Now that I have your attention

Posted by jam hamster jay
January 8, 2007

Just because I hate to see the lefties get all the credit, let the record show that at least one moderate Republican finds you despicable.

Posted by Andrew
January 8, 2007

Why does "rooting" have anything to do with this, Joe? This isn't a football game. Many people will die because of this "surge." Correct me if I'm wrong, but you agree that the policy is wrong and probably won't work, right? Yet you are "rooting" for it to work (though you don't think it will) so that makes you somehow better than the liberals who also think the policy is wrong and probably will fail and just want us to end this war? I don't get it, Joe.

Hope is not a policy. Please look past your reflexive distaste for the liberal bloggers here.

Posted by Miri
January 8, 2007

"left wing tendency to assume every U.S. military action abroad is criminal........ it's easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure."

Joe Klein has been making these kinds of statements for a long time now. He never mentions any names. Who are these leftist traitors? Please name names Mr Klein. Who are these leftists who oppose ALL wars, who want America's defeat.

I am guess he doesn't mention any names because the imaginary leftists don't exist.

The rest of his post is pure vanity. He is saying "I am a better human being than Paul Krugman and Nancy Pelosi. They hate America. I am patriotic."

Posted by Andrew
January 8, 2007

Also:

The liberal bloggers are outraged because they believe that this policy has no chance of succeeding and will only result in the needless death of more of our troops. If you believe that this policy will fail, then why are you not similarly outraged about our soldiers who will die from it? (I don't mean this in an accusatory way, it's an honest question.) The liberal bloggers may be rude, but they're also right, Joe. They're not just blind rabid Bush-haters-- real people are dying in this needless war under this incompetent administration, and I think that merits a bit of anger and outrage.

Posted by Matt
January 8, 2007

Joe,
Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad.

If it is easy for anyone to assume that "the leftists" are rooting for an American failure in Iraq, it's only because tired, lazy, cliche-addicted, conventional wisdom-spouting Jurassic pundits like you keep on making this baseless charge.

And let me just say, preemptively: No, a few comments from a leftist blog does not equal proof.

Posted by jill
January 8, 2007

The Dems are naive about national security? Proof? Commenters saying that they want America to fail? Proof? It surely appears that the Reps have no clue about national security b/c the fiasco in Iraq has become the terrorists' #1 recruitment tool. The fiasco in Iraq is also draining us of money and soldiers that could be put to better use here at home, but you surely can't believe that the Iraq debacle is making us safer. I guess my naivete is showing, right?

Posted by bonkers
January 9, 2007

"Listening to the leftists, though, it's easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure."

Ah yes...where have I heard that before? Let's see...Hannity, O'Reilly, Limpbaugh, etc? Outside of a few "I'm outraged Bush..." and "I opposed the Iraq war..." you just parroted a bunch right-wing extremist talking points about liberals. Saying I, as a proud liberal or leftist even, am "rooting for an American" failure is an incredible insult...much more than any juvenile name calling that takes place in blog comments.

How's this: You can support the troops, and also want them alive and out of harm's way. See how that works? It's really quite a simple concept if you think about it. We want our military strong so it can do what it is supposed to do - defend our Republic. Most liberals I know don't feel the US Military should be invading countries that pose no threat to us, and then stay there for 4, 6, 10+ years to nation and base-build. God help us if an actual threat presents itself to America while our troops are giving Iraq "peace and stability" through the barrels of their guns.

So, does it ever cross my mind that General (du jour) Patraeus might calm Baghdad? Of course that would be fantastic, and our troops can come home and the Chimperor-in-Chief can eat pretzels all the way back to Kennebunkport. Problem is...that's not the point.

The point is that our troops are being killed everyday there. Do you and Lieberman really think the McCain Doctrine can work? 140,000 troops haven't been even close to enough to bring stability to Iraq. Y'all think 20,000-40,000 more will do it, and you're willing to wager the lives of potentially thousands more of our brave soldiers? Therein lies the difference in opinion between "leftists" like me, and you Mr. Klein.

Notice how I haven't questioned your patriotism. Please stop questioning mine.

Posted by TeddySanFran
January 9, 2007

Hope is not a foreign policy, Mr. Klein. And you don't have our attention for very long.

Posted by DC
January 9, 2007

You've pretty clearly been in favoror of the war for a long time; you even said so to Russert in 2003. There, you stated understandable reasons not to like Saddam, but then and now they were bad reasons for US warfare. You need to revise your post.

Posted by Ottoe
January 9, 2007

And where's your link to Greg Sargent? Learn some HTML please.

Posted by TRex
January 9, 2007

Oh, Joe, Joe, Joe. First day at school and you're already shooting spitballs back and forth with your commenters. This does not bode well for your future in blogging. That activity rapidly becomes the verbal equivalent of playing Whack-a-Mole.

Respectfully, sir, this is not a realm for thin-skinned, pampered "star" columnists like yourself. People will be leaping upon your every word with blood in their eyes and murder in their hearts.

You're either going to have to learn to take some hard knocks to your sensitive parts and cope with it or you're going to need to find a new hobby. I don't think you quite understand the world you are stepping into. It's like you're walking into the lion cage at the zoo wearing a suit made entirely of pork chops.

Good luck, though. We'll be watching. My guess is that you'll be shutting down your 'comments' feature before the end of the month.

Sincerely,
T. Rex, Esq.

Posted by Eureka Springs, AR
January 9, 2007

So you were for it but now are against it but wish them well now.

Sort of sounds like wishing the bird flu prosperity but hoping noone gets sick.

Stop playing around, you were wrong and many of us in a fact based world understand how awful that must be to get a handle on. Most important, far more than your desire to express compassion and be understood is that lots of people are killing and being killed for nothing other than a pack of liars and thieves in utter disdain for all others or leathal denial.

If you mean what you say use your pulpit to bring justice to all who lay in a hospital or graveyard and make sure their constitution is both protected and restored.

You made a good step when you changed your tune, kudos for that. Now stand up, be an adult instead of waiting for some blog hugging forgiveness festival.

Time for that later.

Posted by Simon Ospammenow
January 9, 2007

The fact that I've been opposed to the Iraq war ever since this 2002 article in Slate

Oh really? So your comments to Tim Russert on Feb 22, 2003, "This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it--it probably is." are actually statements against the war?

Which is it Mr. Klein? It's clear why I don't even bother subscribing to Time, or bother reading it if it's the only magazine left in a doctor's office - I haven't even opened an edition in the last decade.

How do I get a position like yours, where I can be so unbelievably wrong about so much politically, yet get paid handsomely?

