It is absurd to complain that National Review has attacked Pete Hegseth or defended the failures of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

If you were pulling for Pete Hegseth to get confirmed as the next secretary of defense, then the morning’s news indicating that several GOP senators are wary and Trump is examining other options is no doubt quite frustrating — although for what it’s worth, Hegseth says this morning he has no intention to withdraw his nomination.

But in response to today’s Morning Jolt, I noticed a reader fuming and asking, “Why has NR written more articles undermining Pete in 3 weeks than it wrote exposing massive incompetence with Sec Def in the past 4 years?”

Which articles undermining Hegseth?

We’re talking about NR contributor Pete Hegseth, right?

Have some NR authors wondered whether Hegseth is up to the Herculean task of reforming the Pentagon, a task that has bedeviled older and more experienced predecessors? Sure, but those are absolutely fair questions to ask. As Jeff noted last night, it’s not enough just to get the job, you have to be capable of doing the job.

Oh, NR has ignored Lloyd Austin’s management of the Pentagon, eh? I’m sorry, did I hallucinate articles and columns like . . .

I mean, if you want to criticize us, criticize us. But criticize us over things we’ve actually written and said, not some sort of imaginary version you have in your head.