Frank Rich Must Read: The 36 Hours That Shook Washington

[flpoljunkie]

June 25, 2010
The 36 Hours That Shook Washington
By FRANK RICH

THE moment he pulled the trigger, there was near-universal agreement that President Obama had done the inevitable thing, the right thing and, best of all, the bold thing. But before we get carried away with relief and elation, let’s not forget what we saw in the tense 36 hours that fell between late Monday night, when word spread of Rolling Stone’s blockbuster article, and high noon Wednesday, when Obama MacArthured his general. That frenzied interlude revealed much about the state of Washington, the Afghanistan war and the Obama presidency — little of it cheering and none of it resolved by the ingenious replacement of Gen. Stanley McChrystal with Gen. David Petraeus, the only militarily and politically bullet-proof alternative.

What we saw was this: 1) Much of the Beltway establishment was blindsided by Michael Hastings’s scoop, an impressive feat of journalism by a Washington outsider who seemed to know more about what was going on in Washington than most insiders did; 2) Obama’s failure to fire McChrystal months ago for both his arrogance and incompetence was a grievous mistake that illuminates a wider management shortfall at the White House; 3) The present strategy has produced no progress in this nearly nine-year-old war, even as the monthly coalition body count has just reached a new high.

If we and the president don’t absorb these revelations and learn from them, the salutary effects of the drama’s denouement, however triumphant for Obama in the short run, will be for naught.

There were few laughs in the 36 hours of tumult, but Jon Stewart captured them with a montage of cable-news talking heads expressing repeated shock that an interloper from a rock ’n’ roll magazine could gain access to the war command and induce it to speak with self-immolating candor. Politico theorized that Hastings had pulled off his impertinent coup because he was a freelance journalist rather than a beat reporter, and so could risk “burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks.”

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/opinion/27rich.html?ref=frankrich

[Octafish]

1. 'Burning Bridges' = 'Affordable Journalism'

= Cover-Up Artistes.

For War. For Warmongers.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. I know it is not unanimous here, but Frank Rich is a treasure. Always must read, even if not

always agree.

By the way, the fellow who wrote the RS article is a former boyfriend of a good friend of my daughter! She couldn't believe it when she saw his name and picture! Small world....

[monmouth]

3. I'm curious to see if the Sunday a.m. "journalists" will even acknowledge

this coup by the "outsider." Noonan, Will, etc..should be hilarious.

[roscoeroscoe]

4. rolling stone has always been good

the national affairs desk, from hunter thompson til the present, has gone straight at the heart of many issues--coming right to mind is a fantastic article several years ago about the fbi/homeland security effort to infiltrate & target muslims in the us, and the COINTELPRO style entrapment that has led to very weak prosecutions. like the 'group' that was supposedly going to bomb the sears tower. remember? they were entrapped into vague discussions of getting back at the man and such, and the next thing you know, the bush administration was trumpeting a big TERROR PLOT FOILED!!!

rolling stone's article on the program was very sharp. i always look out for their work.

with regard to the article about mcchrystal, i understand there were some interesting circumstances. weather forced a delay in his departure... and i think he made good use of the situation. they got used to him being around... great reporter.

it's no surprise there are different views on the administration, the conduct of the war and so on. but to me, mcchrystal has been a bad actor all along, as seen in the pat tillman cover up and mcchrystal's oversight of torture in iraq. after all that, he and his staff must have felt like the true warriors, doing all the unappreciated dirty work, misunderstood by the stupid white house, etc.

time to clean house.

[hvn_nbr_2]

5. How an "outsider," an "interloper," got the story when the MSM couldn't

Three-step process:

1. Remove lips from other parts of the establishment interviewee, so you can ask questions.

2. Remove head from own ass so ears are able to hear the answers.

3. Report what happened.

MSM: three steps of fail.

[PopSixSquish]

6. Very Good Column by Frank Rich

and I find myself agreeing that the President should have fired McCrystal last fall.

I think it's time that all of us, including President Obama, whom I generally support and admire, to admit that Afghanistan is a lost cause. The time to make progress came and went in 2003-2004.

I heard all of the President's speeches and reasons for why Afghanistan is important and why he would focus on this war but it's time for us to go.

I don't know what happens if we do though and it does scare me.

"Clusterfuckistan" indeed...

[Jennicut]

7. I totally agree with you on all of that. There is no winning in Aghanistan to be had.

[elocs]

8. K&R

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Hamid Karzai deserves the fate he will most likely get; Ahmed Chalabi may yet escape justice

We sure know how to pick 'em, don't we?

Karzai, the Unocal poster-thug, is so profoundly corrupt that the word is simply too complimentary. Even so, the chance of him surviving this kleptocratic hyperthievery is about as real as our "winning" in Afghanistan, unless some terminal disease gets him first.

[Uzybone]

10. Typical Frank Rich

after the fact he knows all the answers. He writes very well, but never tells us anything new.

When the Iraq War needed a few good men to speak up against it, unlike Prof Krugman, Rich wasn't there.

When Kerry and Gore were being slimed. Rich was at the front of the pack.

We have been in Afghanistan for 9 long years, now Rich is asking why the media hasn't been asking hard questions about the war. Ummm Frank...you are part of the fucking media!