Bill Kristol Meet Glenn Greenwald

"they'll now be tarred with the awful ad".

And you'll help it, rather than making the Logic 101 point that a stupid ad in a newspaper is significantly less important than a catastrophic war without end.

"To read him, about me, you'd think that I was some kind of frothing nut exclusively and constantly attacking liberals."

That sums you up in a nutshell, Klein. Thanks for explaining your MO so clearly.

Joe,
Are you trying to be sarcastic? Why would any good American care what's written in the pages of the Weekly Standard? Bill Kristol is an accomplice to War Crimes(if you have not noticed). Your little rant just proves Glenn's point.

Why would I bother reading next week's Weekly Standard? It's a conspiracy theory rag. I'd just as soon listen to Art Bell's radio show if I want to listen to the crazies like Kristol and Hayes bark at the moon. Why it's still taken seriously by the Beltway denizens is beyond me. And if you look at their circulation numbers, it's a mag that is obviously not read beyond the Beltway.

Oh Joe, and you're just too happy to tar those 08 Dems, aren't you?

Where were you when the Swift Boat folks went after another honorable fighter, Senator Kerry?

You confuse pragmatism with inconsistency.

You're not a pragmatist, sir. Glenn is right on target. Quit whining and maybe prove him wrong rather than posting mini-rants (guised with a pro-troops lede).

To clarify-- the point over the right wing reaching for their handkerchiefs and their megaphones over the stupid MoveOn ad is because they do not want to talk about reality on the ground in Iraq.

See the Newsweek story about the Pentagon's report that will rival the Petraeus report, and the GAO's assessment of the numbers, to see why.

Spending time on the MoveOn ad is like spending time criticizing Bill Bellichik for the Pats' spying on the Jets last weekend. Yes, it deserves criticism, but it has nothing to do with the actual issue at hand, which is the wisdom and effectiveness of a war in which Americans are being killed. No one died in the writing, printing, or distribution of that stupid ad.

Joe, the right-wing will smear Democrats anyway, that is what they do. You give them support by even mentioning the ad. Next time fight the urge to condemn a liberal organization when they say something you think will help the Republicans. Trust me. The Republicans will find out about it, or create it. We are tired of your constant "sister souljah" moments. You gain credibility with no one when you do it.

Joe - You wrote: "...--they'll now be tarred with the awful ad. If you don't believe me, read next week's Weekly Standard."

This is part of our point. They are going to tar you people anyway - as you just finished pointing out in the first part of your column! You just said that the soldiers' tone was respectful and yet that magazine made specious claims about them in an attempt to distract from their argument. If MoveOn had been civil they still would have found something about which to be offended. So if the outrage machine is going to kick in anyway then why do you have to add to it?

Aside from that point, there is still the discussion to be had over General Petraeus' overt politicism of his mission in Iraq. If he is going to behave in a political manner then he opens himself up to criticism. Let us have that discussion here. You need to be a part of it.

Who cares what William The Bloody has to say? If I wanted to read the babblings of someone who's been completely wrong, I'd go to QH's website. Atleast it has some T&A.

Try actually listening to Glenn rather than reflexively turtling every time he mentions your name. If you write that Petraeus is an honorable man without making any reference to his long history of overly-optimistic statements about the war, you're not paying attention.

And speaking of myopia, Greenwald wouldn't criticize you if your vision wasn't so irretrievably tunnel.

**In any case, I remain convinced that the MoveOn "Betrayus" ad was not only deeply stupid and an unconscionable slur against an honorable man, **

Twenty-eight hours ago, I agreed with half of this. It was tactically stupid. Then Petraeus admitted what everybody with half a brain knows: That the war in Iraq has done nothing to make America safer. Then he realized he had commited one of the dreaded Kinsleyan gaffes, and couldn't backpedal (i.e. lie) fast enough to make his testimony conform to White House dogma.
I still think it wasn't a smart move tactically, as it gives you and all the other Broderites an excuse to clutch your pearls and cluck about the evil DFHs and ignore Petraeus' deeply dishonest testimony. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: Maybe you're saving for your print column the kind of scrutiny for Petraeus you gave Crocker (and Lieberman) in the very good post below.

