WaPo columnist E.J. Dionne gets paid a hefty salary and gets a lot of public respect for his claimed ability to opine knowledgeably about current affairs. But on Friday, he and the other two participants in Diane Rehm’s much lauded, nationally syndicated radio talk show revealed how little they really understand about the areas of America’s two major current wars.
The incident went like this:
- 1. A caller from someplace in the Midwest called in and asked something like, “How come during the Palin-Biden debate last night nobody picked up on the fact that Palin referred approvingly to the idea of talks with both Maliki and the Talebani?” Like Palin, the caller mis-spoke the Iraqi PM’s name as “Maleeki.” Unlike Palin, he put that crucial definite article before the word “Talebani”, showing that he had not understood the distinction between Mr. Jalal Talabani, the President of Iraq, and “the” Taleban (no terminal “i”), widely recognized in the US as the “bad guy”, now resurging, pro-Qaeda, former rulers of Afghanistan.
2. Diane Rehm made no attempt to correct the caller’s misunderstanding but passed the question directly on to E.J. Dionne. E.J. also did not correct the caller’s mistake but said something like, “Goodness, yes, that was a terrible mistake Sarah Palin made.”
3. Neither of the other, supposedly knowledgeable panelists, Jim Angle of Faux News and Jeanne Cummings of The Politico, intervened at all to suggest that the caller had misunderstood what Palin was talking about.
I mention this terrible gaffe, committed by a total of four supposedly well-informed Washington DC “insiders”, because it underlines the extent to which those well-regarded members of the U.S. commentatoriat don’t actually have any real understanding of the matters they opine about with such self-confidence.
It’s quite understandable that a regular citizen, calling in from who knows where, might have failed to make the distinction between Mr. Jalal Talabani, who has been President of Iraq for 3-4 years and as the long-time head of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) has been a regular feature in US newspapers since long before 2003, and the Taleban. But it strikes me as inexcusable that Rehm, Dionne, Angle, and Cummings all failed to notice that that the caller had confused those two significant names with each other.
Btw, I note that Sarah Palin referred to “Talabani” quite correctly.
“Btw, I note that Sarah Palin referred to “Talabani” quite correctly.”
Not completely. Palin’s using “the” before Talibani created an understandable confusion between two possible references: “the Taliban” and “Talibani”. Given Palin’s general ignorance of the larger world, and her repeated referral to notes or Blackberry or whatever, I think it probable her comment was more knee jerk than considered, and that she could not explain the difference if asked. I would further generalize that her probable inability to differentiate between the two illustrates the boundary between people who still somehow support her, and those who think she is in way way over her head and should withdraw for the good of the country. For those who still like Palin, she only has to get things partly right; that’s good enough.
Sadly, I had held a higher opinion of Dianne Rhems than this unquestioned Palin gaffe supports.
Helena says that Palin didn’t put “the” before Talebani and JamesL said she did. Ah, I’ll go with Helena.
Moving on to the main subject: Why did Dionne say that it’s wrong for the US to talk to our allies Maliki and Talibani? Why did the question even come up? What am I missing here? Should I be forced to go out and purchase a teevee to watch these “debates”?
James: “Not completely. Palin’s using “the” before Talibani created an understandable confusion between two possible references: “the Taliban” and “Talibani”.”
Funny how one’s memory can play tricks — I heard the caller on the Diane Rehm show and thought I also remembered that Palin had in fact said “the Talabani,” but I just checked two different transcripts, and unless Palin got the benefit of the doubt from the transcribers, Palin didn’t add the article.
To Diane Rehm’s credit, she did correct the misstatements by the panel in the next hour (she said she got lots of calls about it).
Don: “Moving on to the main subject: Why did Dionne say that it’s wrong for the US to talk to our allies Maliki and Talibani? Why did the question even come up?
Dionne was speaking only of what he thought was Palin’s confusion.
Incidentally, you can listen to the DR Show online or download the podcasts. The public events guests are mostly center right to center left, but occasionally there are some more leftish really excellent folks on, like today: economists Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein on the bailout. (I listen while walking, which makes me feel doubly virtuous!).
James: “Not completely. Palin’s using “the” before Talibani created an understandable confusion between two possible references: “the Taliban” and “Talibani”.”
Funny how one’s memory can play tricks — I heard the caller on the Diane Rehm show and thought I also remembered that Palin had in fact said “the Talabani,” but I just checked two different transcripts, and unless Palin got the benefit of the doubt from the transcribers, Palin didn’t add the article.
To Diane Rehm’s credit, she did correct the misstatements by the panel in the next hour (she said she got lots of calls about it).
Don: “Moving on to the main subject: Why did Dionne say that it’s wrong for the US to talk to our allies Maliki and Talibani? Why did the question even come up?
Dionne was speaking only of what he thought was Palin’s confusion.
Incidentally, you can listen to the DR Show online or download the podcasts. The public events guests are mostly center right to center left, but occasionally there are some more leftish really excellent folks who are seldom heard in the MSM, like today economists Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein and last week Jamie Galbraith, all on the bailout. (I listen while walking, which makes me feel doubly virtuous!).