Slow News Day?

We'll let you in on a little secret, Joe (and Hoofie): NOBODY really gives a crap what either of you say, do, eat, shit, or shave.

Next!

Joe, maybe you get attacked from the left and the right not because you're a noble proponent of a new and visionary kind of politics, but because you're one of the great stamping, snorting horde of Beltway CW wildebeest who stampede along in whatever direction alpha bull wildebeest Tim Russert tells you to? When you take every position you hear spouted on NBC, you're going to get called on a lot of those positions, especially when they contradict each other.

This at once whining and self-aggrandizing post (I was sitting in John Kerry's office and the Senator asked ME for MY approval of his speech but I told the Senator it wasn't a bad speech but it isn't how I would have voted.... I wonder if John Kerry remembers it that way?) isn't really persuasive.

Congratulations on finally acknowleding that the position you took was stupid. Too bad your arguments that it wasn't really your position aren't quite so convincing.

Also, snivelling about burning heretics and "attacks on poor old me". Aren't you the little bitch who not two weeks ago so prissily and primly intoned:
"I hope General Petraeus succeeds. Can the intellectually myopic, insecure take no prisoners Left say the same?"

Yes you are.

Bitch.

Joe,

I wouldn't spend too much time trying to understand Arianna. She's only marginally more intelligible in the written word than she is in person.

Joe -- get back to on this subject after you apologize for writing "Primary Colors" as Annonymous, the most reprehensible act of personal and political betrayal since Judas.

Until then, nothing you say can ever be taken in a spirit of good faith.

Nothing. Not even hello.

Dear Joke Line,

Blow it out your fucking ass.

Very truly yours...

"7. These are the last words I'll have to say about this matter. Too many other, far more important things are going on in the world. "

Yeah, let's ignore your enabling of this criminally stupid administration. Stop whining that people are calling you on your bullsh**. You aren't dead like 3000 plus of our soldiers. You are not missing a limb. You just helped that situation happen, and until you accept your responsibility for that, blow it out yer pie hole.

"Because I was expressing skepticism about the war on a weekly basis,"

Expressing skepticism is not the same thing as opposing the war.

You had a high profile media position. You could have written columns making the case against the war and openly opposing the war. You never did.

Why did you choose timid skepticism instead of outright opposition? Who knows. Beltway Media Establishment was pro war. All the powerful pundits were pro war. You probably did not want to get kicked out of the in club.

You are human. You made a mistake. I understand. Lets move on. Lets stop the upcoming war with Iran.

Ignore Arianna. She was a Naderite in 2000. If it hadn't been for people like her there would have been no Bush regime. No Iraq war. No tens of thousands innocent dead.

Arianna is going through all the statements people made prior to the war. She is on a rampage. She wants revenge.

I just want this war to end and to stop the war with Iran.

Before the Iraq War began I formulated a way of thinking about the issue:

#1. Is a military assault on Iraq likely to produce the desired results?

#2. Can the Bush administration be trusted to prosecute the war competently and honestly?

Reasonable people can disagree on the first question. But you had to be a Bush cultist, a delusional GOP stooge to say Yes to the second question.

Joe, those columns criticize (1) the diplomtic runup to the war (quoting only war supporters and Bush administration officials); (2) neoconservative fantasies about Israel's security; and (3) conservative bile for the UN.

To the extent you raised objections, they were tactical.

And all along, even today, you continue to demonize people who were right all along.

One of the terrible things about this war is that it was enabled by the commentariat's (1) focus on tactics and not substance, and (2) stigmatization and marginalization of anyone to the left of Tom Friedman, Ken Pollack, or Joe Klein.

Look, I supported the war. I was wrong. There's a lot to learn for war supporters.

Can you do your apology/correction on your piece regarding McCain's "consistency" next?

That would be great. Thanks.

So, Joe if you appear with a GOP strategist to discuss the candidacy of Giuliani and McCain does that make a strategist or a pundit?

Since Nader and Arianna came up, can anybody understand that guy? He's talking about another run. If he truly is an issues man and there is a real political force that could support his position, why is he again launching a campaign that could undermine that which he wants to accomplish.

Obviously, he is a political imbecile. Is it ego? A Man of La Mancha complex? _________?

You admit that you're stupid. You admit that you're wrong. You admit that you're no liberal but a "third way" coward lacking in principles.

But you still don't correct yourself about McCain's consistency.

You're a sad like toady who doesn't even know who he's trying to suck up to anymore. Please go away.

Oops, think I need to clarify may statement about Joe's appearance on AC360 tonight. The whole discussion was about the strengths and weaknesses of Giuliani as a Presidential Candidate. But, Joe gets the last shot which he uses to mention his McCave as the man that has maneuvered himself into the position of heir apparent to the GOP nomination and that the GOP is known for its loyalty to such a candidate.
Joe did you try to redeem yourself when you concluded that you remember Rudy as a good mayor?

Mr. Klein,

By calling them "lefties" you are exposing yourself as being more than a little defensive.

If someone on the right called you out in a similar way, my guess is that you would refer to them with a little more respect.

Blogging tends to expose you not only to frank and open discussion of your well- and ill-thought out positions and statements both current and past, but also to people who like to pile on gratuitously. It's hard and even shocking at first, but ultimately can result in a healthy dialogue that is lacking in your Beltway fantasy world. First the thicker skin must develop. Then comes the ability to separate the cogent points from the chaff.

What can be shocking is the initial exposure of your pontifications to immediate and frank and honest feedback in real time. It is like putting yourself out there naked to the world. You have this comfortable little vision of yourself and your opinions, reinforced by your smiling and backslapping colleagues who are no less removed from the real world. To have your opinions discussed and examined and turned over and inside out is disconcerting and maybe uncomfortable, but it's a healthy thing and it makes you a better pundit.

It's rarely productive to return a gratuitous attack gratuitously. Ya know what really gets them? A gracious and classy response. It doesn't get you the extra hits though. Heh.

My problem with you is that you seem the definition of "Washington Insider" - yourself so corrupted that you have no sense of right and wrong. Perhaps just years of writing about the sleazy, quid pro quo, harsh world of politics has taken its toll on your own sense of morality. Without knowing you I could not venture a guess as to the cause, but the result is quite clear.

For example, in your Feb. 1, 2007 article you write that Bush's approach to the war on terror has been a "monumental strategic mistake" which you would probably think would satisfy the lefty anti-war crowd. But I look at it as further evidence of your depravity. How can you look at all that has been done in your name - the hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of injured and displaced - and think about strategy? And how can you think it a mistake which, by the President's definition at least, equates the situation with him saying "bring it on".

