That's what TIME's Karen Tumulty said about it (link at my handle).

Do your other panelists agree? What did they learn from that experience, about proper attitude and practices for reporting? How has it been implemented, and what specific results have we seen from it?

Hope to get to see your panel discussion, sounds like it should be terrific.

Check out the pull-no-punches article in today's paper by the Times' Public Editor. He really lets the Times have it.

For its misspellings.

No, really, that's what today's article is about.

This is a terrific post. Thanks for your work, Glenn. In a sane world, this scandal would result in serious consequences for the Times, Brookings, and for the fraudsters themselves. I'll start holding my breath right now.

... is expert witnesses in trials. The one side questions its expert witness, and gets all the great stuff out there on the record about the Nobel Prizes and whatnot that their expert has won. Then the other side gets out there and asks, "how much are they paying you?" It's important information that the finder of fact needs to know. And it's strange that that disclaimer doesn't get out there till after the one side spends all that time building its expert up.

Also, I'm not sure-- I could be wrong-- that it's fair to refer to tossing Malawi overboard as a "coup." In a parliamentary system, isn't that just something that happens sometimes? You can argue that it's untoward or inappropriate, but I don't know that it's fair to compare it to a coup.

... think that something big is in the offing:

http://americanfootprints.com/drupal/node/3651

He says his contacts have told him of his book [about Iran]: "You better hurry up because the thesis is going to change. I told them submission is in January but they said, 'You're probably going to be too late'."

If Congressmen are too scared to risk (gasp!) losing a seat in Congress to rally opposition to this folly... well, then this country is ceasing to be the country whose history, culture, and example to the world I've always loved and thought I knew.

Thanks for responding to my last post around here, Glenn, about whether ousting Maliki would be a "coup." I agree that it is completely inappropriate for an occupying force to press for a PM's ouster, but I'm still not sure it counts as a coup if it is done by legal means.

We have facts and public opinion on our side.

That oughtta amount to absolutely friggin' nothing in Congress, if the pattern of the past 7 years holds.

And why wouldn't it?

Meanwhile, John "Don't Call Me 'Bohner'" Boehner explained, "We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids."

As Greg Sargent put it, this is characteristic of many occupation-supporting politicians and commentators, who: “(a) Describe the very real sacrifice being made by others as not being such a big deal …while simultaneously… (b) Describing the sacrifice others are making as their own.”

True grit. Or chutzpah, at least.

There was never any reason to believe that the Bush administration's dedication to creating a hackocracy did not extend to the military, every bit as much as it did to FEMA, GSA, DOJ, NASA, EPA, etc.

That doesn't make it any less depressing and offensive.

For decades, the military and the clergy have been among the most respected institutions in this country. The Bush administration has worked to corrupt and discredit them both. Short-term partisan gain is the only benefit they can imagine.

Well, that and accolades from imaginary, yet-unborn historians.

I wonder if Time really cares about all this stuff at all.

It depends on how they view their image, their product, and their interests.

It just might be that they don't care at all if the 5 percent of Americans who care enough about politics to follow this story all realize that Time is more invested in grand narratives than factual accuracy.

There are millions of Americans who don't know, and will be pleased to read Klein, and Time, regardless.

That doesn't mean we should all just give up, but I do wonder how much Time cares about accuracy. It's not clear that there's any particular reason to think that they do.

Thanks for your hard work on this, Glenn.

The attack on law is merely part of the conservative War on Fact.

"The liberal media" and "far-left academe" are other charges deployed whenever facts get inconvenient.

Remember Stanley Kurtz's admission around 2005 that maybe things in Iraq weren't going so well after all, despite Fox, NRO, et al insisting otherwise? It was something like, "well, yeah, maybe the news reports have been right, but if they didn't always hate America so much, we maybe would have believed them sooner."

Just about every expert on the Middle East warned about the difficulty of invading and occupying Iraq. Pointy-headed liberal academics, all.

Plus, the EPA and NASA have been working to hide or distort scientific conclusions that they don't like.

It is, for lack of a better term, Conservative Stalinism: every fact, argument, and source is evaluated for political correctness, not accuracy.

In fairness, King must have been furious-- just furious-- at his editor all along for hanging him out to dry like that. No wonder he lashed out. It's been a rough few days for him.