Letters to the Editor
-
Peter Hoekstra (R., Mich.),
Funny how the article Mr Hoekstra has now posted makes it easier to deconstruct what happened. All the lies he told Joe are now reprinted in one convenient package. Do we think he's trying to draw fire or simply reinforce the lies among the faithful?
-
"Limbaugh is salivating" - projection much?
The column and associated comments have been quite compelling this week. Thanks to Glenn, as always, and thanks to the commentariat as well. While I harbor no illusions that Time will change its ways, airing such in the bright light of day offers hope that those not aware of its leanings might learn something new from this peek behind the shades.
One thing that strikes me in all this concern troll behavior on the part of "liberal" pundits is that I question how much a true liberal would really care by now what the Limbaughs and the Coulters have to say about Dems. Look, I know people listen to these loudmouths, but even the most un-self-conscious of dittoheads has got to be aware by now that part of the Limbaugh formula is to brand Democrats as an evil equal to or greater than that of the Islamofascist hordes, no? Those scripts nurture the immovable base, but I don't think they're winning new converts at a high rate if one can believe polls. It seems to me that it just plain doesn't cost Democrats much to be targets of the likes of a Limbaugh. Republicans, sure; they'd run the risk of losing that 24% base. But that base isn't going to vote for a Democrat unless Satan starts wearing a down parka.
Anyway, that's really a side note here to pick on what I'm sure Klein saw as a creative rhetorical device in his column. The meat is certainly the failure of Time's staff, from Klein on up through the editorial chain, to fact check the accuracy of the information it publishes. But it's an interesting side note to me all the same because tossing a bone to Limbaugh in a "liberal" column strikes me as an appeal to those 24%'ers and shows where Klein and/or Time think the readership lives.
-
@ondelette
Actually, in my post addressed at Jayackroyd, I wasn't disagreeing with your contention that some of Klein's article was a plant or an ongoing game of 'trash the democrats' put to him by "sources". I was just saying that there is room for more than one conclusion as to why Klein posted such incorrect hogwash. One of the reasons being that Klein is a combination of lazy, ignorant and lacks the basic degree of intelligence that it would take for a millionaire pundit writing in a national weekly not to make a fool of himself by getting the 'oath of office' of the president of the United States wrong. Even if some "source" fed him that information, he comes off as either stupid or ignorant or both for having put it to print.
-
I only wish I subscribed to TIME
so I could cancel my subscription. Joe Klein has certainly "evolved" since his 1980 biography of Woody Guthrie. No need to ask Joe "Which side are you on?"; the answer is clear and not so pretty.
-
ondelette, Kitt
Could be I am wrong, but the Klein article looks so incompetent to me that I think he found the stuff himself in a web search. If he had assistance from a professional it should be better.
-
@ DIY 4:49 yesterday
"Go on with your bad self...!"
I'm still laughing at that 12 hours after reading it. 8')
-
Glenn
Thanks for mentioning the oath of office thing, but a little attribution isn't uncalled for.
-
@ondelette, Ché Pasa, Kitt, Jayackroyd and others
“It smells strongly of a deliberate attempt by intelligence/administration lawyers to get the language of the "tied our hands on listening to al Qaeda" applied to the minimization and eventually to the continuation procedures -- even more so when Hoekstra cites Figueroa, and starts comparing data mining to the Normandy invasion. Why call out all the patriotism guns over an issue that wasn't discussed in the press leading up to the FISA debate?”
ondelette
“Consequently, while there may be a show of "standing up" -- ie: leaving immunity out of the bills that will ultimate pass both houses -- the crucial Palace demands (especially exemption from the rule of law) will wind up back in the bill that comes out of conference. The one that will go to the White House and be signed. Just a bump in the road.
And as ondelette points out, the MCA is where the real action is.”
Ché Pasa
First my thanks to all on behalf of most of us who struggle to understand all of this. I have some sympathy for very busy legislators who also strive to understand and decide what to do when the Palace can hind behind so much technicality and confusion.
If I were Chris Dodd, what would you advise me to do to prevent the bill that comes out of conference from retaining the exemption from the rule of law?
-
Cutting out the Cancer
This is another person who, like Klein, couldn't be bothered to do some work when their (high-paying) job called for it. Perhaps these people should find another vocation.
-- notedmeese
But even if they get rid of Elizabeth and everyone like her, do you really think MSM would hire replacements who are real, old school journalists and editors? You know all the baggage these types bring with them -- codes of ethics, personal integrity, pride in professionalism, a relentless drive to understand and publicize objective truth . . .
Indeed. But, with Glenn's hard work and megaphone, perhaps we can call out the frauds who need to be called out. The current Klein Mission is a great start.
-
Peter Hoekstra joined the debate on Klein's side
The senior Republican of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is - perhaps unsurprisingly - writing in the National Review Online to lie about FISA and back up Joe Klein.
He claims "It’s hard to imagine General Eisenhower going to court to ask for permission to conduct the D-Day invasion on the off-chance Americans might be on the beaches of Normandy. Yet this is exactly what Democrats want to force Admiral McConnell to do to conduct terrorist surveillance."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGVlNzk2YmQ4NGZjNjFhZjU4NmE0OGYyOTBhYjNiNDA=
Ho hum. The Republicans certainly don't want anyone to know what's actually in this bill, do they?