Re: These Colors Don't Run

Posted by PsOwen
January 9, 2007

I can't believe that ANYBODY takes you seriously.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg
January 9, 2007

All I'm saying is that those who oppose the war now have a responsibility to (a) oppose it judiciously, without hateful or extreme rhetoric and (b) start thinking very hard--and in a very detailed way--about how we begin to recover from this mess.

All I'm saying is that hell will freeze over before you apply these standards to conservatives.

Remember when Republicans talked about "accountability" and "credibility"? All they have left now is playing up fear.

Posted by Foulard
January 9, 2007

Why does Joe accuse us of using "hateful or extreme rhetoric"? I feel like there *isn't* that much of it on the left of center side as there was from the right and 'liberal' hawks in the drive to get into the war. It's ridiculous of him to try to shame us into silence just because we're anxious to bring this 3+ years disaster to a close. These 'sensible center' calls for caution just enable Bush, who will never leave Iraq unless the steering wheel is wrested from his grip. The Democrats finally have a chance to say No--if they don't use it, they might as well not be the majority party. Don't try to stifle the people who want to solve the problem, for god's sake.

Posted by Brian Fejer
January 9, 2007

Uh the pre emptive Iraq 'War' Protestors were right! They didn't have an intelligence failure. The coginitive dissonance is real thick! The US Military/Government/Media ought to be 'brought to justice' if you know what I mean. Tar and Feathers...

Posted by Red
January 9, 2007

The illiberal left just hates it when I point out that the Democratic Party's naivete on national security

Cute.

What makes ill-conservatives or pundits like "serious" about national security? Is it being consistently wrong about everything? Is it beliving that every foreign policy question is best solved with militant confrontation and military action?

Is unreasonably inventing grave threats wherever possible? (Examples include WMD in Iraq and Team B's analysis of the Soviet Union).

If you really think that escalation is bad idea, why are you spending your energy attacking people who also think it is bad idea?

How about a post or two on how the President and the AEI crew and Joe Liberman think that the worst thing that could happen from escalation is that people in the US might disagree.

Posted by chuck
January 9, 2007

The Democrats seem to think that running away with their collective tails between their legs will solve the problem of Iraq. I NEVER hear them discuss the potential consequences of the loss-of-face that will result from America abandoning its efforts to subdue islamic extremists and the slide toward religious militancy among muslims. Just watching the Dems hysterical reaction to Cindy Sheehan on the steps of the Capitol, when they "cut and ran" from her vocal protests last week, makes clear they are spineless. Poll numbers may not favor staying in the middle east and continuing the fight, but I expect my political leaders to do what is best for america, regardless of whether or not some hypothetical majority seem to oppose what is necessary for the good of america. Little children don't like to eat vegetables; that doesn't make it's ok to omit them from their diet. I think the same principle applies. The pols are elected to do the right thing, not the popular thing.

Posted by Ghost of Tom Joad
January 9, 2007

Joe,
If you get drunk and barf all over the floor, does that mean I am required to clean up the mess you made? Is the truth extreme? Reporters enemy is the truth. As I.F. Stone said, "Governments lie, why must the press fib?" Anothrer thing, If we are in a battle for civilization, why aren't the neo-cons signing up to fight the war? That shows how much they believe in it. By the way, is your censor going to get around to approving any comments? Or are you cowering because you have been proven wrong so much.

Posted by Chuck Smith
January 9, 2007

Just curious, if a war proponent tarred war opponents as secretly hoping for an American defeat in Iraq, would you view that war proponent as supporting the war "judiciously, without hateful or extreme rhetoric..." Having played the traitor card, you really aren't in a position to preach about the wonders of moderate rhetoric.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg
January 9, 2007

According to Gen. Petraeus' counterinsurgency field manual, we need 20 combat troops per 1000 people in a given area.

Josh Marshall points out that we'd "need 120,000 combat troops to mount real counter-insurgency operations just in Baghdad. We currently have 70,000 combat troops in the whole country. So concentrate all US combat personnel in Iraq into Baghdad. Then add 20,000 more 'surge' combat troops. That leaves you 30,000 short of the number the Army thinks you'd need just in Baghdad."

So this flaccid escalation, like every other policy decision the president has ever made, reflects only the president's psychology and marketing strategy, and has nothing to do with reality.

Good point, Joe Klein. The liberals better be careful!

Try doing a little work and evaluating what the president's actually proposing, rather than repeatedly projecting your own flightiness onto the Democrats and the public.

Posted by Snow
January 9, 2007

You don't get to cover up errors on the internet. You have to leave them up for everyone to see. That is, if you want to regain the public tryst.