One more note on the "honorable" St Petraeus: Did it not strike you as odd that he so insistently and without qualification refered to insurgents as "al Qaida" throughout his testimony? On September 11? Did you notice that a good third of the country still thinks that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11? Did you notice Ari Fleischer is exploiting grieving widows and gold star parents and wounded soldiers with this same lie? Has it escaped your attention that Bush has recently and very aggressively renewed this spin about "the same people that attacked us on 9/11...."? Did you see John Boehner say today that the blood and treasure we've expended in Iraq will be a "small sacrifice" if it means beating al Qaida? Do you remember that al Qaida is not in Iraq?
Helluva coincidence, don't you think?

Oh, and Christ on the cross, man. Conflating Greenwald to Kristol? Greenwald is not a propagandist. He conscientiously documents all of his criticisms.

Of course Dems will be tarred by the ad. You'll make sure of that.

The MoveOn.Org ad was 'not in the best interests' of the cause. Yes, it was used to derail the hearings yesterday. Did the GOP bill condemning it get to the floor yet?

I think that MoveOn.Org is picketing the DEMs as well. So, maybe, we can get back to issues.

Forget the phoneyFred.com and 'Call Me' and all the sleaze that surrounds Romney and FreedomWatches.org. and Gibson calling Olbermann OBL and the spew of trash that emanates constantly from the 'Moralists'.

Good Golly, somebody tell Kristol and the Below the Beltway Guys to get a new thought and throw out their BC [before components] stereos. You'd think that such patriots would be demanding the draft and money to get the military restarted.

I agree with the statement that no one really cares any longer what the Weekly Standard writes. They have long abandoned any resemblance to objectivity. The things they write garner about as much attention as the latest news release from the RNC. In fact, one can't tell the two apart.

Shorter Joke Line:

I don't care about what people write in The Weekly Standard because I care about what people write in the Weekly Standard.

Jim: :)

Petraeus: Uniforms and Medals and reports that don't pass muster under scrutiny but won't be reviewed if they tell the right story. [you recall Enron-Arthur Andersen]

Joe,Do you really believe that voters in 2008 trying to finally end this war will give a damn about a MOVEON AD, nasty or not.If you do, then its not Glenn who needs lessons in journalism.

Of course Bush wanted a distraction for the hearings. In this case, it was a MoveOn ad. If they didn't have the ad, it would be something else. They would have found something, and they knew they could count on Klein to take the bait and go of on their diversion. When Michael J. Fox asks for Parkinsons research, the issue becomes a manufactured controversy over Fox's obvious symptoms. The fact that Edwards gets cancer becomes a discussion by your collegues over whether she's dying appropriately.

Can Fox help the fact he has Parkinson's? Can Edwards help having cancer? It doesn't matter, Couric and Carney took the bait, so we discussed that instead of funding for research. The fact that Kerry got shot in Vietnam just means we need to analyze if he faked his medals and executed unarmed 13 year olds. Of course, Kerry brought it on himself! It's his fault people lie about him!

We would not be in this war if you spent as much time beating back efforts to prolong the war that you do those who try to end it.

As for hurting Dems, give me a break. The only people who don't know this Petreus nonsense is a show and a ruse are the people in DC claiming victory is on the horizon.

When the media echoes what Bush tells them, and Dems climb on board, the public knows to believe the opposite. That's not partisanship. That's stimulus/response. They've been conned by you, wittingly or unwittingly, too many times to fall for it.

(Still waiting on the column in which Klein pontificates about whether Republican candidates will be tarred by attacking the many veterans' patriotism for criticizing the war).

It's unbelievable, we are supposed to take a propaganda arm, and apologist for the Bush regime, seriously, and worry what they might say? All of these people who tied their reputations to the disaster in Iraq forfeited their reputations long ago. No one, outside of the 20 or 30% of the hardcore losers who still believe them, will pay attention, and they would never vote Democratic anyway.

GG didn't resort to name-calling, but gave specific examples which you refuse to address.

Ooooooooh! The Weekly Standard! With its readership of what, 20,000 people? The reason this will be talked about is because weak, cowardly, paycheck collecting beltway types (like yourself), want to talk about it, want to churn up nonsense to babble about when there are actually more important things to talk about. The Weekly Standard can't tar s h i t, without your help -- help you, and the rest of your gang are always all too glad to give it, wrapped up in your deep concern about the effect it will have on the poor Democrats.