Posted by caia
January 9, 2007

My enthusiasm for commenting (and this supposedly interactive format) is somewhat dimmed by the fact that a comment re-posted by another commenter elsewhere, which was free of profanity, has not appeared here.

Unlike Mr. Klein's post, it was also free of ad hominem attacks.

I doubt I will see it appearing here. I hope I am mistaken, but past experience with "old media" types is that they don't handle what they clearly consider backtalk very well.

I do hope you prove me wrong, but considering you herein implicitly question my loyalty to my country because my opinion on Bush's escalation is reality-based, I'm not optimistic.

Posted by BCT
January 9, 2007

Good lord, what type of response do you expect from the left when you make remarks like "Listening to the leftists, though, it's easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure"? It's hard to take anyone seriously who utters that type of rhetorical obscenity.

On the other hand, keep it up on the blogging, by your own defination of the blogs you're a natural.

Posted by Schwaumlaut
January 9, 2007

I think the important point is that General Petraeus is not going to calm down Baghdad. 2, 3, 6, or 12 months from now, the U.S. is not going to somehow pacify the relatives of the 600,000 dead Iraqis dead of violence enabled by our occupation.

This is not a choice between supporting a plan which might work and cutting our losses before any more Americans get killed, this is a choice between cutting our losses and a certainty that all we are doing is putting more people in harm's way. The thought that it would be nice if General Petraeus brought flowers and rainbows to Baghdad doesn't cross my mind for exactly the same reason that I don't spend my days remarking how nice it would be if it were raining gold bullion - these things are not going to happen. What's more, pretending that they are is not a "serious" position, but a lethally delusional one! It is exactly the kind of thinking that made invading Iraq seem like a good idea at all.

Posted by joeo
January 9, 2007

Here is your link:

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=50782582&cdi=0

Even though I disagree with this escalation, I hope that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad.

But,hope is not a plan. It is legitimately in the US's security interests to pull out of Iraq rather than to get tied down indefinitely. 2007 is way past the date where 20,000-30,00 troops will make a difference. There probably was never such a date.

The Iraq war was a really bad idea. The dirty hippies were and remain right on this one.

Posted by flounder
January 9, 2007

Joe-The generals on the ground give this roughly 10%escalation little chance to do anything positive. Rooting for it to work is great, rooting to win the lotery is great too...it simply isn't a very serious way to approach the situation. I would go as far as to say you have bad case of naivette if you think the crew that has gotten everything wrong for six years straight will all the sudden win this lottery. I don't care about what is illegal or not at this point, putting a band aid on a gaping wound in foriegn policy just isn't going to save the patient. If I want the U.S. to get out and perhaps lose face than maybe we get weaker short term but we clean up our own house and maybe that makes us more paranoid about wars of choice in the future, and maybe that is a positive (or making lemonade out of lemons as Friedman would say).
I feel great remorse for the Iraqi people, maybe we can someday hand over the people responsible for their suffering to an Iraqi court for a trial and if the evidence warrants it, sentencing (maybe even a dignified execution by some guys in leather jackets).
And you mention some Democratic party in your post, I've never heard of them, perhaps you meant the Democrat party (Boehner told me about them while pleading for said bipartisanship).

Posted by Doug Elliott
January 9, 2007

If you conclude that your country is proceeding on a course that will waste lives and money, being willing to hope you are wrong is hardly a badge of honor. It is more an excuse for abdicating your responsibilities as a citizen and journalist.

Posted by Derek Davison
January 9, 2007

First of all, your link to the Slate piece is broken, and you might want to fix it because there are examples out there of you, on the record, sounding like you support the war at least as late as 2003. Second of all, WHICH "LEFTISTS" ARE ROOTING FOR AN AMERICAN FAILURE? Folks like you and Peter Beinart (notice how I'm dealing in specifics?) like to toss around phrases like "liberals are hoping for failure in Iraq" without ever specifying which "liberals" you're talking about. Name names, with excerpts or quotes to back up your accusations. I think everybody would be interested to know to whom, exactly, you've been referring every time you make comments like this, and what, exactly, those people have been saying. At the very least, most of your readers would probably like to be reassured that you're not just blowing smoke.

Posted by weldon berger
January 9, 2007

Your 2002 Slate link doesn't work. Fortunately, that illiberal leftist, Atrios, came up with a quote from a 2003 appearance on Meet the Press in which you expressed your opposition to the war as follows: "This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it--it probably is."

A line in the sand if ever there was one.

Sargent is right: you have no idea whether or not Krugman read the Kagan presentation. I did read it, and it qualifies as delusional. It imagines that the US can pull off a sucessful counterinsurgency operation with 400,000 fewer troops than standard Army doctrine suggests would be necessary. I do hope it works, and I'm on record as saying Petraeus is the right guy for the job, or at least the right guy for the job as it existed four years ago. What your expert analysts are saying isn't that it could work, but that there's a possibility it won't fail in quite such grotesque fashion as have previous efforts.

Meanwhile, you never really explained what constitutes naivete on national security affairs. What precisely are your measures of the affliction? Mine go something like this: embarking on a ruinously expensive war, in the expectation that it will pay for itself, with a force far short of what military experts (Army chief of staff Shinseki) recommend, with little international support and for bogus reasons, and then conducting that war and the succeeding occupation in such a manner as to arrive at the worst possible outcome at every juncture. What d'ya think? Does that qualify?

Posted by RCC
January 9, 2007

Linky to 2002 Slate article no worky.

Please fix or post the article.

Posted by Douglas Watts
January 9, 2007

"Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad." -- Mr. Klein.

Translation: If it doesn't work, I am now on record as being completely opposed to it. If it does work, I am on record as completely supporting it.

Posted by RCC
January 9, 2007

Just out of curiousity, what "leftists" are you listening to that give you the impression that they are "rooting for an American failure" in Iraq?

Since this is a blog, you have as much space as you'd like to explain yourself fully. Really. Go ahead. Take as many column inches as you'd like to point out all the words of all the lefties who are "rooting for failure". Personally, I would love to see them.

And, in case you do want to save space? Just point out the mainstream lefties whose voices & names are familiar. You can skip the obscure commie academics who are known to exactly 25 people in this world, but are published anyway.

Just the national lefty voices "rooting for failure" please.

Thank you for your attention to this detail.

