The Iraq Vote

"Voting against it means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq."

By what logical standard? I mean, aside from Republican spin and talking points? Please.

Except they don't get the armor they need, or much of anything at all:

"The system for delivering badly needed gear to Marines in Iraq has failed to meet many urgent requests for equipment from troops in the field, according to an internal document obtained by The Associated Press.

Of more than 100 requests from deployed Marine units between February 2006 and February 2007, less than 10 percent have been fulfilled, ..." -- http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MARINES_CRITICAL_GEAR?SITE=OHALL2&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

They caved in Congress--this weak bill should never have been brought forward. How many more deaths on all sides will we see because of it? What kind of progress?

You are wholly and entirely wrong.

>>>"Voting against it means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq."<<<<

I thought you said you didn't write dictation, Joe. Yet here you go again. Please explain in detail where the bill demands a so-called "precipitous departure."

And Florida is right--there's no such thing as a precipitous departure from there---it'll take months to get out, and even then we'll have the bases and massive embassy. Plus, Bush can use regular Pentagon money for it, or other money. The Pentagon has plenty.

Geez, Joe, just when I think you might be getting it, you write this idiotic tripe.

You assume upon the democrats the responsibility for the ultimate outcome of their actions, independent of anything the president does. Do you really think the president would refuse to sign a last chance bill with timelines? If he did, the immediate withdrawal would be on his head, but you would fault congress.

I'd love to play chess w/you Joe, you're always thinking 0 moves ahead.

Please explain how a vote against this bill means voting in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq.

To me a vote agianst this bill is a vote to uphold the will of the American People.

Joe you know that if the bill had failed , congress would have passedd a bill to fund the witdrawal.

Please explain how a vote against this bill means voting in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq.

To me a vote agianst this bill is a vote to uphold the will of the American People.

Joe you know that if the bill had failed , congress would have passedd a bill to fund the witdrawal.

I still think Bush will veto this, or signing statement it to death.

**Voting against it means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq**

Nonsense. Voting against this bill means you're against giving unchecked authority to a man whose incompetence and inability to make decisions--to say nothing of his psychological unfitness to vote, much less lead the nation--has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. A timetable is not "precipitous departure". A "precipitous departure" is not physically possible. We're not going to evacuate 160,000 military personnel-- and I don't know how many civilian personnel--with helicoptors from the roof of the embassy. A timetable is by definition the opposite of a precipitous withdrawal.

And Jane Harman proves once again that she is either a fool, a liar, or both. Thank god Pelosi forced her out of a leadership role.

You admitted yourself the other day that none of the good things you hope to happen will happen, but you want to feel good about yourself by sacrificing a few hundred more twenty year old lives--some of the killed with powerdrills to the skull--before what the inevitable occurs, the inevitable result of an invasion that, when push came to shove, you supported.

This is the ultimate defense of all the damn fools who supported this invasion (Hitchens, Brooks, Friedman): You meant well.

A pretty damn hollow defense.

If Bob Shrum's poison-pen self-justifying whine serves no other purpose, hopefully it will serve this one: No Democrat should ever look to you for advice again.

Let me affirm Florida, James and Amber's comments. A vote against the bill was a vote against no-strings funding for Iraq, period -- in essence, a demand that the Party be responsive to the people who empowered the Democrats in 2006.

And while Joe's statement is "White House talking points", its also part and parcel of the kind of mentality reflected in "you're either for us or against us" --- the assumption that disagreement with the acccusers opinion means that the worst possible intentions are responsible for the disagreement.

In other words, its like saying to Joe "Because you support funding the war, you get off on torture, approve of terrorist bombings of Iraqis, and wallow gleefully in the blood of American soldiers." I'm sure Joe would be offended by such an accusation, and recognize how flawed it is -- but it never ceases to amaze me that people can't recognize flaws in themselves that they immediately identify in others.

"A vote against the bill was a vote against no-strings funding for Iraq, period -- in essence, a demand that the Party be responsive to the people who empowered the Democrats in 2006."

Not just the Party, but that our entire Government be responsive to all the people. They work for us, and are supposed to do what we want. Continuing Iraq ain't it.

I'm disgusted with this bill because it doesn't achieve what we the people want, and it ensures more death and chaos in Iraq. There were many options, and Pelosi and Reid chose the worst, weakest one. I think they want to run in 08 against Iraq, and that's shameful.

Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Ca.): "But I flew into Baghdad on a troop transport with 150 kids, heading into the field. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment, the armor they need. I couldn't do that."

Speeaker Pelosi was 150% correct about back-benching you. Assuming any truth to your statement also requires assuming these 150 kids were transported to the field without the equipment and armor they needed. If the second assumption is true, and you have remained silent on that count, you have dishonored their service.

I think that it needs to be made more clear that it's not just "anti-war leftists" that want our troops to come home. It's 70% of Americans, a majority of Republicans, Independents and Democrats. It is one of the issues that has crossed party lines, a true bi-partisan consensus that it's time for us to start planning the withdrawal and leave. The only way Congress (who were elected to see to our interests) can do this is to set a time-line for when funding will be cut-off. March 2008 would have left plenty of time to plan a withdrawal. Democrats shouldn't compromise on this because the vast majority of Americans agree with them.

If the funding was cut-off immediately it would have been Bush's fault for not signing a bill that had timelines in it. He just wants to ride this out until 2010 so he can blame somebody else for "losing" this war. I hope the MSM doesn't allow that Republican talking point be dominant when it does happen.

Well, I was coming on here to call balderdash on you, but it looks like that's been accomplished already. There is a middle ground between precipitous withdrawal and funding with no meaningful benchmarks whatever. That's where Obama and Clinton have been for months, and this vote was just a re-statement of that middle position. (It happens to be John Warner's position also.)

And Harmon's point about the soldiers not getting what they need is purest Republican mau-mauing bushwa. Unworthy of anybody of good faith in this debate.

"To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment, the armor they need. I couldn't do that."