Posted by AlphaLiberal
January 9, 2007

"...without hateful or extreme rhetoric..."

Joe Klein's really projecting here, as this is exactly his practice towards the left.

We got the message: Joe Klein hates our guts.

Posted by theorajones
January 9, 2007

Mr. Klein:

Your disagreement is about substance?

Substantively, the people who led us into this war have been wrong about everything--from WMDs to cakewalks.

Substantively, the people currently in charge of pursuing this war are proposing a new "surge" strategy that everyone else--including the leadership of the uniformed military--thinks is doomed to failure.

And your response is to tell the people who think the surge is a bad idea to be judicious in their criticisms of our war strategy?

Seriously?

Has it occurred to you that, regardless of what we want, that in the real world there might not be a way to "recover from this mess"? That perhaps the Bush Administration has made such an enormous series of catastrophic errors in Iraq that there is no salvaging it? That it's going to be a civil war that leads to regional destabilization, and that there’s not much we can do about it except get caught in the crossfire?

You may think this analysis of the situation is wrong, but it is certainly a position that sane and rational Americans might hold. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but the situation in Iraq has been steadily deteriorating ever since we set foot there. You have set the burden of proof exactly backwards. It's not up to the war opponents to justify what good comes if we remove our troops--it's up to the Administration to justify what good comes of our keeping our troops there!

And while we're being "substantive," it's frankly ludicrous that you'd suggest that Vietnam war opponents got a bad rap because they were "obnoxious."

I’m sure some of them were “obnoxious,” as were some of the people who supported the war and who did things like shoot them dead at Kent State. But, um, Vietnam war opponents got a bad rap because war supporters blamed the war's failure on them--war supporters claimed that the liberals and hippies "stabbed us in the back" and that if we'd just kept our troops there, we'd have won Vietnam. They came up with nicknames like "Defeat-o-crats," and used that to obscure the substantive reality, which was that we lost the war in Vietnam because our strategic aims were wrong (domino theory?) and our tactical operations were inappropriate for the kind of war we were fighting (the military wasn't—and still isn’t—set up for counterinsurgency).

The Bush Administration may try to do the same thing. If we withdraw troops, they may try to blame the war's failure on those “obnoxious” people who demanded the Administration pull out of a war it didn't know how to win and couldn't stop from slowly losing.

Blaming failure on the people who thought this was a terrible idea from the beginning but hoped they were wrong makes a hell of a lot less sense then blaming the people who told us this was going to be a "cakewalk" and who still cannot admit they were utterly, catastrophically wrong--and who are STILL pursuing policies doomed to failure. But that’s only if you’re being substantive.

Of course, if you could get a “liberal” columnist to suggest that anyone who opposed this war opposed it because they wanted to see America fail, well, then, you’re halfway down the road to convincing people that we failed because a powerful and secret “fifth column” sapped the will of a strong nation...

In reality, there was undoubtedly a tiny percentage of Americans who hoped we'd fail in Iraq. There is also a tiny percentage of Americans who believe they've been abducted by aliens. But, sorry, neither group is representative of mainstream Democrats.

Perhaps this is best exemplified by Al Gore, the Democrats' standard bearer in 2000, who, unlike John Kerry, was embraced by rank-and-file Democrats (and, um, a majority of American voters). Al was right about Vietnam, was right about the first Persian Gulf War, and was right about the current war in Iraq. Incidentally, he was also right about the media and congress's failure to challenge the President, and he was right that Osama bin Laden was a more important enemy than Saddam Hussein.

I'd like to put forth a theory of my own. That Democrats aren't having trouble making their argument because so-called "liberal" journalists like yourself are following the "substance" of the arguments on Iraq, or because you’re “substantively” characterizing the views of people who are opposing the way we’re pursuing this war—those who opposed it from the beginning, and those who oppose it now. Maybe Democrats are having trouble because you've decided in advance that the story of the Iraq War will end with the Democrats being blamed for George Bush's failures, because you think it makes you look smart to say that Democrats are no good on foreign policy.

I think my theory is a lot more substantive than your "if you think Iraq was a bad idea, it's because you hate America and wanted to see us fail not because, um, it was a bad idea."

Of course, I’m not a journalist whose magazine last month printed a cover that had the brilliant insight: “The Iraq Study Group Says it’s Time for an Exit Strategy. Why Bush Will Listen.” I’m one of those crazy bloggers who thought Bush was lying about why we needed to go to war in Iraq, and that he had a half-baked plan on how to accomplish his grandiose war aims. What do I know, right?

