I've got a piece up atVanity Fair refuting the "case" against Michael Hastings, the unusually capable journalist who broke the McChrystal story. An excerpt:
National Review editor Rich Lowry began his commentary with the following “point,” as he describes it:
1) Rolling Stone? Rolling Stone???
Yes, Rich; the most impact-laden story of the year, the one in which General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and his aides talked trash about President Barack Obama and members of his administration, appeared in Rolling Stone, not National Review. And it was written by a perfect specimen of the new breed of journalist-commentator that will hopefully come to replace the old breed sooner rather than later, and which has already collectively surpassed the old guard by every measure that counts—for instance, not being forever wrong about matters of life and death....
At this time, Hastings is in Kandahar performing further crimes against the status quo and is thus unable to defend himself against those who are responsible for the problems he has helped to bring to light, and so I will take this opportunity to do it for him. This brings us back to Rich Lowry, whom we last saw declaiming Rolling Stone for not being as respectable as National Review and who later that day found time to voice more substantive objections:
The Rolling Stone piece by Michael Hastings has some excellent color about McChrystal’s interactions with the troops and the rocket-fuel of those controversial quotes. Otherwise, it’s pretty lackluster and very anti-war. This is hilarious over-writing about McChrystal: “His slate-blue eyes have the unsettling ability to drill down when they lock on you. If you’ve f—-ed up or disappointed him, they can destroy your soul without the need for him to raise his voice.” Destroy your soul?
It takes a special brand of shamelessness to accuse someone of “over-writing” after having just seconds before described a series of significant quotes as “rocket-fuel.” This is doubly true when the shameless writer in question is perhaps best known for the following passage, which may qualify as the most worthless bit of commentary from the very 2008 election news cycle that so disgusted Hastings:
Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it.”
Incidentally, this telling bit of zeta-male-ish output was interspersed with several years of objections from Lowry and his associates to the effect that Obama’s fans were merely “starstruck” by a telegenic empty suit.
Most of the rest explains Hasting's particularly admirable record as an honest and dedicated journalist, including his habit of quitting bad magazines in disgust. Elsewhere I make fun of Rich Lowry for accidentally helping to kill a couple hundred thousand people. Oh, Rich Lowry, you scamp!