How come when the Repubs were in charge some of the other supplementals weren't passed until later than this and the equipment wasn't any more endangered than it ever was?

The problem for me is that the Democrats just fall into the "they don't support the troops" or any other GOP smear and don't keep repeating their own. For example, the President's refusal to accept any compromise is what is endangering our troops. This kind of thing has been going on for years and is why the reality based community is not believed by the right wingers. The right just repeats lies over and over again and they become truth in the minds of many. Democrats need to find some truths to repeat daily.

"Voting against it means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq"

This is an insult to the intelligence of your readers.

I can only assume you're going after another of those "Wanker of the Day" awards. Let me congratulate you in advance.

"Voting against it means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq."

I'm surprised a moderate would use the excluded middle fallacy. After all, it is the continuum between the extremes that has been excluded.

Either you are this extreme, or you are that extreme. It is analogous to the false dilemma fallacy. "My country, right, or wrong?" "You are either for us, or you are against us."

There are no shades of grey, or centrists, in the excluded middle world. This is the language of extremists.

A vote against this bill could just as easily be framed as a vote for reason, professionalism and success.

Iraq has caused a 700% increase in terrorist acts. That means things are getting worse, not better.

Personally, I would like to see that number go down, rather than up. If the course I am following is causing things to get worse, that is a very good sign, to me at least, that I should change course and do something else.

The sad thing about this whole argument is how it is ruled by false dilemmas, and a lack of logic and imagination.

What is a precipitous withdrawl going to take in time with the amount of equipment, personnel and assets we have in Iraq. BTW, the majority of Dems in the House did not vote for this bill. The majority of Dems in the Senate did.

We are just postponing this to September when the President will push Petraeus to say that we still need more time to evaluate the surge. At the cost of what? How many lives? Further degradation of the Army and Marine Corp? Further loss or deterioration of vehicles, planes and equipment?
And further sinking into an abyss in the Mideast while Pakistan, Afghanistan and Lebanon sink into chaos.

Bush and his supporters have set the table for sectarian conflict and for the growth of Al Qaeda. And yet we are supposed to be more concerned with his legacy and not with the future of American foreign policy in the Mideast? You may want to take a bite of this s**t sandwich but I certainly don't.

September is just another mirage for the Bush Administration and his lackies on the Hill.

"I was wrong, sadly, last week to say that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would vote for the Iraq supplemental bill."
*********
Joe, I may be wrong, but I believe I heard Keith Olbermann say last night, when this was being voted on, that both Clinton and Obama voted AFTER IT WAS CLEAR THE BILL WOULD PASS.

Care to alter your opinion?

Like the others above, I don't see how in the world you draw your conclusions. Voting "Nay" could also mean you don't approve of giving President Pissy Pants the funds without also requiring some kind of accountability from him and/or the Iraqi government. It could also mean you don't approve of giving him funds without an exit strategy or a timeline.

And then, it could be that both Obama and Clinton are playing to what they perceive to be their base if they indeed did VOTE AFTER it was clear that the bill was pass.

Please reconsider your conclusions.

Ditto, ditto, ditto to all of the above commenters. :)

Closest I've come to info on contractors in Iraq:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/23/iraq.foreigners.reut/index.html

Immediate pullout means a Vietnam style withdrawal. Timeline means troops withdrawn if it is clear that the Iraqi government cannot meet a set of specified goals. The two don't seem equivalent to me.

So, Joe how do you and Rep. Harmon feel about the report by Jason Carroll (you'll have to scroll down to find his interview)? Same ole that has been said over and over by those who TRULY want to Support The Troops.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/24/acd.01.html

Also, Joe I can't find the link but I recall a statement from a knowledgable person saying that the US Military could not support the current troop levels beyond next Spring. How does Rep. Harmon feel about this?

No one-- NO ONE-- wants a "precipitous withdrawal."

And your and Harman's take only makes sense to the extent that you believe the president will veto funding over and over and over again and deny funding to the troops.

You and Harman want to throw your hands up and cave into the three-year-old holding his breath.

It is not clear why this is sound policy or good politics.

"I'm for a careful departure from Iraq, and an immediate disengagement from the areas of most intense factional fighting like Baghdad. "

You are for an immediate disengagement from Baghdad. How is this not both percipitous and irrational while maintaining a presence in Iraq?

Mr. Klein, please explain yourself.

"To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment, the armor they need. I couldn't do that."
Why is she using republican talking points? This line is total B.S. You'd think Joe could figure this out.

Commenters:

I think that by "precipitous", Joe means "before we (the press corps) can be absolutely certain that the Surge has failed, and that Iraq can be safely judged (by the press corps) a lost war without the danger of post-Vietnamesque accusations by various sorts that we (the press corps) promoted that failure/comforted the enemy a la 1970's liberals (in the press corps) discredited by the 1980s conservative backlash".

Joe:
Please set the record straight on your use of "precipitous" to describe a "departure from Iraq".
Is March 2008 "precipitous"? Or is any date certain at this point "precipitous"?

Or is this not a fair request for clarification?

Commenters:

I think that by "precipitous", Joe means "before we (the press corps) can be absolutely certain that the Surge has failed, and that Iraq can be safely judged (by the press corps) a lost war without the danger of post-Vietnamesque accusations by various sorts that we (the press corps) promoted that failure/comforted the enemy a la 1970's liberals (in the press corps) discredited by the 1980s conservative backlash".

Joe:
Please set the record straight on your use of "precipitous" to describe a "departure from Iraq".
Is March 2008 "precipitous"? Or is any date certain at this point "precipitous"?

Or is this not a fair request for clarification?

The real extremists in this whole episode have been the Bushies, and his "Centrist" enablers. It is the Leibermans, the McCains, the Steny Hoyers, and the Reids of the world who have refused to negotiate. They are the ones who cling to failure like a child clings to it's mother's breast.

And yet, these extremists, feel free to call us unyielding, just because we are for success, rather than failure.