This was no mistake. This was a clear case of the White House lying to the American people into a still unexplained war. On this, the facts could not be more clear. Does anyone not believe the Downing Street Memos represent a true and accurate accounting of the Bush administration's true intent? There is no legitimate question that this war was illegal, unjustifiable and immoral. If we were not the mighty United States Bush and Cheney would be worried about the Hague not escalating the war. But you give them cover by never making it an issue. Instead you write about Arianna and the lefties. So Bush pressures the Senate into not even debating the war. Can you imagine a legislative body that, for all intent and purpose, has not debated the war after four years?

Make no mistake about it, when we finally do debate the war and when the final chapter is written on Iraq and the war on terror, you will be viewed as the accomplice to the administration that you and most of the media have been. You have failed your country and continue to do so every day that fail to hold them accountable. But to do so, you'd have to see the immorality of administration's actions. And you don't. And that's why I have a problem with you.

Well, Joe, where to begin...

1) Let me start with something the "take no prisoners left" (for future reference, the preferred pejorative here on the Internets is "dirty f-ing hippies") should concede: You were not banging the war drums for Iraq back in 2002/2003, which given the mania of the day is something you should get credit for.

2) That said, your contention that you were affirmatively anti-Iraq-war back in the winter/spring of 2003 is not very convincing. Your "stupid" comment on MTP, at a minimum, demonstrates that your anti-war sentiments were rather shallow and impermanent.

Furthermore, the articles you cite do not contain any plain, straightforward anti-Iraq-war, summary, paragraph, or even sentence. It's telling that you do not (can not) pull out any specific quote from anything you wrote that demonstrates you were affirmatively against that Iraq war.

3) Why single out Arianna? A lot of us are upset. The reason is two-fold: 1) The simple truth of the matter -- you claim now to have been against the war, however the record shows you were, at best, ambivalent about it; and 2) You had a major platform that could've been used to shape a different opinion about this matter. If you were truly against this war it appear you weren't willing to make that case persuasively, publically.

4) It's not terribly good form to write a post that makes an affirmative defense of your position and casts aspersions on the motivations of your detractors, and then simply cut off debate by claiming it's your last word. Frankly, it's a bit childish and unbecoming, which, I know, is kind of rich coming from a dirty hippie on the Internets. But there it is...

Wow, if those are the best three examples of opposing the war, you really are a toothless pundit.

The first piece, after you carefully bent over backwards to assert the wonderful track record of hawks, did get in a few shrill phrases like "righteous arrogance and dim-witted machismo" before quoting some administration aids counseling patience in hearing the president out, and concluding that the president needed to prepare the country for the difficulties ahead. At no point did you actually say that we shouldn't go to war, just that it would be difficult and that a hasty Bush needed to be honest about that.

The second deals solely with the Israel and concludes that Iraq won't help that situation. That's certainly nice and a good point, but no one was publicly using Israel as a basis for the invasion, so you were basically arguing with people who weren't willing to subject this premise to outside scrutiny in the first place while ignoring every aspect of the public debate on Iraq. And again, you didn't feel compelled to weigh in on the larger question whether to invade.

The third was about the nature and utility of the UN and took no discernible stand on Iraq whatsoever.

At no point during the run up to war did you, as a professional pundit and political commentator, think it was important to devote an entire column to the most important policy issue for this nation in a decade: the question of whether we should or should not invade Iraq. From abstract angles you picked at it, positing a reservation here, a caution there. You took time to consider the side implications for the UN or Israel but never got around to addressing the central issue. You attacked the haste of the discussion without bothering to engage in it with what little time you had.

You were a squatter on an (somewhat) influential square of public real estate and did absolutely nothing to further the key debate of this presidency.

In your timid soul you may look back at these pieces with pride, but if I were you, I'd have nothing but regret. At a crucial hour for our country, the best you could muster was tepid caution in print and self-admittedly stupid statements on television. You made just enough murmurings of concern to cover yourself if things went badly, yet few enough that you could never be pinned to opposing the war if it went well. You took the editorial stance of meekest resistance.

You people need to understand that Klein has been consistently rewarded for his weak-ass treatment of the Iraq issue, before the war, and during the war. Why would he bite the hand of his corporate masters? Its just common sense. You're asking him to risk a good paycheck just to save American lives. That's a lot.

Glad to see you address this. It's a start. But it's only a start.

You and the rest of the punditocracy betrayed the American people by not taking a stronger anti-war position. Period.

Your cowardice, your failure to oppose more strongly a war that you thought was wrong, has helped lead to the deaths of thousands of American servicemen and tens of thousands more Iraqis.

You were a midwife to murder on a grand scale.

You have to do a lot more explaning.

"Since Nader and Arianna came up, can anybody understand that guy? He's talking about another run. If he truly is an issues man and there is a real political force that could support his position, why is he again launching a campaign that could undermine that which he wants to accomplish."

I have no problem with Nader running again against the war criminal right and the no impeachment Democrats. One can see the disdain the bullshit peddling third wayers are selling simply by reading Klein here. The Left ought to make the third way bullshitters earn their vote rather than just handing it to them because there is hope they may not be as bad as the Repukes.

"I was [...] trying out [...] a position I had never taken before and never would again."

You people don't get it. Still. You want to know why the anti-Iraq war people like me detest people like you, just think for a moment how this statement reads.

You don't "try out" a war position. Going to war is not some kind of f*cking high school experiment. You took a position. A deadly serious position, as you well know. No question you had your reasons, you had your doubts, but when the rubber hit the road, you were for the war. No debate there at all.

You want to regain some respect, listen closely: No more backsliding, no more qualified, slippery bullcrap that you were perhaps more skeptical than some of your colleagues... Just admit your judgement was horribly, shockingly wrong; weakly stupid or stupidly weak just doesn't quite get there.

And finally, you want to know why there's a take-no-prisoners-left movement? It's because writers like yourself are forever looking for way to rewrite history and suggest you stood up against the Iraq War when it counted. You didn't. Stop pretending otherwise, and stop whining like a brat every time you get spanked for your deception.

George have the weak symbolic votes, that the Publicans won't even allow to be debated, not convinced you that the third way is doing everything in it's power to stop the illegal war in Iraq?

Have they not fooled you the way Mr. Klein here claims he has fooled all of us?

"I was wrong. Period."

Wow. That wasn't so hard was it?

