Klein is just unbelievable. Unbelievable. After the things he's done in the past few months, he has the sterno-blinded chutzpah to write "show me where I have erred"? Thanks for showing him a bit, GG, and I can't wait for the "I had neither the time nor the expertise to have determined whether that little insignificant piece was accurate."

That quoted piece, though, viewed through the lens of today's reality and having been educated by real investigations done since then by real interested persons instead of the propaganda of the time as reflected in the quoted piece itself, is fascinating. Did Klein's motivation consist of anything more substantive than that of a kid trying to call attention to himself in the hope of being invited to sit at the "adults' table" for Thanksgiving dinner? Is a banal desire to obtain approval from those in control really the explanation for this kind of claptrap journalism? I'd be interested in knowing who gave Klein an "audience" in the following week as a reward for writing this piece.

TIME's editors should be required to go back and read everything this guy has written in the past five years. Maybe then they would spare us further exposure.

The ACLU are commie pinko America-hating terrorist lovers. They will say anything just to be mean to America.

Joe Klein, et al, loves America. They only say good things about America and Americans.

Anyone who doesn't understand this is obviously a commie pinko America-hating terrorist lover, too.

Why can't you get this basic fact?

Before you get up on your high horse, be sure you are not riding an ass.

Or morphing into one.

As for his description of Europe, project much Joe?

Oh, and I do care what the rest of the world thinks about the fact that our government tortures detainees.

When I read Joe Klein's words, I think about how little weight one can put on parading officials through prisons, concentration camps and occupied countries.

And I found it particularly amusing that Mr. Klein would reference the Red Cross when, upon Googling "Red Cross and Guantanamo inspections," the first article that pops up is from the New York Times dated 11/30/04, headlined, "Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantanamo." Hmm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30gitmo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

He reported on it while mentioning he didn't understand it. This is how journalism actually works, it's more important to make yourself look knowledgeable than to actually know what you are talking about. Is he joking about being mis lead by his sources?

His attempt at being cute with his tutu comment becomes frightening when one considers interrogators were actually considering doing it. Perhaps the idea that terrorists would consider removing Klein's thumbs humorous would put his attempt at being cute about the pink tutus in better perspective.

Why was Klien so dismissive about such a serious issue and so condescending toward those with personal experience that he would write a piece without evidence other than his opinion as if his beliefs were facts? That should not be how journalism actually works.

at being used as a political dupe than snarking on the people that are pointing it out to him.

This is off topic but I thought its important to keep the Military Analyst story going.

I found in one of the Military Analyst documents that the name of someone briefing the Military Analysts was redacted. But in the Q&A section of the briefing several people referred to the redacted briefer as "Dave". This "Dave" then references that he went to the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton which is where David Petraeus went to school. This unnamed briefer was also a general in Iraq so its a very short list of people that fit this description. How many people named Dave were generals in Iraq and went to the the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. I'm sure its a very short list if its not narrowed down to one.

Check out this document.

06-F-01532 doc 14

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/13%20Apr%2007/06-F-01532%20doc%2014.pdf

Example text from the document:

"Mr.Ruff: So with that (redacted name) will open up with a couple of minutes just to set the stage....So general, if you'd like to start off."

"Q: Hey, Dave. This is Jeff McCausland. First of all, welcome home."

"(redacted name) Hey Barry, How are you? ....I do want to note that you were at the woodrow wilson school.

Q: And I didn't even graduate from it.

(redacted name) And you didn't. But you did teach there. And you did mentor a few of us.

Former frequent GG commenter ondelette has his take on that question in his latest article on the blog Humanity Against Crimes, see sig. Here are the three lead paras:

Some things are baffling: How Americans could learn of torture and not react to the news. How American soldiers and CIA could practice torture and not disobey or refuse. How could the news media decide almost en masse to play down coverage of such a thing?

I know, I know, the banality of evil and all that. I'm not belittling it, I certainly do believe in it, but it really doesn't account for it all in detail, just says it can happen. It isn't like no one has fought very hard against the practice. There are awareness and advocacy organizations. There have been media exposés. There are phalanxes of lawyers who have been trying to represent prisoners in various courts for years now. There is medical documentation. There are confidential appraisements by the ICRC, there are public appraisements by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. House Resolution 626 and Senate Resolution 303 specifically mention torture and cruel treatment. Letters from members of the House of Representatives have called for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate possible war crimes connected to torture at Guantanamo, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.

Then why, given that torture is shocking to human beings, is it so hard to arouse the public?

I think that's a reflection that the mainstream media isn't delivering? Since Joe Klein and Thomas Friedman say what their bosses and their boss's friends like to hear, and since they don't really cost much, that's what gets passed off as "actual journalism". Well, that and the sordid self-destruction of Hollywood starlets. Their both worth about the same.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/248