Joe - Florida hit the nail on the head with this one:
--------------------------------------
Posted by Florida
May 25, 2007
"Voting against it means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq."

By what logical standard? I mean, aside from Republican spin and talking points? Please.
--------------------------------------

I have to give you kudos for most of the first paragraph where you state your case and even used the word 'respectfully' in close proximity to Russ Feingold, a liberal that probably gives you the heebie-jeebies.

But then the conclusions you draw about Hillary and Obama become a bit of a stretch. First of all, NOBODY WANTS A PRECIPITOUS WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ! Second of all, of course the vote was political - with Bush playing transparently political games with the lives of our troops there is no other recourse. That does not mean that their votes were not symbolic and given my first point it doesn't even rule out that their votes were heart-felt. Finally, just because a rep from California is under the mistaken impression that voting against the bill would keep needed equipment from the troops doesn't make it true. But, apparently you believe it to be so and I think you should come out and elaborate on that to us because we, the commentors, have a dramatically different view on this.

linda,
That CNN link you gave confirms what Keith Olbermann said about Obama and Clinton having voted LATE after it was clear the bill would pass.
Also, this indicates they both were conflicted over their vote. Hmmmm.

***BASH: It was high drama, to say the least. Both of those senators had made two promises that were conflicting, one promise that they would continue to fund troops in harm's way, but another promise that they would do whatever possible to end the war in Iraq. So, they essentially tonight had to pick one of the promises to keep and one to break.

And they didn't vote until the very end of this Senate vote tonight. They both, in the end, voted no. And that is exactly, of course, how staunchly anti-war Democrats, who are going to be voting in the primaries in 2008, wanted them to vote. It was especially interesting to see Hillary Clinton vote that way, because she's had a little bit of trouble convincing those voters that she's -- quote -- "anti-war enough."

She told our congressional producer, Ted Barrett, afterwards that she had to think long and hard about how she would cast that vote. But she said, at the end, enough is enough. At some point, you have to draw the line -- John***

Nevertheless, I still don't see how Joe can make such WILD and ILLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS about what a NO VOTE means.

Okay, so you thought Obama and Clinton were abandoning their principles and voting FOR the measure. Now that they've proved you wrong and voted AGAINST it, you have no respect for them.

You know, you really are hard to please. At least say it right out straight: "There is simply nothing the two senators could do that would make me happy. Nothing. And making me happy is the most important thing in the world."

Why do you insist on personalizing everything, anyway? You personalize issues (YOU would have voted such a way), and you willy-nilly attack the characters of people you don't like-- and you stick with that attack on their characters even when what you attacked them over turns out to be wrong.

How about you do some reporting and get the facts right, and leave the character-judging to God, huh? You got the facts wrong on this, and it didn't change at all your interpretation that was supposedly based on the false prediction. Maybe what you should do is stop with all the character stuff and concentrate on getting it right in the first place. Aren't you getting tired of having to grudging correct your earlier predictions?

I would have thought Obama and Clinton would be praised for trying to have it both ways, like a good centrist.

"I'm for a careful departure from Iraq, and an immediate disengagement from the areas of most intense factional fighting like Baghdad."

Joe Klein here is arguing for a departure from Iraq, perhaps with a longer timeline than Russ Feingold. (This is a point of contention; I think there's time for a careful departure from Iraq in the Feingold-Reid framework, but I have no problem with Joe Klein's disagreement.)

"Voting against it means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq."

This is a bill without timelines. Voting against it means you're in favor of a departure from Iraq. Voting for it is support for a war without end.

(Also, what I hear is that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in favor of negotiation; their position is hypocritical if you know how that works. I also understand that there were many different bills that give the troops the equipment they need without an open ended committment to Infinite War; if you support one of those rather than this one, you are also supporting the troops.)

What precipitous departure? On what is this based?

What some of us call a "projected end-date", they call a "precipitious departure."

Voting against this bill meant voting for HAVING A FUCKING PLAN which you don't have right now.

Voting for this bill means you are in favour of more open ended chaos, death, destruction, waste and further undermining of America's security and stature in the world.

All because the "sensible centrists" are afraid the wingnuts will call them names. Pathetic...

The only reason Hillary and Obama voted against this is because they knew it would pass without their votes. Now they can pander to their fellow appeasers without really even meaning to.

We will withdraw someday, when things are in better order, in the meantime, the left will demand withdrawal every 6 months until we eventually do. Then they will claim victory!!

If it makes you feel any better, Al Sadr is demanding a withdrawal timetable too.

"I was wrong, sadly, last week to say that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would vote for the Iraq supplemental bill."

I was wrong, sadly, to believe that Joe Klein had the ability to have a real debate in this country over the war in Iraq.

In my yokel, out-of-the-beltway view, this was a vote to enable the president to continue to wage the war in the manner he sees fit - a strategy that the joint chiefs and Centcom commander unanimously opposed. I do not believe for a moment that it would deprive troops from bullets in the field, or that it would support a precipitous withdrawal.

But isn’t that the 800 pound gorilla in the room? What is the end of US involvement in Iraq going to look like? Is it going to be like 4/30/75? Are there ever any good ways of ending unwinnable wars? Are we going to remain over there indefinitely? Are we going to enact no-fly zones permanently over all Iraq borders? These are the kinds of questions responsible reporters should be asking – especially “responsible” reporters who believe in an immediate disengagement from those areas with the most intense factional fighting. Where would that be Joe? What then?

Why don’t you ask those questions rather than saving your hell hath no fury like a Joe Klein scorned theatrics for Obama and Hilary?

Couldn't we fund the Iraq war with some of the $500 billion already given to the Defense Department? Or at least fund a planned withdrawal from Iraq using that money once Congress shuts the money off. It's not like the military will all of the sudden have $0 to work with. BTW, it needs to be said over and over the vast majority of Americans, Democrats, Republicans and Independents want us out of Iraq. The March 2008 deadline isn't a leftist position it's an American position.