"I was not a fire-breathing antiwar bravo. ... I had my doubts about my skepticism about the war"
See, the thing is Joe, many people take the concept of war very seriously. It tends to cause death. In the ensuing chaos, it destroys civil society and exposes civilians to violent crimes such as rape, kidnapping, and murder. Some people would consider it a priority to avoid these things. Other people feel that they are smarter and more serious and don't value other people's lives this way. People who want too avoid war tend to consider the 'smart,serious' people stupid, immoral, cowards. Just so you know where the 'fire breathers' are coming from.

"Too many other, far more important things are going on in the world."

Certainly not a war. Maybe you consider fawning over manly GOP pander bears as moving the country forward.

Joe,

In the lead up to the war, talking heads like yourself did nothing. Everyday, we were treated to Pro-War people like you and Krisol and all the other Neo-Cons. Where were the voices of dissent on tv? Where were the people saying "Hold on, are we sure about this?" It definately wasn't you. In fact, the only person they found to go out in public and say that was Janeane Garofalo. And even then, the pro-war people like yourself were trying to use her as some kind of joke.

triangulation = gutless pandering

These are the last words I'll have to say about this matter. -Joe Klein on his war stance

These are the last words I'll have to say about this matter.-
Bill O' Reilly on his sexual harrasment suit.

How did that turn out for you Bill?

Joe, just remember we have a long memory. We remember those to fought for the right thing and those who sat back and did nothing. We remember those who have been consistantly correct about Iraq and we remember those who have been consistantly wrong about Iraq.

If want to be taken seriously, you need to honestly address those issues and not play these stupid parlor games.

7. These are the last words I'll have to say about this matter. Too many other, far more important things are going on in the world.

I see someone already asked about this, but let me second the concern raised in the previous thread and completely ignored in your response here - I guess this means you stand by your fetishizing of McCain's fictional, fabricated "consistency"?

Remember when you called Kerry "Frenchy"?

In June 2006 an Iraq amendment was offered by Senators Kerry and Feingold.

SEC. 1084. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) Redeployment of Troops From Iraq.--

(1) SCHEDULE FOR REDEPLOYMENT.--For purposes of strengthening the national security of the United States, the President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, in accordance with a schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel.

(2) CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS REQUIRED.--The President shall consult with Congress regarding the schedule for redeployment and shall submit such schedule to Congress as part of the report required under subsection (c).

[snip]

(b) Iraq Summit.--The President should work with the leaders of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon as possible that includes those leaders, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council,

************

You have a habit of childishly attacking Democratic leaders who have offered real solutions to this mess, while letting the Republican leadership off the hook, all in the guise of "seriousness". Truly smart analysis does not reject "the left" and "the right" and look for some intellectual middle that muddles around the issue and whines about how complex it is.

You are in the cross hairs because your brand of writing perfectly captures the DC mindset (Authentic, straight talking Republicans; laughable, phony Democrats) AND you have entered the blogosphere where you can't hide behind Time magazine ignoring all the letters to the editor protesting your silly columns.

Rub some dirt on it and take a lap....

You had me until "As a long time supporter of the Third Way, I can only say that the triangulation is delicious."

You are the non-conservative columnist at your magazine. When someone needs a non-Republican view, you are our representative, on the Sunday shows as well as in print. And you triangulate us as a matter of course. Your stupid moment of weakness is a result of this reflexive "third way" nonsense, that insists Republicans are always reasonable, and liberals are always a joke.

You more than anyone are responsible for how insanely extremist the right has become. It's the job of conservatives to push as far to the right as possible. It's your job to make their position -- 80 percent solution, torture, bunker busters, attacking Iran -- by treating the insanity as reasonable, and mocking the angry, uncivil leftist position as unhinged. Those representing the unhinged leftist? They aren't present. You are their representative, and you're there to mock and ridicule, while treating conservative insanity as intelligent, civilized discussion.

The same unthinking centrism that made you embarass yourself on TV is what makes you praise people like Lieberman and McCain, the only people as delusional as Bush about the war. The war you supposedly oppose.

Joe - I, too, hope that you do not have to address this topic again. The best way for that to happen is for you to correctly characterize your position on the war.

See, here is the thing about bloggers: We are not your typical newspaper/magazine readers. We are more like a research department - a massively distributed, enormously parralleled research department. And we like nothing better than to check up on people for their consistency and accuracy (though some of us are not great spellers :) ). So stop blaming the research department and next time be more precise in your positions.

Finally, a point on what I think is at the crux of this issue. The problem with being a Third Way advocate is that one often does not have a position. I have no problem with somebody evaluating all sides of an issue - I do that myself. The problem is when somebody does not make a decision because they do not want to be characterized by it. So I think you need to ask yourself if you value your image as a Third Way-er more than you value the integrity of your positions.

Hey Joe-

The soccer ball rolled that-a-way.

Go kick it.

Joe, the problem is that when it really counted, when you were on the premier national TV public-affairs program, the forum in which it really counted, you choked and checked your wallet before you spoke. That one appearance erased any and all good you might have done by being honest.

So many of us would have given our right arm to be sitting at that table with Mr. Russert, to be able to coherently put the case against the war--a case that was too often drowned out by people who valued the trappings of their career over its core importance.

Your story and those of your colleagues is the death-knell of the pundit.

OK, Joe, we'll stipulate that your "wait, maybe we should think about this" attitude back then shows that you were dead-set against this whole disaster from the get-go, as you clearly want so badly for us to believe.

Now, do you think you could possibly stop showering disdain and disrespect on the people who are trying to put a stop to the war before it becomes even more of a national calamity?

Do you think you could express just a little disapproval for the people who started it, and are hell-bent to make it worse now?

Just one simple time?

Or is it ultimately still all about you, Joe?

"As a long time supporter of the Third Way, I can only say that the triangulation is delicious."

Well, I can't tell if this statement is just petulance, but Joe, if you are really a supporter of the "Third Way" can you delineate exactly what that means, and explain why it is the better way? Is your "Third Way" position, in other words, a principled, well thought out position, or is it a pandering position meant to get you into the best cocktail parties in Washington, without turning into a knuckle-dragging, mouth-foaming right-wing zealot?

Serious question, here.

Good work Joe -- keep it up -- we appreciate it.

Way to take a firm stand, Joe. Keep digging.

You're horrible.

Joe, people tend to get easily annoyed by you because they believe you are a two-faced phony hack and a condescending poseur. Of course, the people that think this way are entirely justified. Like other journalists in the public eye, you need to grow a thicker skin. The criticism goes with the territory of being a grandstanding fraudster who's got nuthin'.

