Farewell. The Flying Pig Has Left The Building.

Steve Hynd, August 16, 2012

After four years on the Typepad site, eight years total blogging, Newshoggers is closing it's doors today. We've been coasting the last year or so, with many of us moving on to bigger projects (Hey, Eric!) or simply running out of blogging enthusiasm, and it's time to give the old flying pig a rest.

We've done okay over those eight years, although never being quite PC enough to gain wider acceptance from the partisan "party right or wrong" crowds. We like to think we moved political conversations a little, on the ever-present wish to rush to war with Iran, on the need for a real Left that isn't licking corporatist Dem boots every cycle, on America's foreign misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. We like to think we made a small difference while writing under that flying pig banner. We did pretty good for a bunch with no ties to big-party apparatuses or think tanks.

Those eight years of blogging will still exist. Because we're ending this typepad account, we've been archiving the typepad blog here. And the original blogger archive is still here. There will still be new content from the old 'hoggers crew too. Ron writes for The Moderate Voice, I post at The Agonist and Eric Martin's lucid foreign policy thoughts can be read at Democracy Arsenal.

I'd like to thank all our regular commenters, readers and the other bloggers who regularly linked to our posts over the years to agree or disagree. You all made writing for 'hoggers an amazingly fun and stimulating experience.

Thank you very much.

Note: This is an archive copy of Newshoggers. Most of the pictures are gone but the words are all here. There may be some occasional new content, John may do some posts and Ron will cross post some of his contributions to The Moderate Voice so check back.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, September 28, 2009

Big Deal

By Steve Hynd


The pro-war, anti-President Right are agog today at McChrystal's revelation that he's only spoken directly to Obama once in the seventy days the General has been in command in Afghanistan.


And my reaction is: so?


There's at least three layers of command between Obama and McChrystal: the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs and General Petraeus. They're there for a reason. That Dubya 'got off' on rubbing shoulders with generals and slavishly following their ideas should be no guide.


How often do you think Patton got a phone call from F.D.R.?


But I find myself wondering if McChrystal organised the question which let him reveal this bit of faux news as part of his ongoing campaign of near insubordination against his Commander-in-Chief.



Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 comments:

  1. Ron BeasleySeptember 28, 2009 at 6:44 AM

    My reaction exactly. The Generals don't seem to ever learn that it's not their job to set policy and that's exactly what the very political and ambitious Petreaus and McCrystal are trying to do. Let the neocons and Zionists scream bloody murder - if they keep playing these political games fire their asses.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ron BeasleySeptember 28, 2009 at 6:58 AM

    And it's time for Gates to determine who's side he's on and call McCrystal and Petreaus out for insubordination.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Front & CenterSeptember 28, 2009 at 7:19 AM

    Somebody should be on the carpet, Front and Center, having "Lock It Up!!!" screamed into their face at about 150mph.
    but that's just me, an old nomcom from way back.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ron BeasleySeptember 28, 2009 at 7:48 AM

    Commentor SteveK over at TMV had the best reaction.
    Am I the only one that thinks Dr Strangelove when Generals start thinking that they're in charge?

    ReplyDelete
  5. emptySeptember 28, 2009 at 12:30 PM

    "In charge" may be too strong but it is unrealistic to assume that the Generals do not have a lot of power. The US foreign policy is thoroughly militarized. In this environment it would require some pretty solid civilian leadership for the will of the military not to drive policy. I see no evidence of such civilian leadership. My only hope is that there is a sane faction in the military. If Petraeus and McChrystal are all we have, god help us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. CassandraSeptember 28, 2009 at 1:59 PM

    "I find myself wondering if McChrystal organised the question which let him reveal this bit of faux news as part of his ongoing campaign of near insubordination against his Commander-in-Chief."
    Dear Lord. Does it hurt to be this stupid?
    (Psssst... Gen. Petraeus dictates the evening news to CNN, too. How *do* they find the time?)
    Oh. And please get a dictionary. Look up the term "insubordination" before attempting to use it again. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gary FarberSeptember 28, 2009 at 5:33 PM

    "There's at least three layers of command between Obama and McChrystal: the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs and General Petraeus."
    That's incorrect. The chain of command runs directly from McChrystal, theater commander, to Petraeus, commander of CENTCOM, to the SecDef, to the POTUS.
    The Joint Chiefs are not in the operational chain of command, per the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve HyndSeptember 28, 2009 at 6:48 PM

    Gary, thank you for the correction. The underlying notion that the chain of command is a good thing still stands, though.
    Regards, Steve
    Psst Cassandra, pretty weak tea for a drive-by wingnut.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gary FarberSeptember 30, 2009 at 8:36 AM

    "The underlying notion that the chain of command is a good thing still stands, though."
    Only a commie terrorist could believe that.
    Good story on this here, by the way.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)