Sign up on their blog column and post a new entry like:

Joe Klein, resign.

FIRE JOE KLEIN.

etc. etc.

Take three minutes. I'm going to do this each day that Mr. Greenwald writes about it...

... and in the large can end in only one of two ways: with a gradual increase in the intellectual quality of the media, or with the media actively working to squash the more informed voice of "Everybody Else". Presumably, the media will work for the latter end, and presumably it'll start with the removal of comments from Time's site.

The coup de gras if you will. Klein's incompetence will suffice as the final reason to demand my money back and to cancel my subscription to Time.

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.

Shooter has long reminded me of a character I read of many years ago and your latest post finally lifted the veil and allowed me to pinpoint who that character is..... Shooter reminds me of none other than.....

Ignatius J Reilly.

"There certainly was plenty of evidence around the FBI files and absolutely no repercussions for the Clintons."

Perhaps you missed the fact that the Special Prosecutor assigned to investigate your FBI files allegation, Robert W. Ray, reported that there was no evidence whatsoever of involvement in, or knowledge of any illegalities, by anyone in authority in the Clinton Administration, including but not limited to both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

"In the F.B.I. files matter, the independent counsel determined there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved in seeking confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation background reports of former White House staff from the administrations of President Bush and President Reagan."

Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806EED8173AF934A25750C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Nice try.

No Cigar.

Here's a simple, honest question:

Why are you defending Joe Klein? Why aren't you attacking him along with the rest of us?

He obviously got it wrong; he obviously is backpedaling and apologizing. It's not a partisan question; it's a journalism question. It just can't be the case that every single defensible grievance Greenwald articulates is so mired in self-contradiction and liberal hypocrisy that you can't sign your name to it without arguing the other direction.

Klein got it wrong! Just admit it.

We admit it when our side gets things wrong. We attack Democrats; we attack liberals; we attack each other. We're fundamentally conscientious, not fundamentally contentious. Can't you see the difference? Wouldn't you rather be a thinker than a cheerleader?

Perhaps you should consider that your post just kicks off a thought I want to express, and that you provide the service of a springboard. Get over yourself.

I did consider that. I just rejected it; you sounded so sincere. No need to be rude.

Sadly my memory is not photographic. The point remains that the sticking point was labeling Moussaoui as part of a recognized organization. It's "technicality" exactly like the possibility of someone surveilled speaking to someone in the US. It looks like no warrant, no surveillance. Just like US citizens. Just as Klein wrote.

Okay that your memory isn't photographic. Such memories are difficult to have to live with, they don't forget pain very well.

The whole thing about the FISA law, or some nitpicky lawyers being the reason that more wasn't done about Moussaoui is an argument that is, to quote Kurt Vonnegut, "unstuck in time". They really thought they didn't have enough on him at the Washington level, the Minneapolis level wanted more info because they thought somebody might. The fact that he was somebody, and might have been useful to investigate didn't become apparent until two reports, one on the evening of Sept. 11, the other on Sept. 13. It wasn't a flaw with the law, its interpretation, or any lawyers or courts, he wasn't enough of a suspect yet. The whole "if only we'd investigated" was really "if only we'd known".

This stuff comes up with surveillance all the time, and has recently come up with respect to torture (ticking time bomb scenarios). When you're actually looking at data, actually going over how scenarios unfold, actually talking to people who do data mining surveillance for terrorism, what it looks like when you look backward in time is that it should have all been so obvious, if only this or that. When you look at the same system looking forward in time, nothing presents itself, there might be a feeling, or some vague warnings going off, but not a direct line that could have been changed with one decision. But always if the consequences are dire enough, it looks as though the problem is with intelligence, and you need more next time. Ricks describes this in Fiasco, so does Suskind in One Percent Doctrine, so will any textbook on complex systems.

I'm more inclined to see fault with Rice for demoting the counterterrorist czar and believing that no non-state actor could be a legitimate threat to the U.S. And I found her insistence that the August 6 PDB didn't have to do with impending attacks in the U.S. ludicrous. And I do know they got warnings from several foreign governments, and that there were untranslated messages that had intelligence, and that for 14 years they had overlooked the right people in Afghanistan.

But that doesn't mean that if all the things I like to wonder about had been done right, it might not have slipped through just as unnoticed.

With the FISA bill, the Congress should decide what the limits should be, and hand it to the intelligence people instead of negotiating with them. Once the law has been laid down, the intelligence people will work with what they have. Establish your freedoms first, then ask the problem solvers to work with what is left over. Anything else is asking spooks to tell right from wrong -- not really what they do for a living.

I don't actually think your observation (about the valuable "service" Klein has performed in exposing the "ambiguity" of the legal language) was a good one.

Perhaps you should consider that your post just kicks off a thought I want to express, and that you provide the service of a springboard. Get over yourself.