The reason this is getting brought up again, in case you missed the point, is that we are in the exact same situation we were when you made your "stupid" comments... this time with Iran. This is why it is relevant, and why it is not, no matter what your protestations to the contrary, your "last word on the matter".

It all gets back to the $500+ billion dollar question...

Did you learn anything?

OMG Joe, you are one strange bird.

"...Or is it a deeper problem than that, a structural problem the left has had ever since before the days when Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz were socialists: a need, born of intellecual myopia and insecurity, to burn heretics? ..."

Joe, you're not a heretic. You're hysterical. In every sense of the word.

You say something you agree was stupid beyond belief, on national TV, and if any democrat dares call you on it, you cry like a little babay that they are burning you at the stake.

Someone call the whaaaamulance..

you are lucky she didn't go through all of your ridiculous remarks on the war

we can just start calling you Uriah Heep...or golem

A blank slate

People are angry with you because you are a blank slate, willing to say even very extreme things on both sides, as the direction of the wind and the company you keep changes by the hour. The idea that Saddam had to be "taken out" lest his continued survival encourage others to oppose our will, is about as extreme and irresponsible a view as ever expressed by the looniest freeper. What you are is the polar opposite of the moderate or centrist, someone who holds fixed views not corresponding to any currently popular tendency, you pretend to be, and by so pretending, and being unaccountably supported in this pretence by major media support, lend a color of legitimacy to the extreme things you say from moment to moment in an effort to please your current audience. If you and your fellow mainstream media had not blown with the winds of the moment in late 2002, and, you know, actually expressed the fixed and steady opinion you claim in retrospect that this war was loony, perhaps the loonies in the administration would not have had the cover to get this war on. But hey, we've only killed over 600,000 people so far with this thing. Why would anybody get steamed over that?

:::Too many other, far more important things are going on in the world. :::

Yes Mr. Klein. Like the was in Iraq, the endless money-pit that is also the war, the asinine surge, and the beating of war drums against Iran.

All of which you have enabled.

"Intellectual dishonesty" is the phrase that comes to mind.

In today's post, Joe Klein reveals himself as the J. Alfred Prufrock of the blogosphere. He really meant to say he was against the war - but somehow, he never quite got around to it. Dare to eat the peach, Joe. You may have nothing further to say about the matter, but don't worry, we'll have plenty to say about it going forward.

Part of the price of being a member of the lapdog media in the internet world, Joe, is that you'll get called on what you say. No more memory hole for last week's pontifications.

The only thing more pathetic than being in favor of the Iraq war is taking both sides and saying you're in favor of it on TV while saying you're against it in print. Congratulations, Joke Line, on being the most pathetic person on the planet.

Why you and Sullivan still have jobs amazes me. In the Bullwinkle cartoon "Wrong Way Peach Fuzz" never was fired either.I think if Time big wigs fired you guys they would have to really consider resigning too.

Revelation 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I
would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will
spue thee out of my mouth.

Being attacked from the left and the right can mean one of two things:

Either you are a well-balanced, thoughtful, commentator on the political machinations of the Washington elites...

OR

You are a vacuous, self-serving tool of whomever you perceive to have the most power at any particular moment.

I vote for the latter.

Between the 2000 Presidential election fiasco and the Iraq War the American Media has increasingly become a disgraced institution in the public mind. All journalists have a choice. Do they continue to abase themselves in order to please the conservative propaganda machine or are they going to tell the truth?
Joe, until journalism recovers an instinct for the truth your legitimacy and the legitimacy of every senior American journalist will be questioned reslentlessly. The fact that you can not understand this as anything but a political fight is telling. One side tells you to lie, the other side tells you to tell the truth, yet somehow they are equivalent. Nice relativism. We're tired of waiting for your reformation.
Repent or be replaced.

What does it say about you that you can express your opposition in private (to Sen. Kerry) but that your public statements support the war and at the best "express skepticism" in writting?

It says that you are a coward, Mr. Klein.

I believe that it took a lot of courage for those who opposed the war to do so - people such as yourself continually smear them being soft or not loving their country. You clearly don't have that kind of courage.

Arriana did not attack you - she was just reporting the truth.

Perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess if you and the rest of the lap dog media had spent more time actually examining the Administration's case for war instead of hand wringing over the political nuances.

Jerry -- Sullivan "fell upwards" to The Atlantic.

Joe, the general problem with "the thrid way" is the fact that sometimes one of the first two views is the correct one.

Suppose President Bush suggested we, as a nation, should eat every first born child. The "Lefties" would attack it as an very stupid idea. And yet, to the "Third Way" people like yourself, we'd have to take the middle road and just eat the first born males.

Sometimes one of the sides is just plain wrong. Untill you can stand up and say that, you will be attacked.

"triangulation is delicious"

If you are being attacked by those on the left and the right for your lack of candor, perhaps the simplest explanation for their behavior is not that you have cleverly "triangulated" yourself into a popular, "centrist" position. Perhaps the simplest exlanation is simply that they are right.

Don't come along at this late date and pretend that you were not part of the problem in 2002-3. In 2003, the leading political figure that was standing up against the war was Howard Dean. And we all know how you treated him. You jumped right aboard the slime wagon with the rest of the media elite. You did the same to General Wesley Clark. You need to own up to your part enabling the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history. "Neener neener I'm a clever triangulator" isn't cutting it.

Ah, well, it's all blood under the bridge now, Joe. But you have a chance to redeem yourself -- the exact same scenario is playing out before our eyes, except this time it's Iran in the cross-hairs. How are you going to play the do-over?

"As a long time supporter of the Third Way, I can only say that the triangulation is delicious."

I'm sure it is, for unprincipled hacks who want to be able to make up crap whenever it suits them.

Your "Third Way" means nothing -- I defy you to define it past your usual, juvenile "libruls are icky" nonsense.

And your delicious "triangulation"? Just moral cowardice.

You have no integrity, Klein.

I think the key words here are "stupid" and "weakness."

Shorter Joe Klein:

I'm glad I am a triangulator (third way) because it makes it convenient at a later date to say that I was for or against something.

Sad to say, I don't think any of these barbs will break Klein's protective bubble. While we hope he may be learning from his experience exposed to the blogosphere and may in some way then carry the torch of logic back to Pundit-land (where eyes will open and awareness will be enhanced), I actually believe the opposite is true.