Joe Klein,

"I would have voted for the bill."

So you would have given another blank check. Isn't that how we got here? By giving Bush blank check after blank check? Extending the Friedman Units every six months?

The senators had a choice. Give Bush yet another blank check or send him a message that his joy ride is over. They did the right thing.

Bush is like a teenager with a drinking problem. Somebody has to take away his car keys.

Well, at least this clarifies what these spineless Democrats and the punditocracy were thinking. I spent yesterday astounded that the Democrats had caved on this.

But it seems as if they really believe this tripe that Joe is reflecting. They really believe that the American people are still buying the words of this lying moron (I watched the press conference yesterday. Bush hit new lows in incoherence, dishonesty and ridiculous fearmongering--even threatening the lives of David Gregory's children). The polls make it pretty clear that they are not buying this anymore.

The fact that Clinton and Obama had to vote this way, even though they apparently didn't want to, illustrates that they do in fact read the polls. So this clarification is kinda limited. It's hard not to infer some venal dishonesty here. It's hard not to think that in either of their presidencies, the indefinite occupation of Iraq would still be public policy.

And I can't see how Joe's position is not effectively the same. He wants to withdraw, but only if nothing bad happens as part of that withdrawal. That is, I believe, the punditocracy problem. They want this to end well, somehow. And it is not going to. This unending delay is, at this point, actively making things worse. Moreover, it means that rather than an organized withdrawal, some precipitous event, like a Turkish invasion or a major attack by al Sadr is going to lead to disengagement on terms that are even worse than riding out to Kuwait and flying home.

"Voting against it means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq."

Please define "precipitous".

This war has already lasted longer than WWII. How many more Friedman Units do you need before you call it not precipitous?

Bush's "plan" is obvious. He will drag this out until January 2009 and dump it on his successor. So that when all hell breaks loose he can blame his successor.

You want people to continue dying for this cynical plan?

Re the Democrats pandering, this item literally made my stomach churn. I worked my arse off for the Kerrey campaign, gave a considerable (for me) amount of money as well, and then I learn this:

>Rejecting his advice was uncomfortable for Kerry, who liked Joe, craved his approval, and worried what his columns would say when we didn't take his recommendations.<

Reminds me of Mark Halperin, Joe's colleague, crawling on his hands and knees to rightwing loony Hugh Hewitt. "Please, Mistah Hewitt! Oh, please! Do anything you want, but please! Don't call me a librul!"

Read the whole thing and keep the barf bag nigh.
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/23/joe_klein_responds_to_bob_shrums_broadside

I can't wait until Greenwald gets a hold of this.

Joe, your logic skills are poor. Your knowledge of Republican talking points is very good though.

Interestingly enough, the original bill proposed by most dems and supported in private by many pubs would have begun the gradual reduction of combat troops next March with limits upon levels of violence. Now, it appears that Bush will be forced to begin a strategy change by late Summer.

And let's not forget why? His own party is abandoning him. The American people have already given up on him, and the poor troop levels cannot be realistically sustained into next year if we want to have an army to provide for our common defense. This is just a matter of economic, political and everyday reality just smacking GWB across the forehead. And he won't call it a withdrawal, he's state it's a change in strategy. Trust me, Petraeus will say things are getting better, nothing to see here, Iraqi's are standing up, we can all go home now, except for those four or five super size bases to secure the oil fields and pipelines. :-)

Just sit back, watch and see.

Folks, to understand Joe's position on the war, consider this from a few days ago:
"I remain opposed to a withdrawal timetable, but in favor of a withdrawal plan--of the sort favored by Senators Carl Levin, Jack Reed and Jim Webb, a plan that would continue the fight against Al Qaeda, protect Iraq's borders, put major diplomatic pressure on the Shi'ite regime to create a government that gives fair treatment to the Sunnis. The odds are against all that."
Joe thinks we have to try things that we know won't work--remember his prissy sniffing about how he virtuously hoped the surge would work even though he knew it wouldn't?--to prove the nobility of our sentiments. This is the essence of the Beltway mindset: It's not about the facts on the ground, it's about what "we" say in our column and on our TeeVee roundtables.
We nutroots types are just like that vulgar Keith Olberman, getting all angry about what's actually going on instead of gravely furrowing our brows and declaring that we hope for ponies and Santa Claus within the next six months (at the end of which time, we should furrow our brows more gravely and hope harder).

Except Harman voted against the bill.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/5/25/111324/631

Joe can't get his facts straight.

Harman voted against it, as did a majority of Democrats in the House and Senate (combined).

Jesus Joe, did they pass some kind of journalistic bill similar to the immigration bill where you score points for repeating Republican talking points and attacking Dems.

"I was wrong, sadly, last week to say that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would vote for the Iraq supplemental bill. They voted against."
-Score 5 points for making it look like HRC's and BO's actions were wrong even though they sided with 64% of Americans

"Voting against it means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq."
-Score 5 points for coming up with a reason that 'lefties' might believe makes their votes wrong

"I'm for a careful departure from Iraq, and an immediate disengagement from the areas of most intense factional fighting like Baghdad."
-Score 5 points for putting on your 'liberal' suit.

"I respectfully disagree with those like, Russ Feingold, who have consistently taken a different view."
-Score 2 points for civility

"It's difficult, though, to have much respect for Clinton and Obama, who--when you hear them speak--are opposed to an immediate withdrawal, but voted for a measure which, if passed, would force one."
-You already got scored for this one

"You might say, this was a symbolic vote. It wasn't. It was a political vote."
-Score 10 points for calling Dem candidates calculating.

"Yesterday I spoke with Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Ca.) just back from Iraq, who voted for the bill--as did a majority of Democrats who are not running for President. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this. We need a new strategy and I hope we can force one in September," she told me. "But I flew into Baghdad on a troop transport with 150 kids, heading into the field. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment, the armor they need. I couldn't do that.""
-Score 5 points for repeating false Repub talking point with quadruple bonus points for quoting a Dem saying them

So to tally up your score you got 47 points. Keep up the good work, they might let you in soon and then you can stop wearing your liberal suit.

