RE: Kos

As a matter of Blog Etiquette, you should link to the kos entry so people can refer back and read both.

For those interested, I recomnend you check out Kagro X's post on the issue:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/21/19495/1314

"clean" bill? Morally and politically, certainly not.

Eric Blair's (George Orwell's) "Politics and the English Language" is a must-read, if I may remind you of that.

Joe, the correct response here would be, "I was wrong. I was sloppy. I didn't properly research my column before I wrote it."

I thought you were supposed to be the professional.

Why do you keep saying "clean bill" ... I mean that is obviously one of Bush's talking points. Do you think it is a talking point that is close to being the truth? What is a clean bill? One without congressional attempts to re-direct Iraq War policy towards withdrawal of American troops? How is that "unclean"?

Joe, are you really that obtuse? You used the juxtaposition and misrepresented Kos's remark to make the "noisier" elements of the Democratic base sound unhinged. That's not just sloppy journalism. It's unethical. Calling you on it is not diversion.

Mr. Klein, I tend to back you you up in the left-leaning blogosphere, but your response here was just plain wrong.

Let's take a look. The controversial graf in the column was phrased like this:

Senator ... Obama ... said ... "... shorter leash" ... This unleashed ... Markos ... who wrote ...

Your column wasn't incoherent. It was dishonest.

You clearly state that the antecedent to Kos' remark was Obama's "shorter leash" statement. That is a lie.

I hope a more contrite correction will be printed in the paper edition of Time.

Gosh, but that's wrong, too. Markos doesn't oppose "short leash" clean bills.

When are you going to actually do some reporting on this and just ask the man what he supports instead of guessing?

I can guess without asking. But that's what's supposed to separate journamalists from bloggers.

Wow, this post is more dishonest than the original column. Mr. Klein must publish a written apology and correction.

Add this dishonesty to Klein's multiple use of the phrase "Clean bill" and I believe that there is only one word that fits:

Hack.

Joe, I looked, and I can't find where Kos is "opposed, vehemently, to that position." If it exists, you should link to it.

My guess is that he isn't "vehemently opposed" to it. He may strongly support a different approach -- such as sending back the same basic bill over and over again, or as he suggested in his original post that you misrepresented, add more restriction -- but I've seen no evidence of "vehement opposition" to using 60- or 90- day supplementals as a means of achieving accountability from Bush.

(I personally favor the "short leash" approach because its politically brilliant...and while opinions differ, I can't recall seing anyone who was"vehemently opposed" to it.)

In other words, CITE your sources when you make a claim about someone's opinion...

*************
and oh, btw, about that phony 9% number....

Still no retraction on the misleading use of 9%.

What's the over/under for comments on this post? 250?

> t was chronologically incorrent for me
> to make it seem that Kos was responding
> to the "shorter leash" comment, but
> substantively correct.

Shorter Joe Klein: in order to make Time's most serious online competitor look "crazier" and more "vituperative", I attributed to him things he had not actually said. But I was "substantively" correct.

Too bad the traditional media never dug into the "substantively correct" information on George W. Bush's status with the Texas National Guard.

Cranky

Libel against a public figure like Kos usually requires deliberate malice, rather than just an error. Klein tries to claim this was just an innocent error by him, but a look shows very deliberate malice. There was no way to interpret Kos's post that Klein quotes any other way than Kos commenting on Obama's original statement. Klein read that, and made a conscious decision to misstate the chronology in order to make Kos look bad. That is the dictionary definition of malice - and begs the very simple question: Did Joe Klein libel Kos? Though I'm no lawyer, I'd say very likely.

Joe Klein wrote "In retrospect, I wish I'd written the words "Obama later said" near the "short leash" quote, but that doesn't change the basic accuracy of the column"

Wow - he's right. Even if you add Joe Klein's above wished correction into his original column, it would still be an inaccurate piece of journalism:

Senator Barack Obama found this out the hard way recently, when he said in an Associated Press interview that perhaps the best course of action, HE LATER SAID, was to "keep the President on a shorter leash"-that is, approve funding but limit the funds, forcing Bush to keep coming back for money. This unleashed the ire of Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, proprietor of the Daily Kos blog, who wrote with typical restraint, "What a ridiculous thing to say. Not only is it bad policy, not only is it bad politics, it's also a terrible negotiating approach.

Are Gonzales and Klein the same person... after all, both of them seem genuinely clueless about their actions, and find ex poste factor rationales for making their statements....

so has anyone ever seen Abu and Joe in the same room?

TIME employs known liars.

Why on earth would anyone trust anything they publish?

And I'm opposed to the 'clean bill' with a short leash, myself. I don't think it will 'shame' any of the Republicans, or peel them off. I muchly favor Murtha's plan, which asks, ya know, that troops get some time to rest, and proper equipment and training.

But that's cause I'm unpatriotic, I guess.

And is it just me, or has even this blog declined to talk about anything substantive for the past few weeks? Aren't there more serious topics that could be discussed?

How can it be "substantively correct" to accuse Kos of saying something he didn't say?

Too late, still Wanker of the Day.

Klein's non-apology reveals his cowardice.

Here is the link to Kos' rejoinder.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/21/19495/1314

"It was chronologically incorrent for me to make it seem that Kos was responding to the "shorter leash" comment, but substantively correct ..."

Oh my God. Even you can't be this dumb. How about this ...

"I was wrong. Sorry. "

CLean war funding, akin to sober drunkenness.