Posted by dookster
January 9, 2007

"...Democratic Party's naivete on national security--and the left wing tendency to assume every U.S. military action abroad is criminal--just aren't very helpful electorally"
Um serious specific sources please? Especially seeing how the "serious people" in the bush admin have gotten just about everything wrong on iraq and you are worried bout democrats looking naive?? How about the republicans looking stupid on nat/sec seeing how they dove headfirst into this nightmare. Futhermore..you DO realize there was an election and the republicans lost right?
By the way your link isnt working (how nice) to back up your point of being anti-war, but i gotta say: from here in ohio where i sit and have watched you on the sunday talk shows..you have a funny way of appearing pro iraq war for a good while.

Posted by darrelplant
January 9, 2007

Your "Slate" link doesn't work. It would help you make your case if you actually linked to an actual article.

Posted by smitty werbenmanjensen
January 9, 2007

Joe, unlike you, who said in 2003 "it was probably the right decision" to go to war, I truly have been opposed to this war. And it's absolutely outrageous to charge that I've been "cheering" for an American defeat. I didn't want defeat. I didn't want war to begin with. And I've wanted an immedate withdrawal from the day the war began.

My position has been consistent. Yours has not. Please correct the record.

Posted by anonymous
January 9, 2007

"Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad."

Not really, no. This entire war has been an exercise in solving last year's problem. We spent 2004 trying to build an economy to prevent disaffected citizens from joining the insurgency, 2005 trying to target insurgent leaders to prevent them from forming organized fighting groups, and 2006 trying to crack down tactically to prevent the violence from sparking sectarian tension.

It's entirely possible to bring Baghdad under control, given enough troops, (hint: more than a "surge") but then what? Fred Kagan sure doesn't have any idea. He wants to spend 2007 preserving Baghdad's dense mix of Sunnis and Shiites to preserve a sense of national unity. And as soon as we invent a time machine to go back to March 2006, I will consider him a very serious person.

In the real world, however, that window closed 6 months ago. Baghdad is divided. Now please, somebody come up with a plan for 2007. I don't blame Fred Kagan for not having one, I sure as hell don't, but I'm not going to take his or Bill Kristol's advice seriously when they walk out there and say "Baghdad is the largest mixed community in Iraq." without any hint that they've read a newspaper in the last 6 months.

I don't think locking down Baghdad was ever a GOOD plan. It was at least a plan, but only during that window in 2006. 8 months ago we could've said with some confidence that "it couldn't hurt." That's no longer the case. We could convince the Sadrites that we're the only thing standing between them and control of Iraq. We could redirect Sunni attention from bombing Baghdad to bombing Najaf. We could just cripple Iraq's economy a little more without gaining anything.

Other people certainly have more information than me. It's possible they have some grand plan that leads to an actual... you know... CONCLUSION. But no, I'm not going to clap harder for Tinkerbell, Joey, sorry. Show me one glimmer of hope that this is anything but a missed opportunity that tested well in the focus groups 4 months ago, and maybe I'll join you in your serious seriousness, but I'm not rooting for Kristol and Kagan any more than I root for Johnny Knoxville to succeed in his plan to staple an M-80 to his crotch.

Posted by Mike
January 9, 2007

It is my sincere hope that the US Army can calm things down in Iraq. It is also my sincere hope that they can build a magical pony farm, where everybody in Iraq can get a pony and nobody will ever have to muck the stalls. I view both hopes as equally likely.

If you don't also hope for a magical pony farm, you obviously hate the people of Iraq and our brave forces fighting overseas. Why do you want to kill our troops?

Posted by Mickey Finn
January 9, 2007

You've done an excellent job of obscuring your opposition to the war. Perhaps your constant criticism of many who also have been opposed to the war since before the invasion is why folks are confused about your position. I guess your motives must be better than the lefty rabble.

Posted by mike
January 9, 2007

huh?

Who are these 'left wing' folks that Klein is always yammering about that 'assume[s] every U.S. military action abroad is criminal'?

I opposed this stupid invasion from the start (but not the invasion in Afghanistan or Kosovo, for example) because it was totally obvious that it was a complete waste, the threat was not worth the risk, that was driven by two unreconstructed self-serving paranoids (cheney and rumsfeld) and was some sort of intellectual fantasy by PNAC neo-cons.

Of course I hope Gen. Patreus succeeds, I just doubt he will. Why should the Sunnis (for example), trust this gov't. at all?

Posted by ChicagoTom
January 9, 2007

Who are all these "leftists" who are rooting for America's defeat?? Funny you never name any prominent "leftists" who are all secretly hoping for America's failure. This is the equivalent of the bogus "some people say" line of attack. Unless you provide any proof to your delusional assertion that we are "rooting" for America's failure, maybe you should refrain from parroting GOP talking points.

We all agree with the sentiment "Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad."

But this isn't Neverland and really really believing isn't going to get us anywhere nor will it produce rational options for how to proceed with getting our men and women out of the middle of an Iraqi civil war.

In fact, it would seem that the supporters of escalating this failing quagmire of an occupation are the ones who are the problem. You guys are like a gambler who doesn't know when to quit and who thinks: if I just keep playing a little longer and betting a bit more, I can win back what I've lost.

At some point, just like the gambler, you dead-enders trying to salvage this catastrophe need to know when to fold'em and admit that it's over....we've lost. We failed to achieve our goals (what were they again? WMDs? Democracy via domino effect in the middle east?? Liberating the Iraqi people from fearing for their lives daily due to tyrannical strong-men who terrorize the country?) Sadly though, unlike the gambler whose only victims are his family and himself, you stubborn war supporters want to roll the dice with other people's lives and families.

And for the record, On 2/22/2003, on Tim Russert's show you said :
"This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it--it probably is."

So please spare us the dishonest I've been opposed to the Iraq war ever since this 2002 article shtick. You've been a cheerleader for this war since day one and you have spent quite a bit of time attacking "illiberals and progressives" who were too smart (well smarter than you at least) to let Bush boondoggle us into supporting this mess since then.

It's funny how the most mocked people (the peacenik liberals) are the ones who got it so right before the war and you and your ilk got everything so wrong, yet you continue to attack those same liberals.

Maybe instead of attacking them, you should try listening to them...you just might learn something. (like how to avoid having over 3K of our servicemen sacrificing their lives for dubious rationale that a lazy press core decided to just swallow whole)

Posted by mixed meter
January 9, 2007

From 2002:

"The rush to open a new front in a complicated war, the tendency of conservatives (and their propagandists) to go berserk whenever legitimate questions are raised, the giddy moral certainty in the air, the fact that we are not talking about one quick war against an obvious psychopath but about actions—and a fundamental shift in American policy—that may well echo and shape the world for the next 50 years—all this should cause us to pause, slow down, talk this over."