In all seriousness I agree that thier actions were wrong. But what was wrong with their actions was not the way they voted, it was not speaking up, and loudly, the minute a vote on this bill was announced.

I was wrong, sadly,

Seems like you could just make that phrase the title of every post you ever put up, Joe.

Joe this is really, really, really, really, really embarrassing. This is the kind of embarraasment that would make an honorable person resign or if Time had any credibilty, ground you from the cocktail parties for the WHOLE weekend.

That is one of the more bizarre twists of anti-logic I have every read, even in the political arena.

"War is Peace"
"Freedom is Slavery".

Cranky

I went to Rep's Jane Harman's website and found this press release:
HARMAN VOTES “NO” ON IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL Calls vote a referendum on this President’s failure to listen; says claims that troops will be under-funded are “rubbish”

I agree with her position, the criticism is rubbish.

So Joe Klein, who was against the war before he was for the war before he was against the war, has no respect for Hilary and Obama? Please. Is there anybody who's a more muddled mass of contradictions than Joe Klein?

Rep. Harman voted AGAINST the bill. So did a majority of all Democratic members of the two houses of Congress. Typical Joke Line fact-checking there- that's why nobody with any sense takes his uninformed opinions seriously.

Is there more than one Jane Harman, D-CA? If there isn't, JokeLine should be, um, well, fired for, you know, making stuff up.

HARMAN VOTED NO!

How much effort would it have taken you to confirm this?

But instead you wrote exactly the opposite and used three paragraphs to do so.

NICE JOURNAMALISM!

Maybe Joe could explain what a "precipitous" departure means, as opposed to a "careful" one? Would "precipitous" be like Reagan leaving Lebanon, and "careful" like Nixon leaving Vietnam?

And maybe Joe could also explain whether there's any realistic prospect of The Commander guy adopting either one of Joe's highly nuanced positions?

I'll be returning here eagerly to learn Joe's response -- just as soon as he's cleaned off his keyboard...

"Is there anybody who's a more muddled mass of contradictions than Joe Klein?"

Is there anyone who has ANY respect for Joke Line?

Aside from Broderella, that is...

She voted "No", and you couldn't take a minute to check that out.

No wonder they call you Joke Line. You may end upt being Atrios's second Wanker Emeritus.

"Voting against it means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq."

Is that Klein or Limbaugh writing?

Voting against the bill means voting against war funding without any strings attached. Voting against the bill is voting against giving another blank check to the Decider so he can continue killing our soldiers and thousands of Iraqis with total impunity.

Get it now, Joe?

Reading down the thread:

Wow, Harmon voted no?

So, not only is the extremely well paid and rapidly typing Joe Klein's analysis superficial, his facts are all wrong?

Sheesh. Now I see why Klein is a multiple winner of the highly coveted, er, Master Debater of the Day award!

Who'll stop the rain, eh?

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.

Give it up, Joe.

So, Joke, in the matter of your complete and total inability to get the facts straight regarding Jane Harman's vote - you're going to ADMIT YOUR ERROR WHEN???

And Time "editors" - ever heard of "journalistic ethics"? As in, "when you get the story WRONG, you CORRECT it?"

Time for another blogger ethics panel, I guess...

Dude, seriously, any plans to correct?

So did Joe Klein just make up the conversation he purported to have with Congresswoman Harman?

Klein, by your logic here, the President's veto of the May 1 bill was a vote in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq. Just like Obama and Clinton, he rejected the funding for the war.

In fact, obviously, such logic is absurd. The President vetoed the May 1 bill not because he wants to defund the war and force a precipitous withdrawal, but because he wants to fund the war with no strings attached and stay indefinitely. Clinton and Obama voted against this bill not because they want to defund the war and force a precipitous withdrawal, but because they want to create a clear and measured timetable for withdrawal.

Your basic incoherence on this war is leading you to make more and more silly mistakes in these columns. You have to stop being a smart-assed contrarian. The time for that is long past.

My takedown of this post.

It's longish.

http://newpairodimes.blogspot.com/2007/05/joe-klein-gives-his-two-cents-and-is.html

There you go again!

Extremist Joe sides with our own 18% of home-grown dangerous radicals who want to prolong and deepen the disaster in Iraq -- and sides against the overwhelming bi-partisan super-majority of Americans who want us out.

Right-wing Joe, like his neo-con Republican brothers-in-arms (metaphorical arms, or course, none of them would ever dream of enlisting or having anyone in their families enlist) has completely lost touch with the reality-based community. Harman voted no. A majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress voted no.

Whoops - wrong again. By the way, how many different pictures are you going to post here until you figure out that you just are not that attractive a guy?

Jesus Christ, how much do they pay you for being the world's biggest douche?

Joe Klein is a liar

Geeze Joe
You ain't particularly smart, are ya?

Where did joe get that Harmon quote from? He says directly from Harmon. No way.

Joe! Whats up!?!?!

Joe didn't write this post.

"Anonymous" did.

Bush has repeatedly said that we are not leaving Iraq while he is President. The Joe Klein position is that Bush gets to do whatever he wants in Iraq because the Democrats in Congress can't use the only tool they have that can actually stop him-not passing funding bills. So lets all just sit back and enjoy the death and destruction that are going to come until Bush leaves office. How do you sleep at night, Joe?

do the honorable thing and resign, Joe.

Joe, do you retype the talking points that Karl Rove faxes you or do you just scan them in?

Dear Time intern who has been assigned monitoring duty,

While I imagine that Joe is either on his way or already at Martha's Vineyard, you probably should interrupt his Memorial weekend escape with an email to inform him of his latest blunder. I imagine that Joe is the sort who constantly checks his Blackberry, waiting on the latest scoop from Karl or the RNC, so hopefully he'll be able to address how he got this post so wrong before he returns to the office next Wednesday (or is it Thurdday?).