See also AWOL-Halliburton.

"the various attempts to divert from the main point (Obama: for clean bill Kos: against) are diversions away from the important discussion about Iraq funding that should be taking place now."

Uhh, y'know, people can actually pay attention to several things at once.

In other words, we can pay attention to BOTH the discussion about Iraq funding AND the question whether journalists are accurately representing opinion leaders' contributions to that discussion.

I don't know if the Sirota posting above is the same as that who posts on the Huffington Post but if so, why are you deleting any posts which are opposed to the supplemental?

In fact, I can no longer post anywhere on the Huffington Post after replying to you.

I don't comment here often, but I read regularly and have to speak up on this. Joe's original column was deceptive. He gives no citation for his claim that Markos is opposed to "short leash" terms. Yet he defends his column as "sustantively correct."

It is not.

And this is why we're all fed up with the media in general, and pundits in particular.

"Chronologically incorrent" is Joke Line shorthand for "dishonest and self-serving."

Joe Klein:

"I do not understand why I should be responsible for the accuracy of the facts in my column in one of the most influential magazines in the world. Why is everyone so caught up in accuracy? What purpose does it serve? Has Kagro X been to China? If not, cut the nonsense."

"And I'm opposed to the 'clean bill' with a short leash, myself. I don't think it will 'shame' any of the Republicans, or peel them off. I muchly favor Murtha's plan, which asks, ya know, that troops get some time to rest, and proper equipment and training."

The short leash approach is just another way for the spineless Democrats to avod doing what the people voted them to do.

Joe, admit that you tried to deliberately mislead the public to make a silly point.

You're a wise, wise man, Joe. So wise that even when you're wrong your wise. That's some kinda wisdom. We all bow down to your wiseness. In fact, in tribute I'll never scratch my chin again, and I'll retire my smart-guy glasses. You the best.

Who's the disgrace now?

I assume you invented the "clean bill" term. I will assert that kos supports a proper bill and Obama a surrender bill.

As I am sure the masses will remind you. The mere appearance of this as a supplemental bill is a slimy way for Bush to isolate himself from criticism and hold the troops hostage. Thes appropriations belonged in the normal DOD funding bill.

The bill you support is as dirty as they come.

It's really bad to claim that the original post was correct "in substance," considering Markos never said one word in regards to the "short leash" proposal. Does Markos favor or oppose the short leash? Joe Klein doesn't know and I don't know. Yet he thinks it's fine to say "I was basically right, because Markos opposes Obama's position."

In addition, Markos' larger point was that even if you favor a clean bill (in other words, giving Bush exactly what he wants), it's the height of stupidity to advertise that before he actually vetoes. You want to increase the pressure, not say "don't worry, we intend to do exactly what you hope we'll do." Klein doesn't deal with this point at all.

Your column was not "substantively correct", it was completely wrong.

One of the reasons I stopped reading Times? Ladies and Gentleman, introducing Joe "I've Got No Truth In Me" Klein

Looks like the America Haters and factinistas are back at it again. What Joe said was perfectly true, from a certain point of view. And you liberals are going to find as you grow up that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on your point of view. True, by modern, western, narrow-minded concepts of time, Joe was "wrong" but in a larger, eastern, holistic of sense he was right. What is time, exactly -- aside from a magazine founded by Henry Luce (a great man!) Quantum physics tells us that in an alternate universe Joe is right and Kos is wrong.

So you can keep your liberal "reality" and "facts" and "time" and use them to bash Joe all you want, but you only attempting to divert attention from the main point, which is that liberals have a tendency to hate America, the war, and Joe.

More killing. More bombing. More dead. More wounded.

Joe Klein defines that as a "clean bill."

Kos is a blog.
Markos is a person.
You might try getting that part straight first.

OK.

Time for me to do some shouting.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT A TIMELINE.

Thank you.

Ms. Josephine "Cry Baby" Klein sure has a problem saying the Four Magic Words: "I made a mistake." Oh, she can daintily huff and mincingly puff, but the fact is, she's a cowardly WOEman.

"Chronologically incorrect". That's a keeper.

Note to self: don't ever ask Joe Klein for the time.

I think it's time to realize that there simply is no good use for Joe Kleins or David Broders anymore.

Whatever work they were once thought to provide is done better by the blogs.

Joe, you've been outsourced.

Mr. Klein,

Your adoption of the White House framing and terminoloy, using the term "Clean Bill," presupposes the correctness of their position. There is nothing clean about a bill that only addresses the President's funding request. The legislative process always entails the possibility of additions and amendments. It is no less proper in this case than in any other case.

Please stop lending your support to the administration's position. Please refrain from using their preferred framing and terminology.

Joe Klein is VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to getting his facts straight.

Joe Kline is VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to citing his sources for other people's opinions.

Joe Kline is VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to admitting clear and unambiguous error.

Joe Kline is VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to anything that gets in the way of his TREMENDOUS wanking.

My god, sir. This post and what spurned it is an epic of idiot proportions.

Joe,
You are gonna hafta eat some crow on this one.
Best to do it NOW and get it over with.

What you have posted is clearly NOT a good enough explanation.

Say it now, "I was wrong, and I apologize to Markos for misrepresenting what he said."