His triangulation reference demonstrates his insider chops. Pundits receive the official "Badge of Objectivity" when they believe they are attacked by both sides, the left and the right.

We know the right attacks any journalist because of their (the right's) inherent hatred of the profession.

Writing here allows Klein to be attacked by the left, thus cementing his centricity cred.

Why would anyone pay Joe Klein to keep writing this swill?

(That's a real question, not a rhetorical one.)

Why do you (Joe Klein) and others continue to call people who opposed the war "lefties"? That alone exposes your intellectually dishonesty. You see it as a political issue, a "left/right" thing. The right is always right, right? But in reality it is a moral issue: was it right to kill Iraqis and destroy their sovereign government? The answer in 2002/3 was no and the answer now is still no. But you don't care, you and yer beltway buds only care about PR tactics and optics, because imagining you actually had to live in the hell we have created in Baghdad is beyond you. I look at my family and see iraqi children, killed by my tax dollars. You should too.

Klein's "third way" is THE spineless, mushy middle ground that says for every criticism of the administration he puts in one of his articles he must include a shot at those "fatuous Europeans" or other "lefties" just to maintain some false sense of balance.

The run up to the war was a time when someone with a pulpit as powerful as a regular column in Time magazine and real doubts about the war should have had the courage to take a stand, instead of of playing "on the other hand" covering your ass and pooh-poohing those who had the guts to stand up and say "no" loud and clear.

Why is all this important now? One word. Iran.

Are you going to go along just to get along on the next Bush war, Joe?

Joe,
Don't let these smug lefties with their ability to say "I told you so" get you down. You should take pride and ownership in the fact you provided exactly what we needed from a "liberal media pundit" in the runup to the war. You see, since you're in the media and we've trained people to view you as liberal because you're in the media and you didn't come out as anti-war, we were able to create the perception in people's minds that even the decent "liberals" or Third Wayer if you prefer ;^> were not arguing that the war was a mistake.

So take pride in doing your job instead of sniveling about people pointing out your past statements. It's not everyone who can claim to have helped us in such an important way.

"triangulation is delicious"

Indeed, Joe. Triangulation is delicious for a politician whose sole goal is to win the elections, no matter what his real opinion is.
Still, dear Joe, you're not supposed to be a politician, you're not supposed to tell people what you think they want to hear. Triangulation is one thing. Nuance another.

This comment thread should prove to you Joke Klein (I love that) how clever, erudite, intelligent and well-sourced the blogosphere is. Do these patriots who have taken the time to raise these issues force you into any self reflection? Clearly the answer is no. It's the last word you have to say about it. Get a clue, get some therapy, accept what you've become and try to do better. Stop being Russert's lap dog. Write a liberal column. Stop hating the Dems and Clinton/Gore/Pelosi in particular. Stop pimping McLame and Rude-dee. Criticize a Repuke for once in your life. Use David Brock as your example. Stop being a whiny, embarassing, detestable enabler to the destruction of our nation.

By the way, this Time blog thingie is the most hilarious thing on the intertubes!

Glenn Greenwald has some excellent observations on why [pundits write the way they do here:

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00156

"this is how this sort of pompous, self-styled partisan-transcendence almost always operates. They think that things like emphatic beliefs and principles -- and especially stern criticism of our Serious National Security Leaders -- are for the lowly, anti-intellectual masses. The true guardians of wisdom and serious political thought in our society struggle endlessly with complex intellectual dilemmas and never reach any definitive conclusions because they are too smart and too serious for things like convictions or beliefs"

Joe, please read (and then pass on to all your colleagues) Dan Froomkin's advice here:

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00156

Ilike cottage cheese with my crackers, while drinking a glass of kool aid...=)

More important? Excuse me, but what, pray tell, could possibly be more important than the horribly and senseless war we now find ourselves in?

Her point is this: How can you expect to receive any sort of respect, to be taken seriously, if you failed to oppose this distaster to your utmost ability? And to dismiss your equivocation as momentary stupidity is an insult. Blood and treasure continues to be spilled in a nightmareish foreign policy, and the best you can say is "I was stupid, let's move on?"

oooooooooooo, kay. You won't have to worry about me reading your column again.

Yeah, but David Horowitz is nuts.

I carefully read the three columns Joe cites to; let's just say it's nothing to be proud of. Such a prominent voice, at such a critical time, should have and needed to say much more, without reservation. Joe failed.

The best I saw in these rather small-bore columns, obsessed with process and now-meaningless concerns (Bush's 2003 SOTU?), is Joe's prediction that the occupation will be very long, and possibly not successful.

Ok, you got one (mildy) right.

Now, let's move to Joe's petty attack on Huffington -- I get it, she used to be a conservative! This is almost as funny as Joe's "Frenchy" comment about Kerry. And about as relevant.

Then he prattles on with this "left" business, attempting to marginalize his critics with a brainless, O'Falafel-style label.

Finally, he unilaterally cuts off all debate on the topic, childishly believing he can arrogate to himself the "last word."

All class, Joe, all class.

I wonder if Joe realizes that sometimes, if both sides attack you, it means that EVERYBODY THINKS THAT YOU ARE WRONG.

Or is that just too sensical?

1. Joke Line, whether you agree with him or not, has been entirely consistent about the war, except when he was weak and stupid.

Here's something, Joe. All of us dirty hippies were completely consistent about our opposition to the war from Day 1 up until and including today. Collectively, we were right about everything, from the bogus WMDs, to the bogus yellowcake and aluminum tubes, to the mobile biotech labs that turned out to be weather stations, to the dangerous vile of baby powder that Colin Powell that made weak and stupid people like you pee your pants.

The only way that dirty hippies could be right about this, and embedded Gang of 500 Wankers were completely wrong is that you either had your heads so far up Bush's ass, or you needed a war for ratings and writing books, columns and blogs about how you vehemently opposed the war AFTER it started going bad. Coward.

Don't tell the lefty freaks on getting on Joe's case again???

Joe is displaying admirably what I termed yesterday the higher calling of "consistentality" - consistently shifting his positions so he can look good! What could be more consistent than that??

Joe isn't stupid -- he's smart! Joe know that in the past, he was "thinking" the right things, even if in reality, was "saying" and "writing" something else.

The "literalism nazis" are probably not even aware that under Albert Einstein's theories, time is not even linear -- you've heard of Einstein, I suppose, eggheads?!

Joe Klein and I don't have time to explain to concepts like quantum mechanics, the flux capacitor, or beltway punditry to a bunch of american-hating lefties, suffice to to say you should leave Joe alone -- three years from now he will have been for the war for the war anyway!