I personally did not care for the Moveon.org ad, but I don't see why Democrats should be "tarred with it." Especially since the Republican Party has yet to be tarred by the likes of Ann Coulter -- she who likes to advocate the poisoning of elderly Supreme Court judges, she who likes to impugn the characters of 9/11 widows who don't support Bush -- or one of the myriad fruitcakes who advocate bombing Iran or Christianizing the Middle East or build Creation Museums that show men riding dinosaurs.

Why is it only the Democrats who are supposed to spend their lives apologizing for the acts of other groups? Why aren't the Republicans supposed to worry about the extreme elements of their party say and do? And why aren't you cautioning them about it?

"To read him, about me, you'd think that I was some kind of frothing nut exclusively and constantly attacking liberals. Swampland readers, like Bill Kristol, know that this is not the case, that Greenwald is engaging in crude Big Lie propaganda."

Ummm, No. Greenwald is not engaging in Big Lie propaganda. To remind you, this is Big Lie propaganda, Weekly Standard style:

http://www.slate.com/id/2091381/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

The reason none of the many examples Glenn gave of accusations of "treason" against veterans didn't hurt Republicans the way the MoveOn ad will hurt Democrats is that in the cases Glenn cites, Klein didn't use his media real estate to make an issue out of it.

Next week's print column, however, shall be solely devoted to the horror of criticizing a man in uniform for flacking for a policy that will cost many more lives at the expense of our national security -- even as Klein concedes the ads accuracy.

Next weeks column will not be about how Croker testifies for a policy he tells Klein in private will cost American lives, yet not meet any of our goals. Lying to keep Americans dying to serve a trust-fund-baby's vanity is not something that bothers him. The most important thing to come out of the petreus testimony, in Klein's mind, is the audacity not to pretend the General honestly believes we're winning.

Ok, in case the Time censors get carried away we'll try it this way:

Hmmm...what will Joe and the other establihment hand-wringers do about Admiral Fallon's observation that Petraeus is “an @$$-kissing little c**ckens**t”.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235

How do you hit back there without attacking another man in a uniform?

Does it come down to which uniform you like better, or will you actually have to address the quality of Petraeus' work?

I read GG and bunch of other folks. I think that the whole bunch that are discussing the MoveOn.Ad are wasting bandwidth and my time with this whole dust up. Sounds like a playground fight or a significant other fight over who squeezes the tooth paste where. Too many real issues to let the 'distractionists' win by playing their game.

The print column after next week's MoveOn tirade will decry how the MoveOn ad is dominating the discussion. Obviously, it will be the Democrats fault for being affiliated with the group. Unlike the SBV, who had no connection to the Republican Party whatsoever, Klein and Co. kept telling us, until this week.

I force Klein to write about MoveOn with my psychic powers. If not for that, he'd write about something important, really he would.

The bottom line for Liberals is this, we are expected to be perfect. We cannot make a single mistake. If we make a single mistake the Party will have no other choice but to fold up like a wet hanky.

Republicans, and Mad Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, can call us traitors all day long, and no one says boo. Those are the rules. We just need to accept them.

Joe Biden is the prototype in my mind, of the problem we are in. In every interview he does he mentions 3 things. He establishes that he is totally in favor of ending the war, he makes it clear he will never cut funding for troops in the field, doesn't think Democrats have the votes to stop the war. When you combine those three things with the fact that Bush still refuses to compromise, and the Republican Party continues to stone wall the nation's business, on Bush's behalf, you understand why it is called a quagmire.

Compromise is not an option with Bush. There aren't enough votes, and given that the Democrats will always fund the troops, the war can never end.

Cutting off funds is the only option that Bush has left the Democrats, and they refuse to use it, even though 70% of the nation wants them too.

Hermit :) [I think I channeled Adm. Fallon last week and got ignored] Did you notice how all the CentCom related questions got ducked.

Still think that Boxer nailed it in Committee yesterday [ignore the blogdolt's spin, he doesn't even get that the response to Boxer's questions have been requested in writing, but then Constitution and Procedure questions are hard for these type of rightie-tighties] which you can review on this video link:

http://www.radioblogger.com/blog

Patriots fight for policy they know needlessly kills Americans. Extremists run ads that are true, but make the opposition look bad, which is rude.

Let's see: You are all in a huff over a bad ad in a newpaper. You repeat how this slimes the good general. Let's say you are right. The general is alive and treated like Moses delivering the tablets from Mt. Ararat.