One can easily imagine war advocates withering at every word. Rarely before has mankind witnessed such stirring denunciation, such principled opposition. Where would we be without such lions of discourse as yourself who, in the face of oncoming calamity, have the courage, the sheer resolve, to stand up and loudly proclaim, "Slow down, talk this over."

It is truly remarkable that such emphatic opposition was ignored.

Posted by Randolph Ruiz
January 9, 2007

As a San Francisco Leftist (whatever that means in contemporary American politics) I would like you to know that the only failure I am rooting for is yours.

I do not know if you can comprehend how offensive your smug comments are. I have watched powerlessly as this nightmare of a war has unfolded over the past several years. You dare to imagine that I want to see my fellow Americans killed? This is the most vile of projections.

Enough Americans have already died. I want an immediate end to this idiocy, and I do not see how your "concern" for the Democrats does anything but spit in the face of people that were right about this mess from the start. These paper tiger "dirty hippies" of the fevered conservative imagination do not exist.

You do not need to be rooting for an American defeat to recognize that the proposed escalation is a terrible mistake that we should be working to prevent. Your ill-found hope will not make additional deaths any easier for me to stomach.

Your smirk is as ill-derserved and inappropriate as Bush's.

Posted by Bram
January 9, 2007

Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad. But I'm not holding my breath, I'm sick unto death of the architects of this failure trying to save face rather than save lives, and I think the best use of my time is spent in criticism rather than cheerleading. And evidently, I have far more confidence in Iraqis to manage their own affairs than does the president that "liberated" them.

Posted by peejay
January 9, 2007

Nobody's rooting for failure, Joe. Just like if someone jumps off the Golden Gate Bridge, I'm not wishing him to die. I do, however, have a good guess how it's going to go down, so I won't tell him as he goes that I hope the jumping thing works out for him.

As frustrated as you are with the left, well, let's just say that the feeling's mutual. All your supposed war "opposition" has given a lot of aid and comfort to the warmongers, so I guess you haven't been that good at it.

Keep trying, though.

Posted by trifecta
January 9, 2007

I hope that my plan of financial success by winning the lottery is successful too Joe. If people mock it, it doesn't mean they don't want me to win. It's just ridiculous to expect it.

But.... somebody does win the lottery, so everybody should cheer me on. Won't they feel like idiots when I win.

That is the conversation in a nut shell. I hope that the Shia and Sunni put down arms today too. I also want Red Sox and Yankee fans to let the past go and decide to cheer for each other. I want Ann Coulter to be more tolerant of the left. I would like Noam Chomsky to enjoy popular culture. I can ridicule the chances of success in all these endeavors all the same.

Posted by T. Bearson
January 9, 2007

Joe Klein Was opposed to the war since 2002?

Joe Klein, on Russert's show, 2/22/03:

"This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it--it probably is."

That's some stern opposition to the war if I ever saw one. Amnesia?

Posted by lilybelle
January 9, 2007

Hmm. Let's log the logical fallacies and generally illogical statements from this wise man. Again you assert the Democrats' naivete on national security; again you offer no support for the assertion. Do you offer an example of a `leftist rooting for failure'? Or do Rovian talking points require no substantiation? Remember, if you don't do your homework, you end up making a fool of yourself.

Posted by Aris
January 9, 2007

I must admit that I used to think you were somewhat loathsome -- ever since that business of publicly lying about your authorship of a particular book, and then attacking the credibility of the linguist who accurately sniffed you out. It's amazing that you continue to offer your opinions in a widely read newsweekly. Such lack of integrity would have sunk a writer during a different era. Yet you still write, and write, and write. It says a lot about the bankruptcy of intellectual life in America and the lack of standards by our mainstream press.

I thought I was done with you, when I foolishly followed a link and read this particular excretion. Now, dear Joe, I find you entirely loathsome.

What a pathetic attempt to prove how patriotic you are! Did you really think through your childish challenge? How can anyone merely hope General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad -- without considering the cost and how it will be done?

Having served as a military officer, and having read history, I can think of many ways we can "calm down," not just Baghdad, but all of Iraq. If we really want to unleash the military -- as your right-wing brethren constantly insist we ought to do -- what are the limits?

Calming down any urban population is achievable, if we are determined not to be constrained by those pesky liberal moral values of western civilization. Now, your main man Bush has tried to do away with as many legal and moral constraints as possible, but of course to really, really pacify the hostiles you do need to go whole hog. Petraeus can calm those unruly Ayrabs, but at what cost in lives and honor? Are you still hoping, Joe?

You're the pundit. I'm just a guy who happened on your bloggy thingy. How do you think Petraeus can live up to your true-blue hope and calm Baghdad? How exactly, without succumbing to barbarism? Give us some educated opinions.

Hello? Still there?

Joe, what you have not come to terms with is the fact that there was no way to win this war, ever, at any time, even if Bush and his neocons had followed some halfway rational military plan. I knew that before the invasion. The Europeans did. And a few illiberal leftists and reactionary progressives who were blogging at that time knew it too. But everyone who attempted to speak up and state what we now know to be true was called unpatriotic. The mere fact that someone predicted the inevitable disaster that was to be Iraq, gave license to people like you to accuse them of not hoping for the US to win and for cheering the terrorists on.

Incredibly, you're still doing it! You admit that Petraeus won't succeed, you know that a few more troops won't make a difference, but you are patriotic and so you're hoping for success, whereas all of those who've been right all along and predicted all the disasters of this war, are not cheering Petraeus on. You have no shame, Joe.

All of you pampered pundits, you are very bad of America and the world. You were not against the war Joe. I used to read TIME until a couple of years ago when I became too disgusted with its coverage of the 2004 election and cancelled my subscription. I remember your columns. I read both you and Andrew Sullivan whenever I wanted to get my heart rate up. What I don't remember is a single column predicting what a total disaster this invasion was going to be. Because there was no such column. If there were one, if you were truly prescient, you would have lost your pundit cred and you would have been ostracized by the MSM because, you see, you would not have been patriotic enough. But you've been clapping and hopping all along, and at the same time dissing those who got it right and so you still have a forum and you show up on teevee too, to enlighten the rubes.

You and your Washington pundits helped create the biggest disaster in American history, by hoping against all reason and experience, and it ain't over, and as it continues it will get worse and worse and worse. And you dare challenge those of us who tried to save this country from disaster in a despicable clap-and-hope contest?

There is no victorious way out. There is no good way out. We have lost the war and hoping for elusive success will only make things worse because we may end up throwing more kids into this meat grinder before we come to terms with the fact that we have been defeated. So, here's hoping that we'll figure it out sooner rather than later and we'll get out ASAP. Here's also hoping that you discovered your conscience and you'll go buy a farm or something and do something useful with the rest of your life. As an opinion peddler, you're not going to make it in any unmoderated medium.

