"Silly" consideration of a defeatist path?

Hugh Hewitt's "Two Columns, One War" was a surprise to me with his characterization of Mark Steyn's commentary "Why the Iraq war is turning into America's defeat" as "gloomy about the country's present path". Who is he labeling it "silly" and an "object of scorn"?

Figure it out yourself and read. I had bypassed posting Mark's column earlier as it just echoes my own sentiments exactly. But Hugh just made it an impossible post to pass up. See if you can make sense of Mr. Hewitt's comments... because I sure can't.

Per Hugh:

There is a vast divide between the serious and the silly. A divide that is easy to see, impossible to deny, and certain to lead to disaster if the silly are other than a source of amusement or an object of scorn.

I read Mark's column earlier. I found it far from "silly", nor a source of amusement, but entertainingly adept in a viable presentation of facts, and the looming potential of America's defeat from within.

Furthermore, I share his "gloominess". So I have to wonder, has Hugh misinterpreted the gist of Steyn's column completely? Can he possibly consider such a elouent delivery of facts "silly" and "amusing"?

Read it yourself, or allow me to simply summarize. Steyn, in his own delicious style, pointed out that it is Congressional and media folly to ignore that:

1: al Sadr's retreat is good news, not bad news (as many of the media portray)

2: despite the naive ISG claim that Iran has a vested interest in an Iraq that is not chaotic, their active involvement in increasing that chaos belies that Pollyanna avenue of diplomacy (and I've pointed this same idiocy out here, myself.)

3: a Congress attempting to act as a "group/committee Commander-in-Chief" by playing games with the military purse strings is the harbinger of a US defeat in Iraq - at the hands of our own pols and media portrayals, and not from an "unbeatable insurgent".

All true to the bone, IMHO