Two of the enlisted men who wrote a OP-ED for the NYT arguing against the Bush 'plan' for this stupid war are DEAD. That means DEAD, never to see their families again. Gone, gone. These men who wrote the truth were slimed by the right. Put your outrage where it should be. 2 dead soldiers against a newpaper ad. Puleeeeze!!

MoveOn will come and go. Those soldiers are gone forever. Please, get your priorities straight.

And I'm still mad about Brooks comparing me to Osama Bin Ladin. Write a scathing critique of that!

WE MUST IMPEACH BROOKS, KRISTOL AND BUSH NOW
WE MUST IMPEACH BROOKS, KRISTOL AND BUSH NOW!!

WE MUST IMPEACH BROOKS, KRISTOL AND BUSH NOW!
WE MUST IMPEACH BROOKS, KRISTOL AND BUSH NOW!

WE MUST IMPEACH BROOKS, KRISTOL AND BUSH NOW
WE MUST IMPEACH BROOKS, KRISTOL AND BUSH NOW!!

WE MUST IMPEACH BROOKS, KRISTOL AND BUSH NOW!
WE MUST IMPEACH BROOKS, KRISTOL AND BUSH NOW!

WE MUST IMPEACH BROOKS, KRISTOL AND BUSH NOW
WE MUST IMPEACH BROOKS, KRISTOL AND BUSH NOW!!

WE MUST IMPEACH BROOKS, KRISTOL AND BUSH NOW!
WE MUST IMPEACH BROOKS, KRISTOL AND BUSH NOW!

Petraeus is, and continually has been, a shill for Bush's "stay the course" policy.

And just because you self-styled "journalists" refuse to call him on it doesn't mean everyone has to ignore it.

Boo hoo, Moveon said Petraeus might now be as dishonest about Iraq as he was in the past. Boo hoo. You and the Weekly Standard can cry me a river.

BTW--Glen Greewald accurately points out your B/S, and that's why you resort to calling him names, instead of responding with logic or well reasoned arguments.

"His work has nothing to do with journalism; it's all about building his myopic case."
See, you and Glenn have lots in common.
Except you're really not a journalist so much as a Very Serious Pundit.

"Greenwald is engaging in crude Big Lie propaganda."
Glenn also had lots in common with the Bush administration too. Perhaps, you ought to slap the administration around with a wet noodle too. Or are you afraid of the Weekly Standard doing a scathing profile of you?

"unconscionable slur against an honorable man"
Seriously Joe, did you just sleep through the last six years? The Republican Party has been unconscionably slurring honorable men such as Jack Murtha, Max Cleland, John Kerry, and John McCain, and I don't ever remember you getting such a case of the vapors before.

I call BS on Klein and Glenn Greenwald. Jack Cafferty just took both of them to the cleaners with an 8th Grade Civic Lesson on the Powers that both Pelosi and Reid have Constitutionally to stop this crap.

His 'call BS' on the spineless DEM Congressional Leadership will be up later on the SitRoom Transcripts and the SitRoom Blog that can be accessed at the very bottom in very small print on the CNN.com home page. Try after 7 or 8p edt. I would disagree with one of commenters that Jack read on air. Given the Pack of Blue Dawgies, Reid might have trouble getting the votes he needs for cloture.

Boy, you made me want to run over and read Glenn Greenwald immediately, mainly because he's usually spot-on. I did so. He's right, you are wrong. That's my take.

For 6 years we have been slimed by the right, and not just because of the war. Oh, no. We hate God, too. (And the corollary is that God hates us). And we all want to kill our babies because you know that liberal women just can't wait for their first abortion. But if we do have children, God forbid, we are bad, bad parents who do everything to allow them to sink into the muck of pornography and Satanism...or something. I don't know what we're supposed to be doing this week. Go ask Ann Coulter, she'll let you know.

So spare me the lectures. I'm 60 years old and I read the blogs because I can't get the truth anywhere else!! I'm sick of the collaberation of the media and this administration. I'm frustrated and mad. So, if MoveOn runs a dumb ad, well so the hell what?? Compared to what the right wing has managed to do to my country...please.

"Swampland readers, like Bill Kristol, know that this is not the case, that Greenwald is engaging in crude Big Lie propaganda. "

Er... no offense, but why is your assertion any more credible the Greenwald's. I know this is not a full out printed article for you, but Greenwald does have some pretty extensive refereces to back him up. Please site the justifaction for your claim.

