been hoping to see more of this type of article, and hope I see more of them. You nailed it with Tom Friedman, but I'm with wigcon -- William Kristol should have topped this list. For any TV news show or newspaper to take these guys seriously anymore should be doing serious harm to its own credibility, yet for some reason, they continue with their bullshit and are revered. Why?

In his trashing of Jimmy Carter's "Peace: Not Apartheid" the War-without-end-lobbyist, Jeffrey Goldberg labels Jimmy "famously pro-Palestinian" and even goes so far as to say he was critical of the saintly Golda Meir!

However, what Jeffrey really wants to call Jimmy, but isn't quite sure if the word still has any meaning, is "anti-semite."

He should ask David Brooks, who, in one of his New York Times columns, said that his critics used the word "neocon" as a code word for "Jewish."

In his trashing of Jimmy Carter's "Peace: Not Apartheid" the War-without-end-lobbyist, Jeffrey Goldberg labels Jimmy "famously pro-Palestinian" and even goes so far as to say he was critical of the saintly Golda Meir!

However, what Jeffrey really wants to call Jimmy, but isn't quite sure if the word still has any meaning, is "anti-semite."

He should ask David Brooks, who, in one of his New York Times columns, said that his critics used the word "neocon" as a code word for "Jewish."

campeador, you point to the 'white elephant in the room', the topic no one in the media wants to confront directly for fear of getting the cr*p beat out of them (figuratively speaking). although everyone knows its there, the pork and the lobbyists are just too strong for anyone truly seeking justice to get any ink in the MSM.

the ad for timeselect--the pay service that gives you access to op-ed writers brooks et al-- boasts classic david brooks. and each time i see the ad on line i think--yes let's hear more from the neocon who cheered us on to war in iraq and then told us when things were going badly that the war in iraq had very little importance in the relative scheme of things. when offered the nyt promo deal to subscribe to timeselect i emailed the nyt and suggested they would certainly make more money by introducing timesdeselct--in other words more readers would pay not to read the likes of david brooks!

time for the times to get rid of david brooks, its in family failed publisher.

I read every word and every comment. Gripping. The talking head generals should also be taken to task and then the "terrorism experts". Most of these think-tank babies were pushing for a department of homeland security BEFORE 9/11 and predicted the Y2K disaster. They deserve to be exposed.
The biggest turnaround, though, seems to be MSNBC's Joe Scarborough who, last November, asked "Is George Bush an idiot?" and proved that he is.

briggs, you've identified the reason the Washington Post will never charge its readers for access to its own op-ed section. Readers quickly lose the daily habit of following the dissemblings of neocons like Jim Hoagland and the very nasty Charles Krauthammer.

The arragant, blundering and completely incompetent manner in which this operation has been directed masks any objective judgement on the merits of pre-war commentary. One can only say adequate warning and caution was offered and ignored by our leadership.
Dave Cohen

What about Justin Raimondo? Or was Raimondo 'too' correct too early?

OTOH there is Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute, who put in plugs for this war and can still be seen on the CNN pundit circuit. Not to mention CNN itself, still plugging away like nothing has happened.

RE: Iraq Gamble

My observation is that when a government effectively controls "leaks" it has much great influence on reporting. Without any leaks the more selective distribution of information in a manner of "scoops" amounts to $ to those who receive this information before their colleagues. Under the current system all “leaks” are actually calculated news distribution to curry favoritism and control reporting. This of course raises the reporters stock with their employer and the stock of the reporting outlet itself. So favorable reporting of the Administration reaps great benefits as those reporters or news outlets get scoops through exclusive interviews, early copy on breaking news etc. This process soon becomes self-reinforcing. Those that do not provide favorable reporting are likewise intentionally isolated from receiving early reports of breaking news. These methods further feed into the national talking points phenomenon as illustrated by the Rush Limbaugh types. By regurgitating the party or Administration's line these "boots on the ground" radio talk show hosts are also rewarded with information and talking points to help them with their daily shows. These media outlets provide a basement foundation in local markets to reinforce the slanting of the national news outlets. Overall this system of orchestrated information control is daily undermining our free press system as is the consolidation of news media owners and outlets. Thus to me the findings of this article are not surprising but make a lot of sense. Selective distribution of information is equivalent to money in a market where information is not freely available to all journalists. Those that play nicely are in the chips. Kind of like a K Street project for the media! I think some additional aspects of these types of controls and influences on the media will become more evident as the Libby trial proceeds.

More War Pimps:

Chris Hitchens - How's he doing?
He's the most shameless of them all.

Michael Ledeen and all the American Enterprise Institute hacks.

Tony Snow - He's got a good (snow) job now.

Peggy Noonan who has at least has recanted.

Andrew Sullivan, recanted, doing okay.

Here's a link on the triumphalist pundits after the invasion began, even Judy Woodruff, Lou Dobbs. Caution, some gushing from Matthews, (I actually remember him frothing at the mouth when he praised Bush's Mission Accomplished performance.)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2842

Remember within 3 weeks of the invasion of Iraq, it all went horribly wrong. By three months, June 2003, the White House had received reports that the military was losing control in Iraq.

Ooh! This was really well written. This Jebediah Reed can really turn a phrase. I love him Luis Guzman too, but let him write more political stuff!

I don't know about his post-war fortunes, but Col. Patrick Lang deserves some mention by merit of his well-reasoned arguments on PBS's Newshour during the leadup to the war. A former Pentagon intelligence officer with specialty in the Middle East, Lang consistently applied his knowledge of the history and culture of Iraq to the debate, and simply by so doing exposed basic flaws of administrative positions. He was quietly and thoroughly analytical, and at some future date will, I think, be seen as one of the most clearsighted of the commentators. He was, of course, ignored. Not surprising, when the number two at the State Dept., Richard Armitage, was--and remains--proud of having said to Musharaff "history begins today." I suppose if you're ignorant, a potential ploy would indeed be to declare knowledge null and void. Too bad reality won't play along.

Let's not forget Mark Bowden, who wrote on Salon back in late 2002 that he had no idea why the US had not already gone in and brought down Saddam, and predicted it would all go swimmingly. That was about ten months before he wrote a piece about the merits of torture in The Atlantic, and about six months before he wrote a piece about how cool and fun it was to be in a US airforce fighter jet bombing terrorists in Afghanistan. Oh, they weren't all terrorists? Well, those are the breaks, I guess.

Friedman's speaking fees may be up, but to say this extra $20,000 per throw has made him rich is idiotic. The man married into the family of a shopping mall magnate and is worth, along with his wife, a reported 4 Billion dollars. He could pay organizations $65,000 a night for the privilege of speaking to them for the rest of his life and he'd still die super-rich.