Come on! We know you can do it.
*****
Off topic:

Joe, I recently read an article that I found fascinating regarding one Elliot Cohen, who started "Commentary" way back in 1945. I was unaware of this man and his influence on the current crop of Neocons. I knew about Leo Strauss, of course. Anyway, the author of the article about Cohen also has Southern roots and either now lives in NYC or spends a large part of his time there.

You may have to register to read the article--zip code, gender, age, whatever.

http://www.al.com/news/press-register/index.ssf?/base/news/1176628670120790.xml&coll=3
Elliot Cohen: Mobile's forgotten genius
Sunday, April 15, 2007
By ROY HOFFMAN

......................
He was a literary godfather," said Nathan Abrams, who is author of a new book published in England, "Commentary 1945-1959," which focuses on Cohen's editorial vision. "People haven't heard of Cohen but of all the others."

.....................
He left the Menorah Journal to work in philanthropy, then, in 1945, launched Commentary, a new magazine being sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, a New York-based human rights organization founded in 1906.
.....................

[His son Tom Cohen had this to say about his father.]

The political sensibility surrounding Commentary, he said, "was diametrically opposed to what it is now. He was liberal," he said of his father, who, he pointed out, had also been staunchly anti-Stalinist during the 1930s.

....................

Tom's childhood impressions of the South, in terms of what he heard, "had to do with injustice, the blacks in the South, the lynchings. The social conscience that developed was blacks as oppressed people, that the South was the center of this. There was no sense yet that there was Northern prejudice.

"The South was a place of injustice and darkness, rather than of pleasant rural hospitable life.
"I value that education, not so much about the South, as about social justice."

That commitment to social justice, whatever the issue, and however it would play out in the pages of Commentary, was vital to his father, Tom Cohen said.

"To see his magazine promote social justice," Cohen said, "it was part of the atmosphere. It was in the air we breathed."

Joe, I'm trying to locate online Cohen's "Mission Statement" from the first issue of "Commentary" that is NOT behind a paid firewall. I'm interested in learning how far this group has drifted from its origins.

What an embarrassment. Joe really needs to spend more time reading blogs so he can see how this kind of thing is done. There really isn't anything too difficult about using actual quotes and providing links, rather than relying entirely on paraphrases and guesses. This is beyond sloppy. This is outright negligence.

Joe wonders aloud at beltway cocktail parties, I'm sure, about teh savage masses out there in cyberspace who keep hounding him to be accurate.

He gets knowing odds from his fellow cocktail weenie afficianados every time.

The Revolution is not going to be kind to you guys.

Hey Joe,
You talk too much

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-oczo5sTKQ

h/t to Atrios.

Er, nods. Not odds. Well, perhaps odds. as in it's a million to one that anything written by the fab 500 is anything near accurate.

The correct response is: It doesn't matter what he said, because you're only reading my blog. Nyah nyah.

Joe - What did Kos say when you called him for a comment about your article? I find it strange that Kos was not able to clear this up when you called or emailed him for a comment on your article.

Cue the new story flood to get this off the front page...

Joe's post here begs an even larger question. If Joe's published punditry is as lazy and sloppy as his blog posts, how can anything he writes be taken seriously? It's absurd to for him to say that his larger point is correct when the "facts" used to arrive at that conclusion are false. Blogging has lifted the curtain to reveal that Klein is a lazy hack.

Keep wanking, Joke.

We're all laughing.

LOL! The nice thing, Joe is that you can always just sneak these little chronological inaccuracies past the unsuspecting blogosphere with little or no damage to your sterling reputation! Keep up the good work!

What does "clean bill" really mean? Congress abdicates their role to a rogue President? That's looking like a pretty messy - not clean - proposition from here.

But that's not my main point. My main point is to Mr. Klein and his continued berating of the anti-war Democrats, of which I am one.

Look, we were right on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. We were right on the corruption of the Bush-Cheney-Rove Administration. You, Mr Rove, and many other keepers of the conventional wisdom have trashed us for years and, now, you still continue to thrash us.

We don't need more capitulation to Bush that gives Bush what he wants -- to drag out the bloody occupation even further. We need Democrats to stand up to Bush. Obama has not shown much fight on anything to date and -- as much as we want a Dem leader we can be gagag over -- we need someone with the wit and moxie to stand up to the right wing.

From the McCain attack on him, to many other issues, Obama has yet to prove himself on that score.

Wow, what a blatant misrepresentation of what you wrote, what Kos wrote, and even which Democrats you are talking about. In your original post you tried to argue that there was some kind of mainstream Democratic position (Obama's) that was not being followed by some wild eyed fringe group (Kos's). Of course Obama's *follow up* comment, which you falsely and/or sloppilly attributed to the wrong date was made in response to what he, certainly, saw as the strong *mainstream Democratic* position (Kos's) that stronger measures are required with Bush than Obama had at first thought. In other words Kos's position (mine and oh, about 62 percent of the american people) is the *mainstream* one and Obama came around to recognizing it.

Accidental or deliberate falsification of the numbers, the sentiments and the standings of the people you are discussing? By this time I think we can all see that this level of incompetence has to be achieved by hard work, it doesn't just happen.

aimai

Joe Klein, I'd like you to meet another person who never makes mistakes, Your Highness, Mr. Bush....

VC

Clean Bill = Money for Iraq, no money for Katrina.

Your original point, as made in your column, was ALL ABOUT how Kos reacted to Obama. But the quotes in your article WERE COMPLETELY BACKWARDS, meaning that Kos wasn't at all reacting to what you said he was.