Posted by BriVT
January 9, 2007

the left wing tendency to assume every U.S. military action abroad is criminal

This just isn't a significant issue, either in the Iraq Invasion debate or in politics generally. You'd be much more relevant to talk about the "right wing tendency to assume every international body is illegitimate." That's a position with far more relevance to the current situation than your straw man.

You seem to be rehashing 60s-70s era debates endlessly. It's infuriating, with an overlay of boredom.

Posted by Anonymous
January 9, 2007

If events prove you "right" won't you have feelings of guilt for not demanding that this stupid escalation never be undertaken?

Posted by Mike Cervantes
January 9, 2007

So much straw, so little time ...

Posted by hardly liberal
January 9, 2007

Get used to the "mingy" comments, Joe. As long as google is around to unearth your real-time comments, the revision you put up on the web is going to be taken with as much gravitas as your moniker - Joke Line.

Posted by Swampy Progressive
January 9, 2007

"But it's possible to have been against the war and to hope for the best in Iraq."

Possible for you, perhaps--though you managed to keep your opposition pretty well hidden behind broken links and vague murmurings to Tim Russert. Every one else is a illiberal progressive from the swamp--and they hate America!

Interesting that in JoeKleinWorld, all others who "opposed the war from the start" were leftists who preferred America to lose. By the way, who are these leftists? Are they in any way elected to office or responsible for forming policy?

Didn't think so. You truly are a jerk.

Posted by Derek
January 9, 2007

You sir are the one who is trafficking in personal attacks. I see you have followed up your unsubstantiated attacks on Krugman with the following description of those who have asked you to prove your accusations against him by calling them "illiberal leftists and reactionary progressives." I didn't see anyone attacking you personally. They simply asked you for some proof to backup your accusations against Krugman. Surely as someone who claims to be a journalist you understand the difference between facts and slander.

Posted by Terry Cermak
January 9, 2007

"Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad."

The reason you don't hear this from the anti-war left is that not only is hope not a strategy, but that line of thinking has served to enable an endless series of bungles and lies by this administration. That is one reason why you are a target of venom from some on the left. You are an enabler of the white house and mock legitimate ourage while claining to be on the same side as the anti war left.

Posted by justa guy
January 9, 2007

Any specific examples of people who want the US to fail in Iraq?

Pointing out that things are going poorly isn't the same as wanting them to do so. I don't think that psychic surgery cures cancer, but that hardly means that I'm rooting for the tumors. So, how is believing that escallation won't achieve anything in Iraq ammount to wanting it to fail?

Absent specific examples of groups or individuals that want the US to loose (and by that I mean people more mainstream than the revolutionary communist party and their ilk) this post is just a way of trying to smugly discredit people who were right all along.

Posted by Kuz
January 9, 2007

Um, what do you mean by "this escalation?" It hasn't happened yet, and won't, God willing.

Posted by John Dillinger
January 9, 2007

Wow, it took this blog only a matter of hours to adopt the same media attitude that got us into Iraq, eschewing policy discussion for nattering about the politics of which party wins and which party loses. That the policy involves matters of life and death doesn't matter much to the writers. I'd like to see an accounting on here of how many family members the writers have on duty in Iraq, or subject to being sent there, but I am not going to hold my breath.

Posted by Eric Jaffa
January 9, 2007

Joe Klein told the world that "War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it--it probably is."

- 2/22/2003 on the Tim Russert Show.

But now he's calling people on the left who were truly against the Iraq War before it started "naive."

And he's calling us the "illiberal left."

"Illiberal" means "lacking culture and refinement" as defined by m-w.com.

It was so cultured of Joe Klein to say we should "probably" invade Iraq.

Posted by xsubscriber
January 9, 2007

Mr. KLEIN:

War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it--it probably is.

From 2003? 1993? 1863?

Posted by Bala Pillay
January 9, 2007

Mr Klein:

As someone who looks at the US from Canada I am often puzzled by the way reputable journalists become cheerleaders for the foreign adventures of the US government. With the freedom you enjoy I expect trenchant analyses, robust criticism and informed conclusions.

What I find so unsettling is for respected journalists engaging in the villification of the left and right bloggers when there is a significant amount of informed comment in that new environment.

A credible defence should not involve derogatory language.

You have been through the tough slogging to get where you are. By all means take a position on the war but wishful thinking? Only the Iraqis can solve their problems. they claim a civilisation which is 200 thousand years old: it has had glorious episodes and some bloody interludes. Iraq is an artificial construct and until that country's people show a determination to work together no amount of US interventionism will work.

Is the US was really interested in the people of Iraq as opposed to its own regional and strategic interests?

Posted by shingles
January 9, 2007

Your Slate linkee no workee.

Posted by pixie
January 9, 2007

Congratulations on your new blog, Joe. I hope you're enjoying the hundreds of mingy comments now at your disposal.

Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad.

I most certainly can say this. I can also say the following:

Even though I support universal health care, I'm hoping that a time comes when all diseases can be cured with over the counter medications.

Even though I can plainly see global warming occuring, I'm hoping that the human race survives into the 22nd century.

Even though I disagree wityh tax cuts for the richest 5%, I'm hoping that each and every one of them gets whatever they deserve in life.

Listening to the leftists, though, it's easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure.

I'm a leftist with a son in law serving at the Baghdad airport. I am deeply offended by this remark and think that perhaps you don't realize exactly how this looks to the thousands of people who are reading your new blog. You aren't influencing anyone, Joe. You're just showing people the real Joe, and it doesn't seem that appealing.

Even though I prefer living in reality, I wish you good luck with your new blog.

P.S. Get a preview button.

Posted by Daniel Silevitch
January 9, 2007

Perhaps once Mr. Klein is finished beating up on a straw man, he can take the time to figure out the difference between "believes that there is nothing that the US can do to stabilize Iraq" and "thinks that the US's inability to stabilize Iraq is a good thing."

The former is a widely-held view, in the left-wing blogosphere and among the American people and the Congress and many other places. The latter is vanishingly rare.

-dms

Posted by Nick
January 9, 2007

Your link is broken, which is all to accurate , given you supported the war at the beginning. Hypocrite. And yes, the blogs are liberal, as liberal means weighing the facts and telling the truth - something the right knows nothing about.