Don't listen to them Joe. Just because the Dirty Hippies were absolutely correct about Iraq is no reason to listen to them. I mean,if we start listening to the Hippies we might start doing things the correct way.

"Why would anyone pay Joe Klein to keep writing this swill?

(That's a real question, not a rhetorical one.)"

Joe is stuck in the middle. He might let you believe it is between the left and right but it is really between Time-Warner, who writes his checks, and his reputation as a reliable pundit.

What we are witnessing in Joe is an initial hesitancy to upset his boss yet express some concern over how Iraq was progressing. Now that Joe's initial concerns are validated with the terrible outcome of Iraq, he can feel free about criticizing it without upsetting his boss.

Welcome to the transparency of the internet Joe. :)

Being attacked by David Horowitz is nothing. Hell, the guy is pissed that women are allowed to wear shoes.

Triangulation is delicious. I wonder how may "Frenchy" Democrats have been attacked by Joe because of their delicious triangulation? :)

As you can see Joe, I'm going to beat this like a...

If you actually want moderate policies, start to the left of where you actually wanted to be, then negotiate with the other side. You get to both compromise with people in a bipartisan manner and you get actual centrist policy.

During the legislative process you will always negotiate away from your original position, towards your opponent's position. If you go into this negotiation from a "Centrist" position and the person opposite you at the negotiating table is pushing as far to the right as they possibly can, you are going to end up with conservative policies, not moderate/centrist policies.

The "3rd Way" approach is fundamentally flawed, is incapable of producing moderate policies, and has systematically failed to stop the rightward drift of the nation for 15 years now.

You miss the point. The reason Arianna pointed out No surprise you aren't defending his consistency and instead fall back on other weak points (although I concede they are stronger than McCain's record of consistency).

I agree with you Joe. I am against this war but I find Arianna’s assail on, you totally wacky. I have read countless of your columns, before the war and after it. To put you in the same category, as the rust of right wing nuts is deceitful

Shorter Joe Klein:

"I was against the war before I was for it!"

If Klein took an actual position, he might not get invited to the next big Washington soiree. Period.

Joe cites three articles "critical" of war in Iraq to demonstrate how he was against the Iraq war.

Shorter Klein
Article #1 - "A Screech of Hawks" - The hawks may not be right, but
Article #2 - "How Israel Is Wrapped Up in Iraq" - Surprising little about Iraq, mostly about Israel. Clearly critical of the neocon "domino theory/fantasy" for democratization of the Middle East.
Article #3 (after MTP appearance) - "Two Cheers for the Peacekeepers" - The UN isn't so bad. Not at all critical of war in Iraq.

However, none of the articles state a clear opposition to war in Iraq. Only one clearly states some of the difficulties (and even that is ridiculously incorrect, collapse of Jordan? no. Palestinian state on the East Bank? no.)

Joe, if you want us to believe you were against a war in Iraq, show us a link to the article where you state "I'm against a war in Iraq" before March 2003. If none exists, and the one public comment you made regarding war is "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." Then you were not against the war, or at least not publicly. In that case, you have two choices; admit that you were for the war, or state that you were against the war, just afraid of stating it in a public forum.

Of course, I expect you'll ignore everything and cower in your office. After all "These are the last words I'll have to say about this matter. Too many other, far more important things are going on in the world."

Mr Klein:

You have two problems--

1 / You want to say things in the moment that fit whatever media context you find yourself in. Clever, hard-hitting, informed, sound-bitey and all that. Yet when these words are recorded and reviewed by people who look for a consistent, serious POV that exhibits some sort of analytical acumen they find...nothing; just a wispy vapor trail of hot air. This effrontery makes you mad, and bitter. How dare people hold you responsible for your own words!

2 / People remember your (very) public lying about your authorship of PRIMARY COLORS. You had an initial chance to cop to having written the book when asked. But you lied because you thought it would pay better to keep the anonymity. So you can't really shake that character-exposing incident -- you will lie for money. And people think your current job is more of same. I certainly do.

Maybe you should go back to being Anonymous.....

I posted the wrong link to Greenwald's column. It really is worth a read:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-super-smart-insider-experts-opine.html

"For the eager-to-please, self-styled Beltway insider-experts, a failure to form a clear political opinion is the mark of both intellectual and moral superiority, of emotional maturity, and is the hallmark of that most coveted Washington virtue -- seriousness."

"These are the last words I'll have to say about this matter. Too many other, far more important things are going on in the world."

I realized that after the first two sentences of the article. Your justification was, once again, about you. It's not about Iraq, America, or the world.
Why does Time have a column that is always about YOU
(and a not very accurate you, at that).
Please stop being about you and be a journalist.

Joe,

First an encouragmeent: your blogging is getting better. I think you are getting the hang of it. You've always been a talented writer, so Im not surprised. Also, good of you to admit you were wrong on MTP.

HOWEVER, Skepticism does not equal opposition. You were a skeptical supporter of the war. That's okay, just admit it. Lots of people were (Clinton, Kerry, etc). However, don't go back and pretend you weren't. Just admit you were wrong, you learned a lesson, and move on.

The reason people get upset with you is the same reason they really hated Lieberman: the media thinks you represent the democratic/liberal point of view, and you don't. You represent an independent/moderate point of view. That's fine, but when news shows are considered balanced when the have a conservative and a moderate on, people get pissed off.

"You were a skeptical supporter of the war."

Yes, none of the articles cited show opposition to invading Iraq.

Bonus: If you knew ANYTHING about miltary planning, you would know that an "immediate pullout" would result in a "responsible withdrawal" - or are you an Infinite War type?

These are the last words I'll have to say about this matter. Too many other, far more important things are going on in the world.

Wow, first time I actually laughed at one of his jokes. Or is he being serious?

How can puddinhaids like the aptly named Klein, as in small intellect, keep saying it's the 'lefties' who oppose the war when 67% of the US public feels that way? If all the folks who oppose the war were actually on the left we'd have a national health system and gay marriage would be no big deal. Joe, you and your pals are way out of the mainstream on this one. If you want to represent the majority of the populace your position should be full withdrawal within one year and no attacks on Iran. Can you understand why we think you're such a tool, in all senses of the word, when you look at the real sentiments of our citizenry?

Mr. Kline:

I would agree with some of the comments that your work is more skeptical then it is opposition. However you are in good company on this. I am not suprised, however, to see your comments continuously attacked; being in the middle is indeed a lonely place these days, especially because you chose not to use the words "criminally stupid".