Also, I'm not inclined to take your word for it that Kos opposes short leash provisions. Cite?

Also, stop using GOP talking points ("clean"). Legislation often involves many different areas.

Also, 60 percent of the US public favors a one-year deadline. So it's far from clear why Dems should fold. Read Paul Krugman today to gain understanding.

Obama favors a "clean" bill, perhaps of shorter duration. Kos is opposed, vehemently, to that position--he wants the Democrats to dig in their heels and send the President another bill with a timetable and end date."

If this is your main point, Joe, then please produce one shred of an iota of evidence that Kos is 'vehemently opposed' to the idea of a 'short-leash' bill. In fact, the 'short-leash' bill idea was invented at DailyKos by one of the frontpager's.

If your original post was 'substantively correct' and your whole point is that Kos is 'vehemently opposed' to this 'short-leash' idea then you should have no problem whatsoever posting a URL or a citation proving your contention.

Do it. Produce a cite wherein Kos explains how he is so 'vehemently opposed' to the 'short-leash' idea.

Lemme guess, you can't. So you are stuck trying to guess other's opinions and passing that off as fact in order to defend your own sloppy reporting.

You sir are a shame of a human being. Being able to admit when you are so clearly wrong is the minimal we should expect from someone in your position.

I don't think this is a good correction.

Kos faulted Obama for saying Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker "wants to play chicken with our troops." Kos said it was bad policy, bad politics and a bad negotiating position. The TIME column substantially misstated Kos's position and to support it had Kos responding to words Obama hadn't spoken yet.

There is also a misleading use of poll results earlier in the column.

This is prime example of why Time is going downhill and is in the midst of a total style and writing change.

It's becasue people like Joe can no longer hide behind the "I read it in Time and it must be true" fallacy.

Joe critiques politicians for not calling it straight, then hides under their apron when he himself gets caught.

Fake cons never admit being wrong. That would be like admitting defeat.

Instead, they prefer to attack the other person, again.

No wonder Joe supported GW Bush for so long, they are both the same: Neither can admit a mistake.

Make it a triple of your favorite tonight, Joe.

I want to see Joe Klein wrestle Doug Feith for the Tommy Franks award for Stupidest F@$#ing Guy On the Planet.

Amply clothed, though, please.

Sloppy Joe, slop sloppy Joe.

Hacktastic!

My earlier statement that the US moon landing in 1969 may have been a factor in causing the US civil war of 1861 may have been chronologically incorrect, but it was substantially correct. Sort of. Anyway, the important thing is that Kos is a big stinky butt-head and I write for Time Magazine, nyah nyaah nyaaah.

incorrent - is that a neologism, a combination of incorrect and incoherent?

Either way, this post is an embarrassment. Since Mr. Klein seems to have little shame, I confess I am ashamed for him. I do hope that some day, he comes to regret not having been an honorable, straightforward guy.

Poor Joe...can't a serious commentator on the events of our day catch a break? It's almost like he has a certain viewpoint and then writes stories to buttress them. Isn't that how all serious journalists do it?

Are you feeling the love yet, Joe?

Joe --

My wife got me a Time Magazine subscription last year. It runs out this month. I won't be renewing.

Your refusal to correct your errors -- and the willingness of your editors to wink at your indiscretions -- leaves me little choice but to believe that your magazine has no credibility.

Good luck on your future endeavors

Good grief.

Is it so hard to say, "I got it wrong. Sorry."?

You write for TIME Magazine for christ's sake. There's no excuse for being this sloppy.

Hilarious.

I wonder which bonus you'll collect first Mr. Klein, the one from the RNC or the one from TIME for helping debase it further?

Good grief, is it SO hard to admit you made a mistake? I mean, this lame attempt to cover yourself is so thin, you can read the newspaper through it. How could Kos comment on something he didn't know he had said?

This is pathetic. Just, go play golf or something. Give it up.

Wow, you almost admitted to writing a sloppy article... ALMOST

again, you make things worse by trying to defend a crappy article rather than just saying "oops I messed up"

I'd link to other posts where you dig yourself a hole, but that is way too much work..

Where's Susan Geldof?

here's another lie from within the very same story:
Joe Klein
"Only 9% of Americans say they are in favor of cutting off funds for the war, according to an April 13 cbs News poll"

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 17, 2007; A03
A Washington Post-ABC News poll of 1,141 adults, conducted April 12-15, found that **58 percent** trusted the Democrats in Congress to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq

Joe, why do you lie to us so much?

Kagro X: "I can guess without asking. But that's what's supposed to separate journamalists from bloggers."

It does, Kagro. Bloggers - at least the good ones - research and provide cites and links to support their positions. Journamalists are well-paid guessers, who aren't used to having anyone confront them when they get it wrong, because the communication between journalists and the rest of us has been almost entirely unidirectional for so long.

"Thumb suckers and pundits":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBQAQ3AWOU4

For those of us who have never been on the KOS site, even though we keep getting lumped in with him, what is his position on the supplemental?

Shorter Klein

Upon closer inspection I have discovered that my mistake is only a mistake if you are literal about it and the meaning of the word "mistake".

You really are as smug and smarmy as you look in your head shot there. But please keep up the great work in revealing Time Magazine to be the hackfull shell of it's former self. You're doing a heckuva job Joey.

Joe Klein is deliberately trying to mislead his readers.

Is this statement substantially correct, or factually correct, Joe?

