I haven't read Klien's article and didn't read your responses but I am convinced of one thing after listening to the Democrats for the last several years. We cannot trust their judgement in matters of public safety.

Regards

Bob Cerra

You're doing great work Glenn. Keep the pressure up, as those who demand excellence, as well as deliver it, either get countered with it, or rise above and shine, and needless to say Klein is not capable of excellence, and so the message will shine and maybe this will have some impact (along with everything else).

We need to swarm all over that asshat Joe Klein. It will put other journalists on notice that they cannot get away with the same bullshit they got away with the last several election cycles. And it will help start the process of delegitimating the Vichy liberal pundits of whom Klein is only one of many. Let Joey go play with his neocon buddies if he likes them so much.

At least Dan Rather had his facts right. Klein is just an idiot.

Two thoughts comes to my mind:

1) I'd be curious to know what TIME's standards for failure are.

What must you write exactly to be fired? Where is the line? If Klein's latest statement doesn't cross it, then where is it?

2) TIME should replace Klein by a tropical fish aquarium. It would be prettier, more entertaining, save space and money, require less maintenance, and for all intents and purposes, perform his job just as well.

Think about it, TIME.

That was many years ago, granted, but Time's slide into lackluster mediocrity (as opposed to high-quality mediocrity) was hard to ignore. Plus, I got rid of cover stories like, "Is God Cool?" and "Dogs: What Do They Really Want From Us?"

Frankly, though, I am surprised that Time would allow somebody like Joe Klein to use falsehoods as the basis for his editorials. I can understand Time wanting to have a conservative on board to play to the masses, but you'd think they'd make sure his ramblings were true. Otherwise he'd be just another slimy Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck or Malkin. Whoops.

So Klein writes something lazy and ignorant, Greenwald correctly slams him for it, and then Klein spends several blogs weaseling. Pretty awesome in my book. I'm so glad Greenwald has the energy to do this.

My pledge to Glenn Greenwald: If you have enough energy to continue, then I have the energy to keep reading. You aren't being shrill, you're coming across as sanely angry. People should not be allowed to spew falsehoods without consequences. Period.

If it were my job to write a coherent opinion about FISA (which wouldn't be much fun), I would drink a hot cup of coffee, roll up my figurative sleeves, and attempt to read and understand the damned legislation. I'd re-read it, take notes, and ask impartial lawyers to explain difficult sections to me. I am sure it would be a lot of work, but that's what I would do.

What I wouldn't do is ask a partisan to tell me how I should interpret it, without questioning his motives, and then write my opinion as if I were certain it was correct. Which is what Joe Klein did. If I did that, I would feel that I deserved to lose my job.

I wonder how long Glenn "The War is Irretrievably Lost" Greenwald can maintain his curious silence on the raft of good developments coming out of Iraq over the past few weeks.

His silence on the topic is thunderous.

-- Publius Maximus

Sure, things are improving in Iraq -- they're improving so much that the U.S. Army is all but officially broken. As soon as the exhausted and demoralized troops return home*, then the attacks will pick right up to where they were prior to the escalation.

*If they ever return home -- to keep things from spiraling out of control, Shrub (Bush II) may orders tours extended through January '09 and then leave this mess in the lap of his successor.

Clueless Joe Klein... I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right.

Joe Klein's Col. Nathan Jessup to Glenn Greenwald's LTJG Daniel Kaffee...

Col. Jessup: Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

We know how that turned out. If someone has the time and the inclination (and talent) to do a parody rewrite:

"I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a laptop, and get a cushy job in the big time MSMmedia..."

4) the margianlized leftist ACLU pointy head civil libertarian.

I love this trope. I suppose it comes from the equally dishonest right wing propaganda surrounding the NAMBLA case. As a civil libertarian and first amendment specialist, Glenn, I would have hoped you might smack it down as a matter of principle. I fail to see what is "leftist" or "pointy headed" about the ACLU. Dedication to free speech and the separation of Church and State?

In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html

Ktwdawg,

I hope you have excess cooling in your rig, if not you had better be keeping an eye on your the core temp of the vid card(s).