My advice to you, call for Bush's and Cheney's head on an impeachment platter, and that should get the Cindy Sheehan wing of the blogsphere off your back, that is of course, until you try to start speaking logically about the threat Iran poses to the US (according to the netroots, Iran only wants to give us flowers and candy, but Bush is just soo mean to them), in which case prepare for calls of "Warmonger!" and people saying "you have blood on your hands". Consider yourself forewarned.

Joe says:

"It was a moment of stupid weakness on the brink of war. It was clear to me that we were going to war and I was--again, stupidly--thinking aloud, trying out--did I say, stupidly?--a position I had never taken before and never would again. I was wrong. Period."

This is progress Joe. I don't think I've ever heard an MSM type say they were wrong. Kudos. Seriously.

As for the take-no-prisoners, burn-the-heretics left, you are way off-base for this simple reason: while Time Inc. might consider you the house liberal, we real liberals most certainly don't. Ergo, we don't consider you a heretic because you have not committed heresy against anything a self-respecting liberal would believe.

But we do think of you as an idiot.

Case in point: you were doing great on bullet points 1-4, then descend into self-righteous self-fellation in points 5-7.

So in one post we go from Joe Klein, advancing the dialogue on the web, all the way back to Joe Klein, idiot.

I'll have to take the kudos back on this one. Maybe next time.

There is a stupid thing that you and the rest of the pundits are still doing.
Just as there is a difference between criticism and skepticism, so is there a difference between criticism and attack. Accusation and attack. Every time anyone accuses you of error you claim to be under attack. You are not.
While I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone who saw you on teevee that you were in any way skeptical, trying to argue that you were not as eager as the rest is pointless.

So Joe, are you keeping a tab on all these different issues? Will you be writing a post that address all the concerns people have been posting?

Or will you cherry pick a few stupid things to highlight instead?

Joe,

I can easily understand a mistaken view about the war - in 2003. Many of us, including Congress, were being force-fed misinformation... even bordering on outright lies... So, I wouldn't let Arianna beat you up too bad on that one...

HOWEVER, after reading your piece the other day, that stated: "McCain, whether you agree with him or not, has been entirely consistent about the war" -- I just have not been able to take anything you say as fact. I mean, that is just SO ridiculously off-base and factually wrong that I was STUNNED that YOU had written it.

I am NOT a 'leftie'. I am smack dab in the middle - with, by the way, the vast majority of the American people. I have watched McCain morph from someone who I thought was a straight-shooter into a wormy, triangulating, pandering, propaganda-blathering FOOL - in just 2 short years.

Hell, he's even contradicted himself and flip-flopped in the same damn interview, for God's sake! - and MORE than once! And yet, you, the sage, the elite pundit, somehow manage to see the exact opposite of what the rest of us "non-elites" see.

Just because you do this for a living, does not mean that your view of things should be necessarily seen as FACT, just as with the rest of the 'pundit-class'. I mean, hell, I'm just a Network Engineer who happens to pay close attention to world events, politics, history, etc - and half the time, I'M more right that most of the so-called, self-aggrandized pundits (especially ones with agenda's).

But I suppose, like anything, if you have to publicly state your opinion on all matters, all the time, at some point you're going to regret an earlier comment.

I still enjoy reading your columns, Joe. You are a good writer, and at least TRY to remain somewhat objective, and that is admirable. I guess I just wish that you wouldn't always have to claim your OWN words as being "always right". After all, none of us are always right!

Keep writing. I'll keep reading... In hopes that someday soon we will see a retraction of your McCain post.

You admit that you were wrong about the war, but call the people who were right about it "mushy minded" and sufferers of "intellectual myopia?"

To be fair, the "mushy minded" remark was taken out of a column that you cite as evidence of your skepticism about the war. Apparently, you were agreeing with the "mushy minded," which everybody should have understood at the time, because the first thing any reasonable person does when making an argument for an intellectual position is to describe its adherents as near-idiots.

Berube can write about the wisdom of his son Jaime, who has Downs Syndrome, and that's cool, he can do that. Maybe, given that precedent, you think it's unfair that anti-war leftists, who you now agree were right when you were wrong, should not understand that although you're essentially calling us retarded, you mean it in a good way and shouldn't be criticized for it. Maybe it is unfair, but I happen to think that it's perfectly reasonable, and who knows? maybe in three or four years you'll understand why.

What about this interview from Hardball where you also support the war?

Mr. KLEIN: Yeah.

MATTHEWS: Do you think the president and his people still want to try to avoid a war, or are they using this weapons inspection program as a pretext to go in there?

Mr. KLEIN: I--I think--I--in all likelihood we're going to go to war with Iraq, but I think we're already...

MATTHEWS: No matter what Iraq does?

Mr. KLEIN: Well--but--but we're in--but we're in a war. And--and this has to be seen in the context of the larger conflict with--with radical Islam. I mean, we're at the beginning, I fear, of a very long religious war.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: But--but a war with Iraq is a distraction from the fight against terrorism. The consequences of destabilization in the region undermining the real fight. The anti-Americanism it's going to breed

Mr. KLEIN: Not if it's going to be right.

Mr. CARLSON: Well...

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: What is it doing right...

Mr. KLEIN: Not--not if it's done right.

Ms. VANDEN HEUVEL: Re--regime--but the--the whole preemptive--but...

Mr. KLEIN: This guy has some really terrible stuff and you've got to get rid of it.

So you are stupid and weak. Got it. Why not let a smart courageous person have your job so we don't get it any more dumb wars?

Thank you so very much Mr. Klein for taking advantage of your soapbox to have skepticism (except when you had doubts about your skepticism and/or openingly pushed the war on national TV).

Why does anyone still listen to Joe? Is it because, like the side of the barn, he makes himself such an easy target to hit?

...........

Waitaminnit...THAT'S IT!! JK is a Republican plant, trying to show people how awfully stoopid the liber...uh dirty f**king hippies are, by being so incredibly stoopid hisself!! It's Genius! It's Brilliance! It's...
...
Oh.
Everyone knew that already?
...
LET'S RIDE BIKES!

memekiller sez

"The same unthinking centrism that made you embarass yourself on TV is what makes you praise people like Lieberman and McCain, the only people as delusional as Bush about the war. The war you supposedly oppose."

And let's not forget Joe's solidly in favor of nuking Iran. bjs and the other trollscum of the intertubes should enjoy that, since a glass parking lot in Iran is what the fantasize about most of the day.