One thing that everyone seems to missing, including the commenters but especially Klein, is that Kos was objecting to exactly the way Obama framed the debate. Obama said he thinks that lawmakers "don't want to play chicken with the troops". That plays right into the GOP's hands. When it comes time to defund the war, and we all know that day will come soon, the repugs will turn around and say that "we're playing chicken with the troops. Democrats don't care about soldiers; they only want to play games. Even Obama agrees with us!!!" That where "surrender" comes into play. At least that's how I interpreted Kos's comment.

Given that, it's *especially* important to get the time line correct. Kos was criticizing something that Obama specifically said, not some general concept of a "clean bill". Klein is WAY wrong here, and it would be best if he apologized.

BTW, Joe ....

Generating a lot of traffic by virtue of being a wanker is not equivalent to generating a lot of hits by virtue of being, you know, interesting, correct, or popular.

The more I read of Klein's ignorant and poorly substantiated (if it's substantiated at all) blather, I wonder how he manages to keep his job at Time, or how Time can retain whatever dignity and reputation it has left by continuing to allow Klein to write under its masthead.

This is not the first time Joe's been wrong, and not the first time he's been caught with his (allegedly) journalistic pants down. How much longer will a guy like this, who obviously doesn't care about accuracy or ethics or facts, have a job where he can pontificate to his heart's content yet basically know nothing?

There are bloggers by the score who are better writers, better analysts, and indeed better journalists than Klein. I'd like to see some of them get a shot. I mean, surely Klein can't be all that fascinating at the Georgetown cocktail parties.

Joe, this is just one more fine example of the continuing decline in honesty and integrity in mainstream journalism. Bloggers do a better job of researching and reporting news that matters to the public, and they are MUCH better at getting the facts straight. Since you aren't doing your job anymore, we've found people who can. Please go away, we don't care for your style of truthiness anymore.

WaPo -- April 17th
"Bush's disapproval rating on his handling of the war was 70 percent."

How does Joke Line get his %9 from that? %70 disapprove, but don't want to change anything?

What good drugs on another planet do you need to think this way?

Why are you calling it a "clean bill" instead of a "blank check"?

Why didn't you use a more neutral description like a "bill without timelines"?

I'm just curious as to why, if you were going to choose a partisan characterization of the bill, you chose the Republican characterization instead of the Democratic one.

Joe, you're just too restrained. Why aren't you angrier about this whole Iraq war? It's been one huge lie from the beginning. But as long as you don't have to die for it, I suppose it doesn't matter. You're also dishonest in your peddling of half-truths. That cherry-picking of poll results was ridiculous.

Who's trying to divert attention from the main point?!

It's one thing to be reasonable. What about practical and truthful?

I only come here to read the comments. It's the best part of this blog.

I'd say it was sloppy, but the misrepresentation appears intentional, especially as he repeats the mistake in his "correction." So I'll have to go with "hackmoric."

And does "incorrent" mean incorrect or incoherent -- or both?

Of course the other possibility you gloss over (as in, ignore completely) is the possibility that Obama "clarified" his comments in response to outside pressure such as the comments by Kos.

Just give it up. Accuracy is apparently beyond you, and your post hoc attempts to say you were right anyway in spite of your factual inaccuracies are just lame.

Hey Joe, get off your fat duff and pick up the phone. Call Markos. I'm sure he'll take your call. Hell, he'd probably accept the charges.

You and your quail wing eating courtiers should know by now that we don't take any crap from you.

CALL KOS!

"Chronologically incorrect, substantively correct?"

On what planet, Klein?

You can't claim to be "substantively correct" when you completely misrepresent the substance of this back-and-forth between Obama and Kos.

That's actually the *definition* of substantively incorrect.

But then, of course, its hard for insubstantial reporters such as yourself to recognize matters of substance when they arise.

"Only 9% of Americans say they are in favor of cutting off funds for the war, according to an April 13 cbs News poll"

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 17, 2007; A03
A Washington Post-ABC News poll of 1,141 adults, conducted April 12-15, found that **58 percent** trusted the Democrats in Congress to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq

Obama says something to the effect of:

When Bush vetos the spending bill, we'll give him a version without the withdrawal timeline because no-one wants to play chicken with our troops.

Markos said something to the effect of:

Wow - revealing that you're willing to surrender to the opposition at the beginning of the process is a pretty dumb negotiation tactic!

Obama then clarified later:

I didn't mean we would capitulate entirely -- we still want to keep the President on a short leash.

Joe Klein said:

Obama says he wants to keep the President on a short leash, and this "unleashed the ire of" the unhinged left represented by the Great Orange Satan who "wrote with typical restraint" that Obama had surrendered to the President. How crazed of the Great Orange Satan, who does not appreciate a good, sane, Democrat like Obama.

Ok, so you got it wrong, and you have no explanation, and your attempt to fix it is still wrong, and you never called Markos to ask about it, and your "correction" is guaranteed NOT to make the dead-tree version next week.... But don't worry, we know it's going to be a long process -- we'll just keep coming back at you, Joe, until you learn to do it right! :)

Ah yes, a "clean bill". Good neutral journalism there.

Cranky

heh, welcome to cyberspace Kline.

hey Joe!

I'm STILL not sure what you were trying to say in your column. For the sake of clarity, perhaps Time.com columnists like yourself -- who should know a thing or two about writing -- shouldn't use dashes three times in one sentence -- but it's possible that I'm mistaken. Or perhaps after multiple counts of 'wankery', maybe I'm just now predisposed to ignoring what you say -- i.e., I don't care what you say.

cheers!