Do you even bother to read the news, or do you just look at a headline and start writing whatever comes to mind?

Nearly everything you just wrote is wrong-- a nay vote does not necessarily mean a vote for "precipitous withdrawal"; neither Clinton nor Obama favors such a withdrawal (unless 2008 qualifies as "precipitous"); Jane Harman did not, in fact, vote for this bill, and neither did a majority of Democrats not running for president, seeing as 54 more House Democrats voted against it than for it, and there are only 51 Democrats in the Senate.

Thank you for proving, once again, that Americans cannot trust their punditocracy to inform them.

Joe ,

You're starting to look like a total buffoon which for a journalist is not a good thing. Did you check any of the Harmon story before you ran with it? Can't wait to hear your explanation for this fubar.

Joke line.

Congratulations, Joe! I think this post is wrong enough to merit a pay raise and promotion.

Joe Klein is a novelist. We've known that.

He just inhabits the DC political cocktail circuit to pick up ideas for his novels. He tests his narratives on the pages of Time and on this blog.

Novelist, not journalist. Certainly not pundit. Got it?

Why are you lying about Jane Harman?

She voted AGAINST the funding!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/24/191142/299

Your refusal to revise your remarks on this goes to show what a biased Republican you are.

"Voting against it means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq."

What an embarrassingly dumb thing for an adult to say.

Well, since Joe isnt going to correct the record, perhaps I can offer an explanation. Joe, who is the examplar of DC Conventional Wisdom, believed that Jane Harman was continuing with her pre 2006 W syncophancy and would obviously never want to leave Iraq would be a reliable quotable for Joe's syncophantic postion as well. Once Joe realized that he could use Jane as a prop for what he believes the CW is, he made some crap up and printed it.

Also, never forget Joe's only ability to generate blog traffic is to be a troll.

Joe, did you get your info about Jane Harman's vote from the same anonymous source who told you things are peachy in Anbar province?

It's chill, dudes. All that happened was, he by mistake wrote something factually incorrent.

Maybe somewould should ask jane Harman if she had this converstaion with Joe?

Yesterday I spoke with Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Ca.) just back from Iraq, who voted for the bill--as did a majority of Democrats who are not running for President. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this. We need a new strategy and I hope we can force one in September," she told me. "But I flew into Baghdad on a troop transport with 150 kids, heading into the field. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment, the armor they need. I couldn't do that."

Right now Klein -- ego obviously bruised -- is trying to figure out the "best" way to phrase a correction. If this is true to form it won't be straight-forward but will rather display the ego-bruising which he is experiencing by being either:
a) defensive
b) only partial and weasly
c) inaccurate in a new way
d) obnoxious to other parties (probably the left-wing bloggers who actually called him on the error)
e) all of the above

Well at least you proved yourself wrong for us this time. Not that it's hard most of the time.

I can't wait for the update. Joe's probably locked in his special chambe right now, digging through his Double Super Secret Book of How to Get Out of Looking Like an Idiot When You Actually Were One.

Joe, just admit you were wrong. About Harman and about the vote. Those "150 kids" (and just for the hell of it: 150,000 or so other ones too) have not been getting what they've needed for four years. If Bush wanted to supply them better he could have and still could. Voting "no" helps end that important mistreatment, not to mention the mistreatment of putting them there in the first place.

And don't say "but" anywhere in the update. Its cowardly.

Well at least you proved yourself wrong for us this time. Not that it's hard most of the time.

I can't wait for the update. Joe's probably locked in his special chamber right now, digging through his Double Super Secret Book of How to Get Out of Looking Like an Idiot When You Actually Were One.

Joe, just admit you were wrong. About Harman and about the vote. Those "150 kids" (and just for the hell of it: 150,000 or so other ones too) have not been getting what they've needed for four years. If Bush wanted to supply them better he could have and still could. Voting "no" helps end that important mistreatment, not to mention the mistreatment of putting them there in the first place.

And don't say "but" anywhere in the update. Its cowardly.

Oh my goodness, I was really about to get mad at Harman, based on this post.

But then I read the news.

Darn, Joe, foiled again.

Well phrased Thom. "Don't say 'but'". Hope springs eternal.

Will it be:

a. "Voted for the bill" is a very specific, bilbical reference. . . ." or

b. "Gosh, do I have to explain ALL my jokes to you. . . ?"

Dear Joe:

Jane Harman is my Congresswoman and she knows she has to represent the actual voters in her district, and not go along with your inside the beltway B/S, if she wants to remain my Congresswoman.

Having a real liberal challenge you in the 2006 Democratic primary will make you a little gun shy about pissing off your actual voters. It also turns war supporters into war critics real quick. Just like Hillery and Obama, sometimes you just have to do what the voters want, if you want to remain in an elected office.

**Posted by alw
May 25, 2007
Right now Klein -- ego obviously bruised -- is trying to figure out the "best" way to phrase a correction. If this is true to form it won't be straight-forward but will rather display the ego-bruising which he is experiencing by being either:
a) defensive
b) only partial and weasly
c) inaccurate in a new way
d) obnoxious to other parties (probably the left-wing bloggers who actually called him on the error)
e) all of the above**

don't forget the "I've grown tired of this subject, and these shall be my last words upon it" before he spins on his heel and leaves the thread in a flouncey huff of crinoline and bitterness.

You are a joke. A sad, sick joke, on all of us.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/5/25/111324/631

You were wrong about Jane Harman's vote too, which means you fabricated that quote.

Joe bungling Harman's vote this badly would be wildly comical if it wasn't indicative of the typical MSM philosophy of sizzle over substance.

I understand taking a position and wanting to provide evidence to support your claims (and doubtless, Joe could have "talked" to any of a number of Democrats who did vote for this bill), but you would really think he would confirm this sort of thing before using it as the core of his argument.