Posted by Haig Hovaness
January 9, 2007

Ah, now I understand. What makes a liberal "serious" about Iraq is the ability to hope for the best. What a marvelous insight! This precious optimism is what distinguishes mean-spirited liberals from sunny, up-tempo "liberals" like Joe Klein.

I now understand that posturing and striking emotional poses is the essence of political discourse in the bizarre world of Time Magazine commentary. It is how you feel the truthiness of the moment and the jargon you choose to emote it that distinguishes the serious from the un-seriousness.

Joe Klein looks down his nose at reason and logic and un-serious distractions from the noble work of the Great Decider and his very-serious sidekicks. In his world of shimmering, colorful surfaces, it is only the most superficial behavior that matters.

How many emotional angels can dance on the shiny lexical pin of "surge" versus the dark dagger of "escalation?" This is the kind of seriousness that Joe Klein embraces. Hail, Joe Klein, master of the superficial and enemy of reason. You are a true post-modern patriot! Your loyalty to appearances is unquestioned, and your distrust of substance is unshakeable.

Posted by Pollo Loco
January 9, 2007

"the Democratic Party's naivete on national security"

As opposed to the Republican Party's levelheadedness?

You would better serve the world as a janitor than as a pundit, Mr Klein. And this, by the way, is you with Tim Russert in 2003:

"MR. KLEIN: ...This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it--it probably is.
RUSSERT: Now that's twice you've said that: 'It's the right war.' You believe it's the wrong time. Why do you think it's the right war?

Mr. KLEIN: Because sooner or later, this guy has to be taken out. Saddam has--Saddam Hussein has to be taken out.
"

Posted by Tom Perdu
January 9, 2007

"Listening to the leftists, though, it's easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure."

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously as a commentator when your idea of reasoned analysis is to parrot GOP talking points? Mindless denigration of the anti-war left is intellectually lethargic, but more importantly, it allows you to avoid engaging with the troubling fact that they were right about the balance of events that played out(no WMD in Iraq, no Al Qaeda connection, Bush's incompetence will be unleashed on a grander scale, Democracy will not magically appear, etc.). And no, Joe, you were not against the war (cf. Atrios) unless, perhaps, you were against it before you were for it?

I view your blog experiment not so much as an abject failure, but rather a success that hasn't happened yet. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Posted by steve davis
January 9, 2007

Dear Joe,

I'm not sure if I qualify to comment here, as apparently I don't fit into either the "illiberal leftist" camp, nor that of the "reactionary progressives." (If I may mention as a side-note, there is no such animal as a reactionary progressive. In the parlance of political science, a reactionary is an ultra-rightist--a little to the right of a divine-right royalist. A progressive is a moderate leftist. These two terms refer to positions that are nearly 180 degrees from one another on the political spectrum. Combining them doesn't make you sound like a dilletante, by the way--just rather ignorant).

Let me try to get at the thesis of your most recent bloviation here: you are basically certain that the president is ignoring the will of the people, and is going to direct that more young men and women be sent to die in a war that we will escalate at the expense of troop levels in Afghanistan. You say--and I will use your word here--that the president is "sending more young American lives into an impossible situation" and yet, rather than be outraged enough by this to blog about its inherent wrongness and immorality, you've chosen to take the stance of thousands of pundits who have gone before you in a whole series of wars through history, who said to themselves "My country, wrong or wrong."

In conclusion, I distrust online psychobabble, and I don't want to make your mistake of constantly assigning motives to people with absolutely no proof of what those people's motives actually are. I'm of course an author when I am a writer, but I don't confuse punditry with third-person omniscience. I would say, though, that based on what I have seen the past couple of days in your blog entries here, you have a remarkably shallow view of what blogging is, or at least what it can be. The reason why the vast majority of bloggers come across as insipid, narrow-minded, and thoughtless, is because most blogs are produced by teenagers in their pajamas whose world-views are mostly being formed by a combination of parents, other teenagers, and saturation advertising. You though are presumably connected in Washington. We assume that if you wished to, you could call the White House, leave your name, and somebody--probably Tony Snow--would be getting back to you. Very few other bloggers have that privilege, and few have the responsibility that you have as a writer because of that access. Please try in the future to remember that your blogs should reflect your unique circumstances, and stop writing as though you are doing this in your pajamas, on your mother's laptop.

Posted by Rob Jackson
January 9, 2007

Is this what this blog is going to be about - complaining that other blogs have been critical of you? That should make for some fun reading!
By the way, decrying "Democratic Party's naivete on national security" seems pretty stupid in the face of what's happened in Iraq. As far as "the left wing tendency to assume every U.S. military action abroad is criminal--just aren't very helpful electorally." Hasn't that been proven wrong by the recent congressional election. You really need to get a life!

Posted by smitty werbenmanjensen
January 9, 2007

It's been 14 hours since this was posted. Free the Swampland comments, Joe!!!!

Posted by Jill
January 9, 2007

Have you stopped the comments?

Posted by James
January 9, 2007

Mr. Klein,

1. Hope is not enough. Wishing for the best for General Petraeus is not a substitute for speaking out against the very strategies and actions that you yourself think are "sending more young American lives into an impossible situation." And people on the left who oppose the latter do not wish for failure of the new plans. Rather, we wish for a different set of new plans that might make things more possible and less impossible. I hope you can see the distinction.

2. You say: "the Democratic Party's naivete on national security--and the left wing tendency to assume every U.S. military action abroad is criminal--just aren't very helpful electorally". Didn't we just have an election? Explain how was the implied lack of "naivete" among the Republicans was proven to be "helpful electorally" for them.

3. Your link to a Slate article, where you show that "I've been opposed to the Iraq war ever since... 2002", is broken.

4. As Atrios points out, on the 2/22/2003 Tim Russert show, you said: "This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it--it probably is." How does that square with your claim that you have been against the war since 2002?

Posted by Chris
January 9, 2007

Ahhh, my favorite of all the "Joes", pissed off and dismissive Joe.

Look, I hope whatever plan is implemented succeeds even beyond the wildest dreams of the myopic neocons pulling the strings these days. Unfortunately, hoping for it to all work out won't make it so and aggravating your ulcer by railing at Krugman because he didn't read some document is unlikely to help either. (Anyway, all that document does is reinforce the idea that if a counterinsurgency is going to work, then 20,000 is far too small a surge.)

Don't try and claim I don't want the US to succeed simply because I find your arguments wanting. Do you really want to join the "with us or against us" camp? Haven't we seen that as the last outpost of the desperate?

