This morning, in passing, I suggested Gen. Petraeus’ credibility “suffered a serious blow this week when he appeared on far-right activist Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, and stuck closely to the White House script.” In response, Hewitt responded that I am an “anti-intellectual screamer,” which may very well be the strangest, projection-like insult I’ve ever received.
The point of the criticism, of course, is that Petraeus, as the top military commander in Iraq, should maintain a politically-neutral position. His honorable military service shouldn’t have anything to do with advancing the president’s political goals, or rallying the GOP base. By giving his time to Hewitt, an unabashed Republican operative, Petraeus undermines his own integrity, lending the appearance of partisanship and the politicization of his position.
In contrast, Hewitt believes he’s a perfectly suitable outlet for Petraeus.
The commentators objecting to the general being interviewed by an avowed Republican who is also a journalist no doubt don’t object to Tim Russert, George Stephanopoulos and Chris Matthews running talk shows depsite [sic] their past partisan attachments. This amusing double standard says nothing about the ability of those Dems who are also journalists to conduct interviews, but volumes about the gullibility of the anti-intellectuals who want General Petraeus only to speak to the MSM and thus through the filter of MSM.
That’s an absurd straight-jacket which the [sic] neither the military nor any other institution in America ought to put on.
This is a surprisingly misguided argument. Hewitt sees himself as comparable to Russert, Stephanopoulos, and Matthews because they, at one time, worked in politics. But therein lies the point — all three moved away from partisan roles in order to become professional journalists. Hewitt notes the “past partisan attachments” without noting his current partisan attachments.
This isn’t about putting Petraeus or anyone else in a “straight-jacket,” but what should the typical American think when the top military commander in Iraq appears on a far-right radio show, but won’t appear on Meet the Press?
And what, exactly, would the “filter of MSM” do to Petraeus’ message if he were, for example, to sit down with Russert on Sunday morning? Russert would ask questions, Petraeus would answer them. It would all be live on national television. There’s no “filter” — only Q&A. Is Hewitt suggesting that his non-confrontational questions are essential to the public’s understanding of events in Iraq?
Indeed, as Sullivan noted, in response to one of Petraeus’ comments, Hewitt responded, simply, “Wow.” Perhaps that’s not the kind of insight we would get from Stephanopoulos, but I’m not convinced that’s a negative.
The concern here is that Petraeus is taking on the role of a partisan, a fear bolstered by his previous political efforts. If Hewitt believes these concerns are unreasonable, he’s just not paying attention.