His silence on the topic is thunderous.

Yes, and so is his silence on how fucking dumb you are. How long can Glenn Greenwald hold off calling you an idiot?

Iraq is now as safe as in 2004! Victory! And permanent bases for all! Hooray imperialism.

Klein's blogging is painful anyway, from his first post prior to this debacle:

Fred Kaplan of Slate is excellent, as always,

I stopped reading right there. If anyone else with nothing better to do wants to read a post by a purported liberal who thinks any Kaplan is "excellent" I have a few old phone books I can loan you instead. You'd still understand foreign policy better than Klein or Kaplan.

Klein is like Joe Lieberman in pundit form.

It's down the list below getting Time to properly correct the story and promise more rigorous fact checking, but we must continue to insist that journalists reveal their sources when those sources have clearly lied to them!

Why the hell don't they get this? There must be some kind of disincentive towards feeding journalists blatantly false information. Tell us who on the Intel cmte told Klein this gibberish.

They'd probably hire Monica Goodling or Michelle Malkin in his place.

However, we would be better off without being stabbed in the back continuously by yet another token liberal.

And I'm fine with consigning Time to the same bin as the Washington Times if that's how they want it. A shame that such a storied publication goes down the tubes, but at least we would know to read them as a partisan rag rather than a journalistic publication.

It wouldn't suprise me greatly if now Time issued a proper correction, because a major daily newspaper has made it ok.

If they did it before, they'd be bowing to the hoipoi bloggers, but now that ChiTri says the article is wrong, they'll sit up and notice.

Don't forget, they're not just digging in their heels because they're wrong and don't like it being pointed out, it's also because they so detest us great unwashed bloggers having the temerity to question them.

Come on, this article is about 3 steps short of being in The Onion. I wasn't aware that anyone took the right-wing Jewish neocon talking heads seriously.

In the next paragraph you accuse Salon readers of being insular. And yet you admit you're not aware that the neo-conservative Jewish view is portrayed most often in the media rather than the mainstream Jewish view. Interesting.

But are the readers of Salon that insular? They don't have any Jewish friends? They don't have a relative, ancestor or in-law or two or three or more who practices Judaism instead of Christianity? They can't see beyond the TV screen to the real world?

Yes, how dare Glenn bring us scientific polling instead of trusting that we all have anecdotal life experience with moderate Jews; and further that we all knew those individuals to be more representative of the whole than what we might see portrayed elsewhere. And shame on Glenn's readers for not having this ability to "see beyond the TV screen." This is heady stuff, Morpheus. Glad you took the red-pill and saw through the illusion. Others amoung us have to rely on such antiquated notions as "empirical evidence."

I really hate to respond to such garbage, but if no one does, we'll be treated to some unctuous right winger claiming we all must agree with your drivel because no one disagreed with it.

So yeah, shove it. It's not unlikely you don't believe what you're writing and are just doing it to make Glenn look bad so right wing bloggers can link to your posts as representative of Glenn's readers or something.

Either you believe it and you are the true kind of anti-semite, or you're just an agent provocateur. Either way, it's reprehensible and vile.

This comes up every discussion of Lieberman. He was necessary in January when the Senate was approving what's called the "Organizing Resolution" which specifies the Majority Leader, and the committee chairmen and allocations by party.

After that was passed, Joe can switch parties all he wants, and Harry Reid (or a Democrat at least) will be Majority leader to the end of the 110th senate.

The confusion stems from 2000, when Jeffords changed parties and the majority changed over to Daschle. This was because the Organizing resolution for the 107th senate was formulated while Gore was still VP and thus the Democrats were nominally in charge of the Senate, but knowing that Cheney would soon take office, it had provisions for changing the Majority leader to the other party if the balance shifted.

The organizing resolution for the 110th senate has no such provision. To change it, a new organizing resolution would have to be passed. If the Republicans gained the numerical majority through Lieberman switching sides, they would still need to overcome a potential (and likely) filibuster by Democrats to get such a thing passed.

There was a senate decades ago where the numerical majority changed by several votes and the "Majority Leader" had a minority caucus but retained his position for the session.