Posted by Daniel Silevitch
January 9, 2007

"Opposed the war from the start?" So, why, in February of 2003, did you tell Tim Russert this:

------------
Mr. KLEIN:I was watching him at the--at the Jacksonville Naval Station, and he was kind of leaning an elbow on the podium and kind of squinting sideways at the camera and dropping his G's and saying, 'We're smokin"em out. We're gonna get 'em.' And I just think that that kind of attitude, you wonder how that squares with the humility of his religious faith. You know, I'm not questioning his faith. I think it's real, and I think it's--it--it's a--it's an enormous comfort and enormous strength for him. But I do wonder about the absence of doubt. One of his top aides said to me, 'There's been no hand-wringing about this. There's been no existential anguish.' Well, some anguish is called for. This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it--it probably is.

RUSSERT: Now that's twice you've said that: 'It's the right war.' You believe it's the wrong time. Why do you think it's the right war?

Mr. KLEIN: Because sooner or later, this guy has to be taken out. Saddam has--Saddam Hussein has to be taken out.
-------------
(emphasis added)

Hardly the words of a fervent oppenent of the war. It was not the right war at the wrong time, it was (and is), plain and simple, the wrong war.

-dms

Posted by Anon
January 9, 2007

Um, yes, I can say that, and I don't know anybody who disagrees. Can you name even one "Leftist" who does not want things calmed down in Baghdad? My clear sense is that those opposed to the escalation oppose it because they have no faith -- and no evidentiary basis for faith -- that an escalation will, in fact, calm things down. I have seen not one comment, anywhere, from anybody, that takes the position you ascribe to the "Leftists." Not one. (Indeed, Juan Cole, perhaps the leading intellectual figure of the movement you're deriding, unambiguously states the opposite view.) Please quote one to correct my understanding if you can. If not, then please correct yourself and refrain from making similar unsupported accusations in the future.

Posted by Dennis Gring
January 9, 2007

Which leftists Joe? Who said they want America defeated Joe? And didn't YOU write THIS:

This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it--it probably is.

That's some opposition. Asshole.

Posted by A Hermit
January 9, 2007

I too hope that America succeeds in Iraq, because many of my Canadian countrymen are in Afghanistan fighting the people who actually attacked us all and they could use some help. Instead Bush is pulling more American troops out of that fight to send them to his failure in Iraq. But hoping won't change reality. I hope to win the lottery and replace Brad Pitt in Angelina's life, too, but it ain't gonna happen.

Look Joe, the problem with your comments is that seem to be more concerned with lecturing Democrats about their image than with making it clear to your readers what a disaster Iraq has become. Pointing out that Iraq has become a swamp and advocating withdrawal is not "rooting for failure" its recognizing the fact of failure and asking for a grown-up, serious new policy. The people who were wrong about everything should not be taken seriously any more, no matter how many policy papers they may have read. They've proven they can't get it right, and they should be the object of your ire, not the people who have been right.

That's neither illiberal, nor particularly leftist, it's just smart.

By the way, the Iraq invasion was illegal; doesn't mean all American military interventions are, but again recognizing that Iraq was is not reactionary.

You used to be one my favorite writers at Time, but in the last few years you seem to have become more concerned about what the right wing fanatics think than what good policy should be; an all too common problem with you beltway boys and girls, politicians and pundits alike.

Look at a poll or two, Mr. Klein; the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to escalation. Why would agreeing with that majority be bad for Democrats?

Regards

A Hermit

Posted by Marv Toler
January 9, 2007

Welcome to the internet! First, if you provide a link, make sure it works. Your Slate link doesn't. That's called courtesy. Second, if you accuse people of hoping our troops are defeated and fail, you should name them and provide some documentation or links (ones that work). Your posting reads like a Rush Limbaugh rant - all storm and fury but no facts, no reasoning, and no attachment to reality.

Posted by Jersey Tomato
January 9, 2007

A little touchy, aren't we? You were rightly called out on the nonsense in your previous posting. Climb down off your cross. If you don't want people to comment, don't post. Would it be a good thing if Baghdad were calmed? I suppose it depends on how that calm is achieved. Do we flatten Sadr City like we flattened Fallujah? That worked out well, didn't it? But at least it was calm for awhile. Would it calm down if we killed or arrested Sadr himself? Would it eventually calm down if we just sided with the Shia majority and let them slaughter Sunnis with impunity? How many American lives should be spent on this project? Would 100 be too many? How about 500? How about 1000? How many civilians are expendable? Hoping that the escalation will lead to calm is like hoping that it will lead to ice cream sundaes for everyone. Both scenarios are highly unlikely, neither is the sign of a serious thinker who should lecture others about their lack of enthusiasm. Try not to let your hatred for the Democrats and for anybody who has the nerve to disagree with you get the better of you.

Posted by Ben Dickinson
January 9, 2007

Having been accused even by members of my own extended family of "rooting for an American failure" simply because I attempted to convey my (accurate, as it turned out) views on how Iraq was likely to sink from victory to disaster, I find it hard to assume I know who these dastardly, traitorous "leftists" are. Name names, Joe Klein--otherwise you are just a blowhard. Which is all too esy to assume at this point. Prove me wrong, sir--I'm rooting for you!

Posted by Lawnguylander
January 9, 2007

Joe, do your editors know that Lynne Cheney is ghostwriting your column?

Posted by nffcnnr
January 9, 2007

joe,
Welcome to the "screeching", "frothing" blogosphere, and all the "vitriol" that comes with it.

Posted by CK in NC
January 9, 2007

It's astonishing that you are claiming that it's the Democrats who are naive on national security, not the neo-cons who promised us a cakewalk and showers of flowers in Iraq. We are all paying a real cost in human lives and treasure for a terrible, terrible mistake perpetrated in responsible part not by Democrats, liberals or progressives but by Republicans. Why is it always more important to you to get back at bloggers who pick on you than to tell the truth or to place responsibility where it lies? Why does Time continue to pay you to carry out petty little personal paybacks rather than provide any kind of actual analysis of the real world?

Posted by Sleepless in America
January 9, 2007

Name those leftists who are rooting for an American failure. No where have I ever read or heard one person say that. Back your assumption up with facts: names & dates of those leftists you listened to.
Based on your statement, a reader would have to assume you believe soldiers serving in Iraq, their family members & friends who are against this war are rooting for an American failure. Did that thought ever cross your mind? Could you look those people actually living the reality of war straight in their eyes, face-to-face & honestly say that?
Blanket, simplistic, irresponsible, contemptuous bloviating may pay well but contributes nothing to serious discourse.

Posted by PapaJijo
January 9, 2007

Even though I disagree with Bush's fiscal priorities, I am hoping that he succeeds in returning us to a budget surplus.