Time for another round of Joe Klein Jeopardy.

A: It was chronologically incorrect

Q: Why did the jury find the defendant guilty of homicide and reject his claim that he killed in self defense only after the victim attacked him?

So much for the "substantively correct" theory.

As a substantive matter, virtually all of Klein's commenters oppose the idiotic disastrous never-ending war/occupation of Iraq, which was launched on the basis of palpable lies and is causing countless thousands of deaths (including 80 dead U.S. soldiers per month). Joe "we've got to take Saddam out" Klein favors it.

Americans: opposed to the war/occupation.

Klein: favors war and the deaths it causes.

I don't buy Time magazine any more and you are one of the reasons. A big one.

9% of scapegoats find Joe's previous post to be substantively correct.

Everybody BACK OFF Joe. Yeah, he didn't note that the quotes were in reverse order, but he's still accurate because ... Markos is clairvoyant and knew what Obama would say? Or something...

Joe, did your editor fall for this?

First of all. The majority of the public supports a timetable for withdrawal. Maybe this an extreme, left-wing position amongst the people you associate with, but this is a mainstream position. The time-table in the spending supplemental is non-binding. Bush could easily veto this, as he has threatened. He does not want to, otherwise he wouldn't be pushing this "debate" so hard. The point here is to force him to do it. The losing position for the Dems is to back down. 1) Much of the support that they won in the mid-terms and which has continued to grow was due to the belief that they stood in opposition to a very unpopular administatrion. The worst possible thing they could do would be to give in. Their so called "opposition" would simply be theatrics. They like to talk about taking action, but would appear to timid to be willing to do anything about it. 2) The more they can dissociate themselves from the war, the stronger their position. Giving in to this means that they are at least partially adopting part of the responsibility for keeping the war going. If they send this bill to Bush and he vetoes it, then great. They've acted and set themselves in clear opposition to Bush. Reading the posts referred to above, Kos is right. He points out that the politics of giving in is bad for Democrats and he says that telegraphing your willingness to cave in is stupid negotiation, too. Your fundamental problem is that no matter what Bush does and no matter how unpopular he is personally, as well as his policies are, any challenge to him is dismissed as extremist and as Bush-hating. 50-60% of the country think the guy is a bad, bad leader who has gotten us into a horrible mess and can't be trusted to make decent decisions. Pretending that this is a big game of Washington politics is to be extraordinarily obtuse and myopic. These issues are incredibly important, as people's lives and world history for at least the next generation are at stake. Most Americans recognize this now. When will you?

No comment on the quote, misquote, or whatever it was. Too much has been said already.

On the issue of whether the Dems & Congress ought to send Bush a bill without a timetable, Obama (at least at first) said that's what they should do (following a veto, that is).

Obama was wrong about that. On policy and on the politics. Dems need to send the same bill to Bush. It reflects the consensus in Congress and the will of the people.

Opposing Bush on the war is not only right, but (finally) it is popular.

...How much longer will a guy like this, who obviously doesn't care about accuracy or ethics or facts, have a job...

Oooh, I know the answer to that question.

Bonus round of Joe Klein Jeopardy!

A: Cleanliness

Q: How would Joe Klein describe continued Congressional refusal to demand accountability from the White House?

Mr. Kline,

I would guess this has been said several times already, but let me try my hand at it, as well. The problem was not just the chronology question but your substantive point, too. Kos complained that Obama's comments gave away their position entirely--essentially, if Bush doesn't sign this bill, we'll give him the one he wants. As Kos pointed out, that's both a dumb way to negotiate *and* an abdication of the Democrats' representative duties. (Your 9% statistic notwithstanding, my understanding is that a large proportion of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of the war and want the Democrats to change the approach, including moving toward withdrawing troops. This bill is pretty much the only venue in which they can do something along those lines.)

Hey Joe!

You made up a new word, "incorrent," which I suppose is a combination of "incorrect" and "incoherent." Man, you really have created a much needed new term to describe your attempts to spin the news and the facts.

Incorrect + Incoherent = Incorrent = Joe Klein's writings on current affairs.

"chronologically incorrent" = deliberately disingenuous = intellectually dishonest = lying

...in so many words.

"And does "incorrent" mean incorrect or incoherent -- or both?"

actually, he meant "incurrent" as in "not currently true at time because of chronological error, but trust me, at some point it will be currently true."

Joe, Is this you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ5Tb2QMngY

"""It was chronologically incorrent for me to make it seem that Kos was responding to the "shorter leash" comment, but substantively correct"""

read: I was lying through my teeth, but I'm still right, even though I'm wrong, because I'm a REAL journalist, and Kos is just a pajamas-wearing blogger who hasn't participated in a SINGLE correspondant's dinner.

Pathetic.

Joe, I think it's fantastic that you're yet to comprehend which way the winds are blowing. Radical change has been taking place in this country for half a decade now and the momentum continues to build. You folks in DC are the only ones who are totally oblivious to the change thats occuring. You're a dinosaur, Joe, and the fact that you ignorantly consider yourself relevant is hilarious. Keep up the good work. Hack.

Joe Klein = "America's Concern Troll"

Shorter Joe Klein: "Sure, I'm a hack who doesn't do his homework, but I hate Kos, so it's okay."

Clean?

As clean as George Bush soiled, blood stained underwear?