Folks,

OK, this is silly.

Silly for Klein to be so defensive.

Silly for Greenwald to make a federal case based on irrelevant "evidence." (Who cares if they do it too? What kind of argument is that?)

Silly for people to persist in parsing everything that Klein says into some anti-liberal conspiracy. I heard you about how the MSM is beholden to beltway interests, it was an interesting argument, now get on with your lives.

Personally, I was appalled by the "Betrayus" ad and the Code Pink protests, because I think that they make our side look puerile and disinterested in debate or anything approaching serious political engagement. The fact that the other side is often puerile and disinterested in debate or anything approaching serious political engagement is no excuse, nor is the "we have bigger things to argue about" argument very compelling to me. We need to try and win hearts and minds here by being smarter and better than they are, not by acting like undergraduates.

Joe: when Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are tied to the Republican Party then, by all means tie the Moveon folks to the Democrats. Look: MoveOn gets it money from members and donors. If you don't like their tough approach that's ok. Really. But its MoveOns members who will have to deal with it. You know after all the Republican guff I have had to put up with I was not unhappy with what they did. You can salute the uniform not everyone wearing one is a good guy. Petraues'answer to the pressing question by Warner said it all.

I say again: don't go into an auto genuflecting mode when dealing with generals. Read what Fallon and Abizaid have reportedly said. Petraeus has to drop his pants in the loo. He is human. He has career concerns. He reports to the President. He is not infallible. Don't leave your brains at the door when you go into interview him.

And this is why Joe Klein and his ilk want the comments section of this blog censored.

If people can fight back against his inane nonsense, he is impotent and helpless to do anything but whine and throw temper tantrums.

"To read [Greenwald], about me, you'd think that I was some kind of frothing nut exclusively and constantly attacking liberals. Swampland readers, like Bill Kristol, know that this is not the case, that Greenwald is engaging in crude Big Lie propaganda.

In any case, I remain convinced that the MoveOn 'Betrayus' ad was not only deeply stupid and an unconscionable slur against an honorable man, but also potentially very damaging to Democratic candidates running across the country ..."

A. If Kristol Meth has to co-sign, you have already lost the argument.

B. Kos (Markos Moulitsas) speaks ... you listen: "[I]t’s almost amusing to see how in Washington DC, everybody is all up in arms over an ad. You know, we’re in the middle of this bloody war, almost 4,000 dead, half a trillion dollars spent, and people are going to talk about how inappropriate an ad is? I think it’s patently ridiculous. And most people, outside of this sort of Beltway environment really don’t care about an ad. They want to see our men and women coming home, safe and sound to their families."

A few hours later:

Sen. John Warner (R-VA): ... [T]the strategy ... does that make America safer.

Gen. Petraeus: I don't know.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Game. Set. Match.

We already know one lie that Klein will put in his column. The only way his smear works is if he conflates an unaffiliated group like MoveOn with the Democratic Party, the way he never made a connection between the SBV and Bush campaign until the damage was already done.

He will also omit the fact that the term used by MoveOn was coined by Rush Limbaugh, nor Admiral Falon's comment that Petraeus is “an @$$-kissing little c**ckens**t."

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235

He knows MoveOn is not the Democratic Party, and implying otherwise will be as intentional a distortion as tying Hussein to 9/11.

If any of you needed proof that Joe doesn't read the comments...behold!:

"...you'd think that I was some kind of frothing nut exclusively and constantly attacking liberals. Swampland readers, like Bill Kristol, know that this is not the case, that Greenwald is engaging in crude Big Lie propaganda."

Or is he deluded himself into believing this? Unbelievable in either case. Don't worry Joe, Scottoest will be here to defend you and decry the groupthink here any second now. You know, the groupthink where we all disdain Greenwald because he attacks your fair minded well researched posts. Enjoy the unicorns and gum-drop trees in you mind Joe.

Michael J. Fox quakes too much. Hillary has breasts. Surely she knew they'd been an issue. Someone as calculating as her wouldn't bring them out in public like that without some nefarious purpose in mind. If Edwards can't fight cancer, how can we trust her husband to fight the war on terror?

But most of all, why do you fools keep making me make such an issue out of this?