In the end, this is tragically funny. Amazing that a reporter, at Time, gets away with this kind of thing.

Joe are you trying to out wrong your colleague Kristol? Well, I guess I can't blame you, being wrong is key to advancement in your 'field'.
Harman voted no, moron. Oh don't worry, he'll update it with his typical, 'even though I got all the facts wrong, the story is still essentially correct' attitude. How can someone who advises presidential campaigns and who's visited Chinese sweatshops be wrong? Joke, you spoke to Harman? And you still got it wrong? So, either you are lying, or she was toying with you. Joke, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to apply the Constanza Theory of the Opposite to you, you know, assume all your facts are wrong and that the opposite of everything you write and say, is the truth.

Re the Harman "quote." Vote:

Did Joe:

1) Make it up?

2) Skew something similar so it would fit his chosen spin line, even though not correct or in context? All the news that I think is fit to print, as I think it should be.

3) Misremember it because he was wearing his Republican spin blinders while "reporting?"

4) Just make an innocent mistake? Joe makes so many.

5) Harman actually said it in jest to cement joke line's reputation -- will Joe slavishly repeat a joke line as truth?

Is Jane Harman dumb as a box of rocks? Or is it just the whole Dem leadership? The defunding began, as I remember, when Bush vetoed the funding bill. Hmmm, now think hard children. If you push a funding bill that you know is going to get vetoed, maybe you should have a plan for what to do next. Unfortunately, the leadership seems to have decided to consult with Bremer on strategery. If, however, they had used the intellectual resources of a ten year old, the Jane Harmon's should have been saying, the president just exposed 150 kids to war without funding for ammunition, or armor, or potentially a paycheck. They should have been saying this day and night for the last two months. They should have made clear that the terms are: funding for the responsible and competent windup of the war vs. presidential petulance. They should have emphasized, every day of the surge, the increase in soldiers killed versus the inability of the president to fund the war he brought about. They should not have negotiated by going to the White house, they should have negotiated by putting intense pressure on the White House to fund our troops responsibly.
Instead, they: make up a timetable for themselves! they refuse to even point to the consequences of the surge - don't want to make it seem like there is bad news! they refuse to publicize the consequence of the veto of the funding! they act like they are surprised that the president is stubbornly insisting on no compromise! Have they been conscious for the last six years? Or do they just sit around watching Fox news and trembling that Bill O'reilly might call them a bad name - or even the fearsome Broder!
And I thought pro-consul Bremer was stupid...

Another nice phrase -- "a flouncy huff of crinoline and bitterness". This is becoming an interesting pasttime on Swampland -- real-time enough not only for "errors" to be called, but then for us to speculate on what (the inevitably lame) correction/retraction/flouncy huff will read like.

I think what happened is that Joe was talking to Congresswoman Harman but he didn't listen to her so much as offer her feedback and policy advice on how she should vote...you know, like he did with Sen. Kerry during the 2004 election! ;-)

kb.

Mr. Klein can not be held responsible if Congresswoman Harman declines to play her part in his chosen narrative. Neither can he be responsible for the rules of logic not conforming to a good political story. If we are going to be slaves to "facts" and "reason" any jerk in pajamas could write a story in his efficiency apartment.

"I support our troops and I refuse to be manipulated. My ‘no’ vote on the Iraq Supplemental is a vote to move past the fractured politics on Iraq and restore some sanity and bipartisanship as Congress confronts the serious threats of the 21st century."

Are you so stupid you can't even read a rollcall correctly? Do you simply make up your "quotes" from when you "spoke with Congresswoman Jane Harman"? Maybe you need glasses; maybe it was Denny Hastert with whom you spoke?

Jane Harman voted "NO".

Where is the correction from America's Concern Troll?

I would expect a smear of those pointing out the truth first.

Joe isn't wrong! It was just CHRONOLOGICALLY out of sync. Rep Harman DID vote yes on the Iraq Supplemental, you know, the one in September 2007, with the timelines for precipitous withdrawal?

"I'm for a [endlessly talking about a] careful departure from Iraq, and an immediate disengagement from [doing anything that might bring that about ]...."

Joe,

You still owe me $250 for that bag of killer British Columbia skunk weed. Looks like you're enjoying it, you think you can get me the bucks before you bong it all up? Until you do, I'm not fronting you any more bud, OK?

Don't worry, Joe. I'm sure Glenn Reynolds still likes you.

Um. I'm not a big Harman fan but she was intelligent enough to get this right. Honestly a "no" on this bill was about as hard as solving the "2 + 2 =" equation.

This isn't a difficult fact to research. I know I'm not as politically astute as Mr. Klein, but it would seem to me that the votes of Representatives are published and relatively easy to verify. Even little people like me have such abilities.

I find it troubling that someone like Klein who is supposed to be a liberal columnist for Time is:

a) unable to correctly report this simple fact.
b) expresses a view rejected not just by liberals but by Americans in general.
c) uses right-wing talking points to justify his view.

It would be nice if Time would actually have a liberal opinion columnist among their ranks. I have not problem with "Joe Klein, Time columnist." I have a huge problem with "Joe Klein, Time's liberal columnist."

Recruit someone from the liberal blogosphere - Duncan Black, a Daily Kos front-pager, the guy who write Hoffmania. An actual voice of a liberal would be a nice addition to Time.

HEY TIME MAGAZINE OWNERS/EDITORS

I know you put Hitler on your cover, and Stalin TWICE, but don't you think publishing blatant lies is atleast bad for business?

Joe Klein libeled representative Harman, he bases his argument on a vote that is plain public record, and the opposite of what he says here.

"I was wrong..."

All of your writings should apparently begin that way, Joe.

it should read, "I AM wrong....constantly"

"I support our troops and I refuse to be manipulated. My ‘no’ vote on the Iraq Supplemental is a vote to move past the fractured politics on Iraq and restore some sanity and bipartisanship as Congress confronts the serious threats of the 21st century."

Wow. I owe Jane Harman an apology (so does Joe, btw).