Posted by Brian Marick
January 9, 2007

This is extremely bizarre. Out here in flyover country, I don't think we see the same war opponents that Mr. Klein does, on either television or in person. Maybe I'm just projecting my own mood, but there's a sort of a sadness that things have come to this, together with a feeling that the political class is spinning ever further away from us. Watching TV in the gym, I see all these pundits and politicians, and I think of a fake editorial in the Onion whose message was "9/11 just goes to show that I was right all along". It's the same thing here: "the disaster in Iraq proves I was right all along": we should have marched into Syria, abortion has sacrificed the moral fiber of our country, those damn leftists are spoiling everything for the rest of us. They're just not serious - it's like it's all in-group gossip, disengaged from, you know, actual dead people.

Posted by dave™©
January 9, 2007

Dear Joke Line,

Greg Sargent writes:

"...here's a challenge for Klein: Back up your arguments with facts and evidence. Produce one example of someone whose comments betray the fact that they're tacitly rooting for American failure. Quote this person. Explain why this person's quotes should be interpreted that way. If you manage to get that far, then maybe consider finding a second example, and even a third. That doesn't sound all that hard, does it?"

Howzabout it, Joke?

Posted by BriVT
January 9, 2007

Liberals were "right" about Vietnam, but they have paid a price ever since because they were so obnoxious about their correctness. The leftier liberals proceeded to see Vietnam in every American military initiative--the placement of Pershing missiles in Europe, Star Wars, the removal of Noriega, the first Gulf War--and they suffered as a result.

Just as I mentioned in your last post: this all goes back to Vietnam for Joe Klein. The 90s pretty much ended the Vietnam-era dovishness as a major force in the Democratic Party. Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan ... all of these had majority support among Democrats, large majorities. Most of the opposition to Iraq was because it was a bad idea, not because of any reflexive anti-war fervor.

It's not grassroots Democrats that are scarred and blinded by the Vietnam era, it's Joe Klein.

Posted by Daniel Oppenheimer
January 9, 2007

Joe, I find your summary of Vietnam and its aftermath way too glib. First of all, can't we just say that liberals who were against the war were right, rather than saying that they were "right." And haven't they paid a price for being right (or "right) mostly because the Republicans have been very effective at exploiting Americans' discomfort at not only having lost but having lost a war that we shouldn't have been fighting in the first place.

It's hard to disagree with your recommendations to be thoughtful in opposing the war and in contemplating the best alternatives, but I don't buy that that's all you're saying. Your tone is suffused with contempt for Democrats and for people who've been against the war.

And you wonder why lefties and liberals don't like you? It's because you manifestly don't like us, and you make it clear in many of the columns (and now blog posts) that you write. You make it clear, even, in the condescending "Oh, Ana" with which you begin your post (how silly of her to think the way she does).

I'm all for thoughtfulness, and, as you say, you've been against the war from early on, and deserve credit for your foresight, but your need to constantly needle and condescend to much of the rest of the left, which was also against the war, seems to betray an irrational discomfort with the idea of being lumped in with the rest of the left. We're not so bad. Just like most other people, we "have confused feelings--frustration, patriotism, anger--that simply can't be quantified," and sometimes that comes out in extreme rhetoric, but shouldn't we be forgiven, particularly if our general anti-war heuristic has turned out to be the right one.

Posted by Max Edison
January 9, 2007

those who supported the war did so with hateful and extreme rhetoric for those who opposed it. Nobody in power seems to have ever thought, in any sort of detailed way, about how to begin to recover from the mess they made. So now it is up to those who opposed this war to find a way out of it. That lets Bush and his supporters off the hook for suckering us into a war they were not prepared to win. Joe Klein is full of nonsense.

Posted by sean m. samis
January 9, 2007

re: "... those who oppose the war now have a responsibility to (a) oppose it judiciously, without hateful or extreme rhetoric and (b) start thinking very hard--and in a very detailed way--about how we begin to recover from this mess."

You know why Liberals are always found wanting? As Joe Klein shows, it's because Liberals are always held to a standard even their opponents can't meet.

I wish that those who support continuing this war effort would meet their responsibility to (a) support it judiciously, without hateful or extreme rhetoric and (b) start thinking very hard--and in a very detailed way--about how we begin to recover from this mess.

And I wish they had done so years ago, back when they got us into this aweful mess.

sean s.

Posted by John Dillinger
January 9, 2007

Why are only liberals who opposed the war obligated to "start thinking very hard--and in a very detailed way--about how we begin to recover from this mess?" Because they turned out to be right, they should shut up, and cleam up the mess? You do realize the point of escalation is to buy time to dump it on the next President, don't you? And if that President is a Democrat, they will blame the loss of Iraq on him and her?