Are you crying into those now Joe? Because like W, I think you are in over your head.

Please go join the manufacturers of 8-track tapes.

hack.

why isn't even this meager "correction" linked to at the bottom of the on-line column?

Joe,
It does change it. Kos's makes the point that you DO THIS, as many do. You place words in someones mouth then bash them for the words, you attribute the actions of one to another and you frame as in "clean bill". That frame is of course straight from Rove's tactical manual 101.
The point Mr. Klien is you do not just take a position you adopt known crap to support it. By the way, Bamboozle, get caught and mini-culpa, then reassert the bamboozle does not work anymore. Get manual 202 for advanced modern methods.

Joe--Let's frame it your way: 50 million 'Frenchmen' can't be wrong. You lose, pal.

Joe Klein is just showing off.

He got himself a C+ in his recent mail-order course from the David-Brooks-Incomprehensible-Tripe-School-Of-Fine-Writing.

And, he wanted to prove that C+ wasn't just a fluke.

Joe Klein . . . you are just pathetic. Weeks ago, I cancelled my TIME subscription because you befoul its pages. Yet here I am, pathetic in my own way, enjoying the ongoing train wreck that is your career in journalism. In that regard, at least, you never disappoint.

Mr. Klein,

If you had a shred of decency, you would replace this post with the words, I'm sorry, I made a mistake.

Then your next column in the print version of Time would be a 500 word dissertation on how the pundit class really needs to take some lessons in the art of journalism, with a particular focus on verifying statements of fact, before allowing them to be committed to the printed or virtual page under the banner of their employer.

What's a "clean" bill and what makes it "clean"?

"incorrent"

Probably a portmanteau word plagiarized without attribution from Joyce's "Finnegans Wake."

Dear god, Mr. Klein, at long last have you no sense of decency?

The Meltdown of Joe Klein continues.

Joe can't understand how he's become marginalized, while Kos has become "legit".

Is it STILL a mystery, Joe?

Think it's gonna stop? See ya in the margins, Joe!!

Joe's a hack. One wonders if Time will ever figure out that it can do without hacks as commentators/bloggers. We can go over to Fox News if we really want that.

Really! 'Chronologically incoherent' can be found in the same thesaurus that contains 'the previous statement is inpoperative'.

Klein owes Ziegler's estate some royalty.

Clean bill? There is nothing clean about five years of "supplemental" funding that is not associated with a funding source.

If you want a clean bill funding the Iraq War, then tell Bush to do it in the regular budget process and not to insist on doing it this way.

I love the phrase "chronologically incorrect."

It's perfect for so many things.

"Sorry the mortgage bill wasn't on time. I was chronologically incorrect about the due date. Please don't forclose on the house."

"Sorry about the surprise pregnancy. I was chronologically incorrect about ovulation, but substantly correct that an egg would at some point be available for fertilization."

"I wouldn't say I plagerized my news story from Joe Klein so much as I was chronologically incorrect as to whether I wrote it first. But the story was substantively correct, so really, it's still Joe Klien's fault."

Does anyone remember a time when phrases like "chronologically incorrect but substantively correct" would illicit howls of laughter and ultimately anger from "journalists" who, supposedly, value the meaning of words? When Nixon's press sec said a former lie was simply a "non-operational" fact, people were sickened. When Clinton asked the meaning of "is" lamentations arose about the importance of speaking true. Bush's appeal was his "plain-spoken" manner.

But, in many ways thanks to Bush and his nonstop spinathons, people like Klein, who you would PRAY might be above such things, is a happy to make his own contribution to the rain of lies disguised in poly-syllabic nonsense that makes the writer feel good, and the reader feel cheap.

TIME needs to print a retraction in the next print edition. This is pretty slimy.

Wait - there is a stink here because Jokeline was dishonest? Seriously for someone so wrong, so often, nobody should be surpised by this screw up.

What is really troubling is why Time gives him a platform to spew forth from.

Ten years from now Joe will be standing at some freeway onramp, holding a sign reading:

"Will Bloviate For Food"

Joe, it seems to me that both kos and Obama FAVOR timetables for withdrawal. They do differ on plan B. If Bush vetoes the bill, should Democrats THEN give him the blank check he wants? Or should they hold firm and demand timetables?

Also, kos clearly understands enough about negotiating to know that you never show your hand the way Obama did if you expect to gain any ground at all. Even if the Democrats plan to capitulate to the Administration in the event he vetoes their bill, you don't announce that in an AP interview!

Regarding the debate about Joe's appropriate name, I still have to go with 'JokeLine' instead of 'Sloppy Joe'. His smarmy non denial denial indicates that he fully understood what he was doing.

JokeLine's credibility: circling the bowl.

JokeLine!! That's great!! I love it!!

Mr Klein,

You are aware that you printed something that wasn't true arn't you? Please, simply apologize in an appropriate manner like a big boy. Don't worry, the punditocracy to which you belong will forgive you and we all know that the magazine for which you write doesn't care if you lie for the cause. But, you're losing credibility in the real world. You can go on CNN and MSNBC and spout your Republican talking points but only 33% of the population are still buying what you're selling. When you've been proven wrong and there are records to back it up it's a very ugly quality to keep on lying.

What the hell is this nonsense, Joe?