She absolutely nailed the cheap politics of this vote. And nailed Joe Klein's sorry, sagging asss to the wall, since he was wallowing in exactly the cheap politics of this vote, exactly as she described it, even as he misstated her vote and her position.

You shouldn't be embarrassed on this as journalist, Joe, you should be embarrassed on this as an American citizen. Kudos to Congresswoman Harman for calling this cheap demagoguery--whether it comes from Klein, McCain or Bush--for exactly what it is.

I ripped into Jane Harmon with a comment above, thinking that a direct quote from her about her yes vote on the supplemental wouldn't be made up out of thin air.
This is bizarre. I don't think Klein is this bad usually, that is as a reporter. Or I hope not. You don't want to put a complete fabrication on your blog for a national newsmagazine - I think that is called the suicide of your credibility, or making yourself a laughingstock. Best add an explanatory PS, Mr. Klein.

Hey, how about doing an honest analysis of the increasingly racist, pro-torture, pro-authoritarian leader Republican base? You know, in the name of "balance".

Hey, how about doing an honest analysis of the increasingly racist, pro-torture, pro-authoritarian leader Republican base? You know, in the name of "balance".

"How to make a mistake in 200 words or less, My Life Story"
--By Joe Klein

Harman voted no.

Joke Line can't even follow a damn link to find out how she voted.

Joke Line is a useless tool.

But we know that already.

There are third graders with more journalism skills than Joke Line.

Hey Joe, what happend with your girl Jane Harmon? She made you look... oh, whats the word?

Stupid?

As Shaggy so classily explicated in his classic song 'It Wasn't Me,'Joke line obviously is pulling a Chris Rock, and sticking with his lie in the face of plain fact. If only the American public were as irrational as a jilted lover...

I'm sure if Joe simply emails Greg Sargent and explains that it is all Alterman's fault, this Harmon thing will drain away as quickly as a vodka double.

Wow Joe that was bad. Is it that you are getting old or just intellectually lazy? And TIMES, Joe represents the left point of view for your magazine??????? Could we get a real liberal please...

This Joe Klein continues to embarrass himself with his GOP talking points. As you know by now, Joe...Rep Jane Harman voted AGAINST the bill, so WTF are you talking about?

Jesus Christ.

What?! No trackback for Booman, Joke?! lol

Two factual errors in one sentence!!

"Yesterday I spoke with Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Ca.) just back from Iraq, who voted for the bill--as did a majority of Democrats who are not running for President."

Everyone has noted that Harman voted no. And 140 House Dems, including Speaker Pelosi, joined her.
How many House Dems are running for President? Isn't that number zero?

Just a couple of points to clear up in my mind before I dog-pile on Klein with the rest...

Did Jane Harman tell Joe she "couldn't vote against this bill" BEFORE the actual vote took place? Is it possible that Harmon changed her mind at the last minute?

I know sometimes votes are changed at later dates. Was Harmon's vote initially "Yea" but later changed to "Nay" when she learned of the hurricane-force political winds blowing against her?

I find it hard to believe that Klein, KNOWING WE ARE HERE, would purposely make something up that could so easily be shown to be false. That would take some chutzpah, don't you think?

I don't think we have all the facts.

Oh and one more thing:

Why can't Jane Harman spell her last name "Harmon" like it ought to be spelled... :p

Joe's "errors" are occuring so frequently that I think that it would be prudent for Time management to require a urine analysis drug use exam for Joe. To be as wrong as he is and to be wrong so often, indicates very possible improper drug usage. For his own benefit, Joe may need an intervention!

liberalrob

Check out Harman's statement: (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca36_harman/May_24_2007.shtml)

Doesn't seem like one that was quibbling earlier in the day. Anyway, we should know soon. I called harman's office to ask if she made the quote.

No, no. Joe's right. Look what happened with our precipitous departure from Vietnam. Why, Ngo Dinh Hitler conquered all of Southeast Asia, enslaving billions as they strode their march to hegemony -- Well, no. They went back to being Vietnam after the Americans left. Which means, when the crazy Maoist creeps took power in Cambodia, the Vietnamese army liberated Cambodia from genocide. When China encroached on the Northern border, Vietnam pushed back. (We supported China's hegemony in both instances. It was Nixon's deal.) We tut-tutted, and backed the bigger regional bully for geopolitical reasons. Where are the dominos?

Now, there were a lot of boat people, and Vietnam is still communist. It's a one-party state. But as far as I know, there wasn't a massive bloodbath after the war. There had already been millions dead in a war, and we caused those deaths by staying after about 1963. Eisenhower made the mistake. Kennedy compounded it, and LBJ bet the farm. We lost, and the world didn't come to an end.

Joe, I've snarked at you here a couple of times, but I think you are a very good columnist overall and a stand-up guy.

But this Harman thing is not good. You need to get on this quick and explain the error. It is damaging you.

Joe, you are wrong again. You are a bad journalist. Stop repeating talking points people give you and do some research.

Joe can't explain himself right now. He's busy meeting with management to discuss the terms of his resignation right now.

Adding my voice to the crowd:

Joe, can you read a Roll Call? 'Cuz Harman voted *against* the Capitulation Bill yesterday, even though you quoted so extensively from her to bolster your own support of unconditional funding. Gee, Joke Line, is SHE one of your "trusted sources" that have informed you so well over the years?

Care to offer a correction (where you oh-so-desperately insist that you're still "substantively correct")?

Harman voted against the bill, a--hole.
http://tinyurl.com/2plkq4

Thom, I would expect a press release on such a politically-charged issue to be emphatic-sounding. More critical to us is the exact timing (and provenance) of her quote to Klein that she "couldn't vote against this bill."

I spoke with Joe Klein yesterday, and here's what he told me:

"Look, I would love to have written an accurate piece about Harman's vote on this. Journalists need to be honest and I hope I can be... in September," he told me. "But Cheney told me that my quota for the year is 150