Even though I disagree with the current enviromental policies, I am hoping they succeed in reducing the threat of global warming.

You're making a really, really petty argument, Joe.

Posted by thingamabob
January 9, 2007

Joe, Joe, Joe--how can you miss such an obvious point? I also would be happy if things worked out in Iraq, Bush took credit and went home smirking to Crawford. But this war is REAL, and the 3000+ dead are REALLY DEAD, and all of the horrible results of Bush's "leadership" are equally REAL. Hypotheticals which pay no heed to actual context are pretty useless, don't you think?

I could easily ask if you wouldn't be happy if the Mars project that Bush floated a few years back brought us new resources and man's first successful off-world colonies. But what would be the point? While I could also be happy with such a result, spending time supporting the project and crediting Bush with the "idea" is not going to make the end result any more likely.

And so it is with Iraq. You can support Bush all you like, but if you really care about fixing things, you'll quickly see that the most likely route to that end is to stop grousing about anti-war liberals, and start holding Bush to account NOW for what he's ALREADY DONE.

If, at the end of the day, some sort of Bush-led approach prevails and victory is assured, it won't bother me a bit. But to think that this will happen without holding him to account is neither logical nor serious.

Posted by john
January 9, 2007

You have never seriously opposed the war. Most of the time you say people are unserious or "illiberal" for pointing out how stupid or wrong the whole operation is. No one who opposes the war is rooting for it to fail, that is a right-wing canard. A precursor to the inevitable "stabbed in the back" freakscene to come when the whole operation goes belly up.

There is an adult solution to the war. Bush needs to go to the UN, say "I fucked up, please help us." and transfer the whole thing to someone other than the US. We need to get COMPLETELY out of Iraq. It needs to be done in a transparent way and, most importantly, we need to publically give up ALL American claims to military bases and oil contracts. I have never heard this suggested.

Posted by Cory Kleinschmidt
January 9, 2007

Of course you don't care whether Bush gets credit for the "victory," Joe. You're a professional pundit who is too cool to choose sides. Can't you see how guys like you want it both ways? You want to take credit for being right, no matter what the "right" thing is. That's awfully cynical, if you ask me.

And as my man Atrios rightly asks, Joe, who are these "illiberal" "leftists"? I'm assuming you're talking about bloggers who advocate redeployment? So how exactly do you justify labels like this when their viewpoints are shared by a solid majority of Americans?

Now I'm a pragmatic liberal, and I'd love for us to succeed in Iraq. I really would. But, as a pragmatic person, I also think it's foolish to keep trying the same strategy over and over and hoping for a different outcome. (And I would hardly call Paul Krugman "foolish," Joe. He's a heck of a lot more principled and sensible than most D.C. pundits.) As Bush would say, "fool me once... shame on... shame on... me... but fool me... won't get fooled again."

Yeah, when you've got a blithering idiot like Bush running the show, it's hard to have any confidence in any of this. Thus, while I want us to succeed, it's clear to 95% of everyone and most pundits that the surge will be futile. Why keep this war going when we all know it's a failure? It's time to smartly disengage.

You can't have it both ways, Joe, so please stop trying to be the "smartest guy in the room."

Posted by RCC
January 9, 2007

By the way, since you're not posting comments, I'm not going to read your blog again.

It's hard work, this blogging, yes? Apparently you're not up to the challenge.

Posted by PapaJijo
January 9, 2007

Or, to put it another way, it's not a question of "rooting for an American failure." What we lefties wish is for this to never have happened in the first place, because failure was the only outcome.

We're not rooting for anything. We're waiting for the inevitable, followed by the grim, bitter satisfaction of being proven right. Again. And seemingly powerless to do anything to stop it.

Posted by Mark
January 9, 2007

"The illiberal left just hates it when I point out that the Democratic Party's naivete on national security--and the left wing tendency to assume every U.S. military action abroad is criminal--just aren't very helpful electorally."

You "point out" that Democrats are naive in regards to matters of national security. But you never actually substantiate this assertion and describe the nature of this supposed ingrained naivette. You just throw it out there, using it in effect as an insult. And you wonder why people respond virulently?

Posted by howard
January 9, 2007

I love it, too: you're still the same arrogant guy you are in writing your column when you write your blog.

you can't seem to construct a piece of writing that doesn't rely upon phony formulations about illiberal leftists and phony progressives.

what a phony you are: were you judged on your work product like most of us, you would have been out of the pundit business long ago. instead, thanks to tenure for beltway punditry, you get to visit your prejudices and simplicities and piffle even more frequently.

how pathetic - as is the notion that the "author" must "approve" my comments. very beltway pundit of you.

Posted by DrBB
January 9, 2007

Well, I suppose it's futile to say this again, since so many of us have said it and you and your fellow "liberal" pundits never seem to hear it. But among those of us who opposed the war from the start--a majority, I'd dare to wager--opposed it, NOT because we thought all American military intervention is by definition evil, but because we saw the invasion of Iraq as a monumentally stupid and unnecessary strategic blunder. We most of us had nothing but support for the necessity of going into Afghanistan and going after Al Qaeda and the Taliban there. We thought we should have stayed focused on that effort. Iraq seemed like a complete non sequitur, and far more likely to generate more instability in the most volatile region of the world. It was stupid.

Repeat: we did not oppose it because it was a military intervention. We opposed it because it was stupid. Guess what? We were right.

I realize that's a separate issue from your "challenge." But my answer to that is, "Sure, I honestly wish we weren't screwing these people up so horribly, and it would be nice if a simplistic idea like escalation would work at this point."

Here's a challenge for you: Can you honestly say you think it's going to work? And if not, are you willing to admit that it is therefore going to lead to an utterly unconscionable loss of further American soldiers' lives?

Posted by JB
January 9, 2007

Watch out folks, if you anger Mr. Klein, her will write an anonymous hatchet piece about you as a novel, and then will review and hype his own book without telling anyone he wrote it.

Coming soon, "Blog Colors" by Anonymous.

Posted by Aris
January 9, 2007

Piece of advice, if I may, from a longtime consumer of blogs: Your attempt at blogging is destined to failure because you don't seem to grasp two fundamental elements of successful blogs:

1. Link to whatever you're referring to from another blog, especially if you disagree with the content of the link. Linking does not imply agreement, or approval. This is not only a common courtesy (which it is) but it also functions as an instant citation and it allows your readers to check you and double check you. Not providing a link to The Horse's Mouth because Greg Sargent is taking you to task, merely shows you to be petulant and cowardly. Or perhaps incompetent at the whole internet linking thing. In any case