Posted by Brad
January 9, 2007

Oh, I'm sorry Joe, I didn't realize that you had ANY credibility on the Iraq debacle considering you've been wrong about...let's see...EVERYTHING for the past 4 years. But thanks for trying to pretend like you weren't, your backflips have been extraordinarily entertaining.

Posted by John
January 9, 2007

It sounds like you want that 'no' to the war to be spelled with a 'y', an 'e' and an 's'.

The problem with the Iraq issue is that it is the issue. Most 'liberals' I know would gladly sacrifice most (if not all) of their other social goals to end the war. If Iraq is really viewed as very destructive to our position in the GWOT (global war on terrorism). There's no reason not to call for an immediate end to the whole enterprise. The fact that it undermines our position in the GWOT means that it has a fundamental importance that supercedes all other questions of POSITIONING.

Clinton-era political figures and pundits must have an allergy to doing something just because it's the right thing to do. Political capital means nothing if there is no country around.

Posted by Mark Garrity
January 9, 2007

How we recover from this mess is get out of Iraq. If that doesn't sound manly enough for you then you have a problem with your own
masculinity not me. As does anybody who thinks America must periodically lash out at some tinhorn dictator in order to prove our cajones.

Posted by Anonymous
January 9, 2007

"Liberals were "right" about Vietnam, but they have paid a price ever since because they were so obnoxious about their correctness. The leftier liberals proceeded to see Vietnam in every American military initiative..."

Care to share any examples, Joe?

Takes a big mind like yours to fearlessly battle all of those straw men.

You're a hack. (oh my, Hateful Rhetoric!)

Posted by Howie
January 9, 2007

You tell em Joe. I disagree with some of your assumptions but at least you care about the real issue.

Posted by Valentinian
January 9, 2007

I disagree, Joe... it seems your disagreement is very much about positioning and emotion.

You state that liberals were right about Vietnam, though you seem to need to put inverted commas around the word because liberals were so "obnoxious" in being right about that bloody enterprise. Similarly, you seem to allow for the possibility that liberals may be right about this war, too... but only if they are not "hateful or extreme," whatever that means.

It seems to me that right is right, and that the way people express themselves only matters if you put style over substance. War and peace are truly life or death matters, and it would seem odd if there were not very strong emotions raised as a part of the debate.

Posted by Tv
January 9, 2007

Um, am I misreading your previous comments, or did you just accuse critics of your recent blog entries of hoping America will fail in Iraq?

And you're accusing THEM of "hateful and extreme rhetoric?"

Here's an idea for you: Americans in general HOPE we succeed in Iraq, but are unwilling to send more Americans to their deaths based on unrealistic wishes rather than an actual concrete plan for success. We are particularly unwilling at this point to trust any escalation of this war to people who have managed to screw up everything they touch.

Is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp, Mr. Klein?

Posted by daniel
January 9, 2007

do you enjoy beating up straw men? Can't you think for yourself?

I say we can safely get out in three months. Bomb a few known Al Qaeda targets then drive all the tanks and trucks out and then wrap up all the exposed smaller bases. Retreat the remainder to large airbase areas and then proceed to fly every one and everything we can carry out.

It's that simple. No need to beat ourselves up about what needs to be done to salvage what remains of the expedition.

Posted by TeddySanFran
January 9, 2007

"Right" about Vietnam.
"Right" about Iraq.
"Right" about the New Way Forward.

Joke, liberals are "right" about you, too.

Posted by Greg VA
January 9, 2007

The double standard you apply here is breathtaking. Democrats, by virtue of being Democrats, not only have to be correct about Iraq -- they also have to be civil about it and have a workable plan in order to not be blamed for losing Iraq.

Republicans, by virtue of being Republicans, carry none of those burdens.

Instead of commenting on this phenomenon, why not attempt to change it by using your considerable platform to tell us which Democrats were correct about the war and which Rebublicans were consistently wrong. Maybe that would help change the public's perception about which party to trust with National Defense.

Posted by Lefty
January 9, 2007

Mr. Klein:

You suggest that Liberals: "oppose it judiciously, without hateful or extreme rhetoric."

Within the last 48 hours, you asked the following rhetorical question: "And so a challenge to those who slagged me in their comments. Can you honestly say the following:
Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad."

Is this a double standard? Your rhetorical question clearly implies that those of us who disagree with you would rather the US fail and Baghdad break into a civil war. Basically, you're suggesting that your political opponents hope for death, destruction, and American failure. And yet you insist that it is crucially important that those same opponents avoid extreme rhetoric.