Truly, Klein, your 'allies' on the right want to nuke Tehran 'to encourage the others,' as the French colonials had it. Doesn't that sound like an option to you that should 'stay on the table'?

OK, Joe. I find it understandable that you misspoke. The problem with this community, IMHO, is that you've been avoiding responsibility for misspeaking. Your responses are too combative, and you've taken some cheap shots at the left in the process. If we're take-no-prisoners (a weird image for the anti-war crowd), it's because of how horrible a tragedy this all is, and how little effort there was to stand up to these bullies back when it mattered. You were a skeptic, but what was needed was a loud, forceful skeptic, willing to shout above the nonsense. You didn't do that. So, OK, you're not wolfowitz, but you're not a hero either.

In addition to the horrific comment on MTP, Klein also, as noted above, pretty much said the same thing on Hardball in the run-up to the never-ending disastrous war, which was launched on the basis of baldfaced whoppers. So, at best, while not a full-throated warmongeror, Klein supported the war initially and has been only a tad skeptical (about tactics) since then.

And yet, Klein almost daily lobs verbal grenades at Democrats and who he styles "the left," whilst name-calling John Kerry obsessively.

Why doesn't he actually oppose the war?? Why doesn't he stop with the name-calling??

Joe, you get get comments like this because you say "the left" and "lefties" when you should be naming someone specific and give a specific quote.

Your way sounds like an attack on more than half of America. The problem is that to find people who hold the positions you say "lefties" hold, you'll have to pick people who are obviously out-of-the-mainstream or unknown and whose opinions don't matter and don't represent the left.

Notice that those that attack you are specifically attacking your words, your actions, things that are specifically you. When they attack the pundit-elite, they usually give examples.

Darn, I missed out on all the fun! Since there was wanking going on, I was going to take my top off. Effect and cause, and all. Oh well, maybe next time!

This is still embarrassing, Joe.

Joe, I'm afraid you'll violate your last point, because it's a stupid last point.

The situation in the Middle East, which includes the Israel/Palestine standoff, Peak Oil, the War in Iraq, and Iran's nuclear ambitions, is the most important thing going on, and the United States has placed itself right in the middle of it.

So we'll talk again about what ifs.

Because if you'd been a full throated anti-war person in 2003, you'd be in a totally different place right now.

Your skepticism was muted, at best. You weaseled for fear of losing face at the damn cocktail parties. After all, you'd already shot yourself in the foot once already with "Primary Colors", right? Being the one member of the DC Press Corpse 500 to come out and say "this war that the President wants to launch us on is a criminal endeavor, totally unsupported by the facts in evidence as opposed to the propaganda the White House is pushing" wouldn't have raised your stock with the Kool Kids, would it have?

We all know that Washington is bereft of adults, only people replaying their junior high years except with a lot more money.

You had a chance to step up and be an adult amongst the kiddies, and you fell back to old habits.

This is far from over, Joe.

Like so many of the "pundit" class insiders, Joe, you ceased being relevant and authentic,oh...maybe 10 years ago.
Your whining, self-serving poses on the War and this Administration are a matter of record.
Making yourself a hero because you're "attacked" by the "left" and "right...whatever that means...is another way of excusing the mediocrity of your "third way" thought process.
It must be great to be paid to write such pap.

Thanks for admitting your stupid errors.

Since your stupid errors were in support of war, I can say with complete conviction that no one should ever listen to anything you ever say again.

Warmonger is a tough rap to beat, Joe. Try this: You were lied to, like everybody else, and if you knew then what you know now, you would be against the war. Then maybe shut the fuck up for once in your life.

Joe, just admit that you were wrong about the war. All of your nuanced explanations (excuses) are not cutting it. Is it really that hard?

The mild 'skepticism' you refer to was akin to complaining that your steak was a little overdone; you still ate the freakin' steak.

I know you despise 'the Left,' but those opposed to the war from the get-go were proven right (read some of Molly Ivins pre-war predictions for some chilling prophesies). End of story. You cannot finesse that to make yourself look good. These half-assed faux mea culpas (with the obligatory liberal-bashing) only dig your hole deeper. Be a man and stop this mealy-mouthed wordplay.

It's embarrassingly clear in this post what the Joe Kleins of the world mean by "third way".

In many good spirited debates, and most of the bad ones, there is a certain person who speaks up in the name of "reason". This person's premise is that both sides must have valid points, and that a position can be enunciated which is both rational, grounded in facts, and accepts some of the premises of both sides. This person is always wrong in proportion to the significance of the debate, an intellectual midget who gets agitated by the spirited debate and wants it to calm down. This person engages in the fallacy of false equivalency at every opportunity. This person unwittingly validates the most unfair canards of the side of the debate with the least amount of facts on their side. This person argues from a position of no principles whatsoever.

This person is Joe Klein.

Here's a chance for a do-over Joe:

How about making a full-throated, unambiguous declaration about whether we should go to war with Iran?

What say you, Joe?

Because really it comes down to that. There are a number of people on the right that I, and many liberals, can respect. We may not agree with all of their positions, but we can respect them as men (and women) because they are consistent and open and respectful of opposing points of view. You, however, just get caught in such blatant mistruths or half-truths, and rather than a full confession, you shift the blame and attack those who point out the errors. In short, that is not how A Man acts. You are not deserving of our respect because you do not respect us or your position or even the truth. I can think of no greater insult than that. And I didn't even curse.

Remember the admiration for David Broder expressed by Mr. Klein in an earlier post?

Here's what "the Dean" has been up to:

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/02/david_broder_li.html

"One of the losers in the weekend oratorical marathon was retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who repeatedly invoked the West Point motto of "Duty, Honor, Country," forgetting that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military."

See, that's the kind of thing that pisses of real leberls/progressives. That kind of slanderous, Republican lie being given "serious" treatment by a "serious" "moderate" even "liberal" pundit.

Hacks!

We're sick of the bullshit, Mr. Klein. Time you woke up to that fact.

Oh Lordy. Joe Klein lashing out left and right again like a little girl when someone dares to impugn his (now rather threadbare) integrity. Klein has made a name for himself as a liar and a self-promoter from the moment he stepped into the meia spotlight, and he has never hesitated to stab his colleagues in the back in order to make himself appear squeaky-clean. It is a sad indictment on the once-reputable Time magazine that it continues to employ a man whose economy with the truth has been demonstrated time and time again.

Jeez, isn't anyone going to say a kind word for Joe on his own blog? No? Still delic