September 26, 2006

Hey, I'm on!

Watch me with Newsday's Jim Pinkerton, talking on the split-screen. Topics (and times):
Jim McGreevey and the Church of Oprah (06:10)

Bill Clinton and the vast right-wing conspiracy (13:02)

Bill is to Hillary as Chavez is to Ahmadinejad? (05:11)

Leaking just enough intelligence about the effect of the war (12:15)

Did the Pope bumble into the clash of civilizations? (04:49)

Did Bush? (11:30)

Ann brings out the dead bodies (09:46)

ADDED: If you want just the audio, go here.


Simon said...

I think you may have missed - or at least minimized - the point of the New York Times thing. It isn't just that the New York Times is asking us to trust it about the NIE, without letting us see it, it's that the New York Times ITSELF hasn't seen the NIE.

To be sure, the credibility (or rather, lack thereof) of the NYT is certainly the major and ongoing issue, but in this particular case, there's something even more damaging to their credibility: they're basically asking us to trust not their own politically-motivated assesment of the NIE, but to trust their politically-motivated leakers' assesments about the NIE. They truly cannot be serious.

There is nothing to answer for, unless or until the NIE is made public. When it's public, when we can all see for outselves what's in it, there may be something that we have to talk about. But we can't talk about the substance of the NIE right now, because none of the people who are crowing about it or decrying it have read it.

noah said...

Extremely well done Ann. You modulated the irrepressible Jim Pinkerton perfectly.

Better focus on your camera?

Did you notice that Jim neck is a pasty white and his face is flushed (or normal)?

I largely agree with Pinkerton. It appears that the burdens of empire are damn near insurmountable given the reality of human nature. Heck our home grown moonbats won't listen to reason, how can we expect those with an entirely different cultural tradition to be any different?

Derve said...

Interesting enough McGreevey, Clintons, Pope warmup. Lookswise, he should have at least combed his hair. You looked great.

Overall though, he took you to school on the "Did Bush?" section. You think it was a "set up" -- him knowing what you and even more, the regular Althouse cheerleaders -- in here rant and chant about President Bush's foreign policy?

"I don't think America has this capacity to remake the world. It's hard enough to stop violence in Milwaukee, yet alone transform the hearts and minds of..."
"So have you been against the war all along?"
"I have, I have."

"The age of empires is over. The age of being able to take your power and go somewhere else -- in a world where the other people, the brown people if you will, have guns and communications and quite possibly atomic weapons... it just doesn't work anymore. The kind of fatalism and servility that we sort of assume..."

"You've got to figure out some way of interacting with them that doesn't involve invading their country and occupying them. Because if you invade their country and occupy, they'll fight back."

"I mean personally, I can't help but feel we need to keep going forward to victory..."
"Do you see, do you see that victory coming?"
"Do you see that victory coming?"
"Do I see it coming...?"
All bloggers don't have to be foreign policy experts, of course, but it was good to see someone finally point out this "it was a longshot". That doesn't make one a wimp; it makes one a weathered realist, not an optimist fuzzy on the details.

I thought he fought a little personal ("ivory tower types" -- and it's just a good thing you don't drive a Suburban :). I liked that you didn't show anything there, and also that he didn't overreact when you wondered if he was sounding like Chavez. He didn't let you back off gracefully with "whatever decisions have been made, they're in the past" like you can get away with in argument here.

Worthwhile segment. I'd say, do it again. You can't help but emerge as a stronger blogger for having a better opponent than typically cultivated here. Even if it just means you tread more lightly on topics that are not your area of expertise.

Who chooses where the segments are cut, and who chooses the "topics" to be discussed on

noah said...

And Derve comes along and makes my point for me.

David said...

Another part of this story is the reasoning behind the NYT to present out-of-context assessments as if the administration would not declassify the entire report.

They were bluffing the President to respond to their biased reporting. The conclusions I draw from this are twofold. They think the American public will blindly believe what they read in the NYT or not savvy enough to check the veracity of the reporting.

I would not want to play poker with Bush or Rove! In this matter, I believe Bush will declassify the report to show the bias from the NYT.

Can the NYT be that self-destructive when it comes to their tattered reputation and credibility?

Maybe the next blogcast! It was good seeing Ann delivering the goods! Word of advice, next time get a smaller glass for your beverage! It looks much bigger on a webcam! Choose a color to match your outfit!

Derve said...

And Derve comes along and makes my point for me."

Careful noah. I just might take offense and fight back -- imagine that. ;-)

Besides, I said she looked good, if that's what you're scoring.

AJ Lynch said...

David asked:
"Can the NYT be that self-destructive when it comes to their tattered reputation and credibility?"