Maybe you should practice what you preach. Maybe the liberals and left are upset because this is the treatment we regularly receive from the media. Apparently all of those people would rather imply that we have traitorous motivations than address our questions and arguments.

I cannot emphasize how sick and upset it makes me. For the last 6 years, the press has been dedicated to saying that people with my position hate America, want our country to suffer, and want Iraqis to die. I would much rather be cursed out. I’d much rather someone question my parentage than my patriotism. I honestly feel nauseous when I read these types of columns or watch CNN or other network television.

We understand that the goal is to cow us into submission. The goal is to get us out of the public discourse and leave it to the excellent stars in the press and the media. Well, we’re not departing. And we are going to respond in kind. And we are increasingly foregoing news sources that produce material like yours, because we are not going to pay people to mock us and question our patriotism.

When you grow up and are ready to have a debate on the merits, or at least willing to stop questioning our patriotism for disagreeing with you, please let us know.

Lefty

Posted by Elliott
January 9, 2007

Liberals were "right" about Iraq, too. Actually, liberals were right about Iraq. Actually, the more liberal one was, the more likely one was to be right about Iraq.

Saying it nicely hasn't made a whole lot of difference, comrade. Your punditry is moot. Get out of the way.

Posted by Jandrewmorrison
January 9, 2007

I'd guess that Democrats now have as much credibility about national security as Republicans because Republicans have lost all credibility...

Was this nation safer during the 1990's or during the past 6 years?

What were the "national security" issues that the Democrats lost credibility on back when they had some power to control the agenda?

Oh, wait... It's a Joe Klien piece, no research or facts were used in it's creation. Does anyone outside of doctors and dentists even subscribe to this shameless rag anymore?

Posted by talboito
January 9, 2007

Just to be clear about the moral calculus here in Joe Klein's ridiculous universe: sending Americans to needless death is better than being obnoxious.

Posted by Peter Ramsey
January 9, 2007

Waitaminute!! "Leftists" were right about Vietnam and Iraq -- yet they're somehow the bad guys because...they were peeved about people dying for nothing?

Are you serious? And why does the pro-war crowd -- who, of course, are NEVER hateful or extreme, (you wouldn't know it from your writing, at any rate) not share any responsibility for "thinking very hard" about getting out of the mess they themselves created?

What is UP with you?

Posted by Brandon
January 9, 2007

Joe, why won't you actually address any of the posts by Sargent at the horse's mouth? You keep repeating variations of the same assertion. Why won't you back it up with facts? Why don't you respond to Sargent's challenges? Is it because you can't?

Posted by Mahan Atma
January 10, 2007

As far as opposing the war judiciously, without hateful or extreme rhetoric... I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Perhaps you can give us a few specific quotes from some prominent war opponents?

Personally, it appears to me that the pro-war rhetoric was far, far more hateful and extreme. I can't tell you how many obscene names I got called when I spoke out against the war... The term "traitor" was probably one of the more polite versions; I'm sure you wouldn't allow the actual language on your blog.

Second, I honestly don't have any clue how to begin to recover from this mess. I consider myself a pretty resourceful person, but I have to say I'm stumped. George Bush has managed to get us into an irretrievably disastrous position.

And for this, you're going to blame the opponents to the war??? How curious.

Posted by Douglas Watts
January 10, 2007

All I'm saying is that those who oppose the war now have a responsibility to (a) oppose it judiciously, without hateful or extreme rhetoric and (b) start thinking very hard--and in a very detailed way--about how we begin to recover from this mess.--Joe Klein
---
I respectfully disagree. I have always opposed this war from its fraudulent outset. To use Colin Powell's metaphor, I never walked into Pottery Barn, never walked by it, and never bought anything from it, and never broke anything from it. The folks that did it went that way officer, down Pennsylvania Avenue. I think the house was 1600. Yes, that one. Of course, officer, I'd be glad to fill out a statement for you. I hope you catch them.

Posted by Greg VA
January 10, 2007

In the three short days since I became aware of this blog's existence I've learned one thing: my comments here will stand a much greater chance of being published if I simultaneously cross-post them at Daily Kos. So be it.

I guess you're afraid of looking afraid to publish comments that appear elsewhere. I'll let this one go, but my next comment will be up on Daily Kos within minutes of being submitted here.

Posted by voip
April 11, 2007

pagine piuttosto informative, piacevoli =)

Posted by webcam
April 13, 2007

9 su 10! Ottenerlo! Siete buoni!

Posted by ligure
April 15, 2007

Stupore! ho una sensibilità molto buona circa il vostro luogo!!!!

Posted by toscana
April 16, 2007

E grande io ha trovato il vostro luogo! Le info importanti ottenute! ))