You argued, incorrectly, that Kos attacked Obama for not supporting putting Bush on a "shorter leash" rather than for seemingly offering to back down if things came to a head. Kos' argument is ridiculous according to your post, but makes perfect sense once the misunderstanding is cleared up. You made up a context for a quote, seemingly deliberately, and now have the cajones, after you have been shown to have been wrong, that your slipup changed nothing - regardless of the fact that any objective observer would agree that there is a major difference. This is frankly dishonest - and it is a real blow to your recent campsign to be taken seriously as a blogger. And I shudder to think how such foolishness would be dealt with by a print medium - where the standards of truth and research are so much better than on the blogs.

Anyone else wonder if maybe Joe wishes he had let this not-so-much sleeping dog lie? It would have been better for him if he didn't "clarify" it I think. Not that I care what Joe wants, I'm not a overpaid cocktail weenie.

"It was chronologically incorrent for me to make it seem that Kos was responding to the "shorter leash" comment, but substantively correct."

you have got to be fucking kidding me...

wankery. that's what you write.

u cant go around without be held accountable..

and substance is ALL of it, mr. klein.

I was wrong but really I was right.

Journalmalism run amok.

Wow, when you make a gross error, one that misrepresents not the style of someone's actions but their substance, it's important. In fact, so important that Obama's own people quickly reacted to correct the mistake in the original piece and clarify Obama's stance, e.g. that he would keep the administration bound and wouldn't give them what they want.

Kos was correctly pointing out that giving the Pres a no-strings bill would be a disaster. Obama agrees. So, where is Kos being shrill, or extreme? No where. You sir were wrong, simply wrong. For you to post the above "clarification" just shows you to not care that you were wrong, and to show you have an agenda...to attack someone that fact checks you.

JokeLine's greatest weakness: Continuing to believe that he's smarter, more insightful, and more deserving of his "place" than the rest of us.

Just to mix things up a bit: Joe, I really like you.

Just to mix things up a bit: JokeLine, I used to really like you. Now I think you're a smarmy turd.

Hey Joe,
If you hate Markos why not kick his butt at a cocktail party?Giving him this crumby little shot is just so Gore Vidal.

Suddenly the last several months have become clear to me. I've finally figured it out.

Mr. Klein honestly doesn't KNOW the difference between accuracy and inaccuracy. And he honestly doesn't KNOW why one would be preferable to the other.

Now, the question is, does Mr. Stengel?

Klein will say and do anything in order to paint "The Left" as crazed and out of control.

He is after all, Time's most liberal columnist. Just don't repeat that to him or he'll have a hissy fit. He'd rather be called a serial killer than a Liberal. You don't get on the Sunday talk shows or the cable shows if you are a liberal columnist.

All of these Time columnists, except Anna, are Teh Suck. Time to take off the typing gloves.

Don't the rest of you get it? JokeLine is being marginalized by Kos! It's all his fault. JokeLine can't be faulted for cheap stunts like this one. Blame Kos! Blame Kos! Blame Kos!

Its hard to believe that anyone can be so stupid. i mean, so, so stupid. god you are stupid.

First of all, the "only 9% support" crap - listen, a vast majority of voters want us out of Iraq. duh. Obama has NEVER said he intended to simply hand Bush a "clean bill". NEVER. Kos was 100% wrong in attacking Obama over the AP piece in the first place as it paraphrased Obama incorrectly and intentionally. It seems as if you don't even know that Obama has already sponsored a bill to WITHDRAW the troops and END the war by March 2008. Are you really this ignorant? On what planet can you argue that Obama doesn't want timelines for withdrawl? This is truly amazing. And yes, you are a complete joke of a writer. Brainless. Amazing.

Grow up Joe. You're embarrassing yourself. Again.

I like you too, Joe

um, David Sirota - libel? no. what Kos did to Obama comes closer to libel than this.

Why does this post make Joe Klein sound like Karl Rove? Talk about lying.

How can a column which wasn't accurate be substantively correct?

You are out of touch, Joe. Time for you to retire to a ranch and milk cows or something.

Mr. Klein:

As you've no doubt realized, journalism in the internet age is a little trickier. People can check your work and can instantly inform you of the error of your ways.

So, in the interest of making it easier for you, I've itemized what everybody else here is saying so that next time, before you put fingers to keyboard, you can hopefully can avoid another pitiful display of journalism.

1. Adequately research the topic you're writing about. (i.e. don't make $#it up)
2. Accurately state ALL basic facts pertinent to the story - not just the ones you like.
3. Make sure any quotes/events you choose to make use of are accurate. (see parenthetical in #1 above)
4. Cite all event/quotes you use in their proper chronolgy (Steven Colbert not withstanding, people really want the truth, not truthiness)
5. Cite all pertinent references (e.g. provide support for assigning someone an opinion that they may - or may not - really have)

If none of the above resonate with your sense of journalistic ethics and professionalism, please consult Dan Froomkin's handy commentary (link below) on what - once again - constitutes good, basic journalism.

Yes, I agree, it is going to be a lot harder and will take more time. But, given your dwindling credibility (and readership), I think everyone will be far better served. Good luck.

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

Not to pile on but Joe, a "clean bill" as Bush refers to it means without the add'l. spending such as money for spinach farmers, Katrina rebuilding or peanut storage. That add'l. money BTW isn't "pork", it's mostly money congressional Republicans agreed to spend last year but never got around to because they never even bothered to pass a budget in 2006.

That's relief which many hard hit farmers and others have been waiting on in some cases for years. Republicans plan to criticize D