I am a lapsed Democrat. I voted for the Democrat for president from 1972 thru 1992 (six straight elections (2 out of 6 Dems won). Am now a republican and admit I now analyze news stories thru my own prism.

In their own sneaky way, the MSM has become shrill, self-destructive to their own credibility and is absolutely committed to seeing the Dems get back in power. In their minds, that goal justifies every thing they do no matter how incorrect, or misleading or false.

The boomers working and running the MSM are desperate and so to answer you question- the NYT does not believe this poses a risk to their reputation.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to not relate to the content of the piece, which I did find interesting, but, afterall, it is a visual medium.

Three words of advice: focus, focus,focus. The blurriness distracted from my ability to...well focus...on the content.

Admitedly this could purely be a symptom of my slightly pre-babyboom generational difficulties with multitasking.

XWL said...

Did you request a 'True Conservative' co-head so you could be the 'Moderate/Liberal' this time around, or did it just happen this way?

(Just curious, but you mentioned before that you had been cast as the 'ostensible conservative' in your other bloggingheads bits and in other trips through the media)

Ann Althouse said...

I can't make my camera focus any more than it wants to. He's got a professional camera. I'm just using the iSight camera built into my iMac.

Ann Althouse said...

I didn't request a particular type of co-head. My earlier episodes were with Bob Wright and Matt Yglesias. I liked them too.

Fenrisulven said...

Simon: I think you may have missed - or at least minimized - the point of the New York Times thing. It isn't just that the New York Times is asking us to trust it about the NIE, without letting us see it, it's that the New York Times ITSELF hasn't seen the NIE.

I agree. I also don't think you fairly represented our comments re it. Yes, many of us discounted the report because it was leaked by CIA to NYTs, but then we went on to answer the question are we safer anyway. You kinda made it sound like we ran away from the question by blaming a partisan CIA [shrug].

Anyways, NIE is being declassified. Here is a preview of the balanced report you'll be seeing soon, and justification of our criticism of the CIA->NYTs bedfellows:

In one of its early paragraphs, the estimate notes progress in the struggle against terrorism, stating the U.S.-led efforts have "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations." Didn't see that in the NYT article.

Or how about this statement, which--in part--reflects the impact of increased pressure on the terrorists: "A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse." Hmm...doesn't sound much like Al Qaida's pre-9-11 game plan.

The report also notes the importance of the War in Iraq as a make or break point for the terrorists: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight." It's called a ripple effect.

More support for the defeating the enemy on his home turf: "Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq." President Bush and senior administration officials have made this argument many times--and it's been consistently dismissed by the "experts" at the WaPo and Times.

And, some indication that the "growing" jihad may be pursuing the wrong course: "There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims." Seems to contradict MSM accounts of a jihadist tsunami with ever-increasing support in the global Islamic community..

The estimate also affirms the wisdom of sowing democracy in the Middle East: "Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit." As I recall, this the core of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, the NYTs version was a dishonest translation, to say the least. I still read left-bias papers like Wapo to gain a left perspective and see what the "enemy" is up to, but I discovered long ago [Soviet era] that the NYTs is just a propaganda arm of Anti-Americanisms. I don't even bother to fisk it anymore - waste of an afternoon.

Ann Althouse said...

One way to deal with the focus issue is to sit further from the screen.

XWL said...

Now that I've actually watched the thing, excellent job hosting this Professor.

You offered the right mix of exploring topics in some depth while still moving things along.

I'm still not certain that the 'head' portion of bloggingheads is really necessary.

Seems like audio only interviews/discussions would be equally entertaining.

Pretty much that's how I consume this, and I suspect many others do as well, so adding the video only adds to the amount of bandwidth these take up and the technical difficulties in presenting them.

Ann Althouse said...

XWL: There's a link on the page for getting audio only. I put an update on this post to take you right there.

knoxgirl said...

The stuff that's trickling out about that report is just confirming all of my initial and immediate skepticism about that article. It's sort of like what Ann said about Shalala's group: the NYT is making it impossible to take anything they publish seriously. They're squandering any credibility their argument might actually contain.

Derve said...

"squandering credibility"

That seems to be going around lately...

Anonymous said...

Ann, since you are using an iSight camera, and since I complained about your focus issue, I did a little web searching. Many people are having the same focus problem. Here is a review of an $8 utility program called iGlasses, which appears to, among other features, present the possibility of improving focus dramatically:

Hope this is helpful.

Ann Althouse said...

Joe: Thanks! I downloaded it. I should do a vlog to test it out.

Ann Althouse said...

Of course, iGlasses doesn't focus the camera. It just lets you turn up the sharpness, the way a photo program does. Still, it may make it better. Also the light control is great. I have a big problem with the light on the iSight camera I use at home.