Joe, you're letting your feelings get in the way of reason. Greenwald is indeed invovled with investigation, which I thought was an important part of journalism. He's an intellect to be reckoned with, and here you are calling him names, a tactic you despise and call out in many others.

A. Hermit, thanks for the ISP link. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235

Joe, you should read beyond the bold print. Here are some highlights to add to ones previously identified

"The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

...

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. ...

...

Fallon also expressed great scepticism about the basic assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" as saying that Fallon had been "saying from Day One, 'This isn't working.' "

One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" -- a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.

Fallon was signaling his unhappiness with the policy of U.S. occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate period. Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely.

...

The conflict between Fallon and Petraeus over Iraq came to a head in early September. According to the Post story, Fallon expressed views on Iraq that were sharply at odds with those of Petraeus in a three-way conversation with Bush on Iraq the previous weekend. Petraeus argued for keeping as many troops in Iraq for as long as possible to cement any security progress, but Fallon argued that a strategic withdrawal from Iraq was necessary to have sufficient forces to deal with other potential threats in the region.

Fallon's presentation to Bush of the case against Petraeus's recommendation for keeping troop levels in Iraq at the highest possible level just before Petraeus was to go public with his recommendations was another sign that Petraeus's role as chief spokesperson for the surge policy has created a deep rift between him and the nation's highest military leaders. Bush presumably would not have chosen to invite an opponent of the surge policy to make such a presentation without lobbying by the top brass.

Fallon had a "visceral distaste" for what he regarded as Petraeus's sycophantic behaviour in general, which had deeper institutional roots, according to a military source familiar with his thinking.

...

The contrasting styles of the two men converged with their conflict over Iraq to produce one of the most intense clashes between U.S. military leaders in recent history."

It's 2004 all over again. Kerry calls on MoveOn to remove their accurate ads about Bush's National Guard service so Klein and company can focus single-mindedly on the non-controversy over the fabrication of the Swiftboaters for about a month, while they pretend there is no connection to the Bush campaign flacks who handed the info to them.

Clearly, we should do what Kerry did, and take the high road by denouncing MoveOn and telling them to remove the ads, even though they have no affiliation and aren't required to do so, merely for "appearances". Klein will surely see that we are applauded for taking the high road as he applauded Kerry then. If we don't react the way Kerry did, then we will have made a misstep in handling the controversy and brought it on ourselves. Let's not give Klein a reason to put this story in that frame, the way Kerry would have been broadsided if he had not complained about the MoveOn ad. Imagine what a travesty to reality the Swiftboaters could have been, if he had been uncivil when the Bush campaign refused to lower themselves to that sort of thing.

I mean, look at the outcry from Klein when Bush refused to denounce the Swiftboat vets the way Kerry denounced MoveOn, despite no affiliation! Klein was ruthless! He would not stand for it! Kerry would have gotten the same from Klein if he didn't condemn a group with no affiliation to his campaign. Just the appearance of affiliation would have done him in.

Bush did not heed those concerns about an appearance of coordination between him and the SBV, and brought the wrath of Klein down upon him! Go back and read his columns, it's true! Thank God Klein and Carney were there to point out how differently Bush approached the controversy. The fact that Bush would not denounce a false ad reflected poorly on his character, and cost him the campaign.

As with all CW, rewrite the above to say the exact opposite, and that's the truth.

Big lie propaganda?!!! Ha! That's a good one.

9/11-Iraq, 9/11-Iraq, 9/11-Iraq, 9/11-Iraq,
9/11-Iraq, 9/11-Iraq, 9/11-Iraq, 9/11-Iraq.

THAT, Mr. Klein is BIG LIE propaganda.

Other than hurt feelings, I do not believe that you are suffering any dire consequences from Glenn Greenwald's speculations about your motives.

On the other hand, we have people dying...you know, like in DEAD, because of Bush's big lie propaganda.

Oh, and, "What a lawyer this boy is! His work has nothing to do with journalism; it's all about building his myopic case." Huh? What does his being a lawyer have to do with his arguments? And excuse me, but the American so-called journalists have been out-to-lunch on the Bush Administration from day one.

Where were you when US Attorneys were being fired right and left? Where were you when Judy Miller was being played and helping to get us into this bogus war? Where were you to do the research to point out all of the inconsistencies and bogus arguments coming out of the White House? Where were you when the whole apparatus of MY government was being made an extention of the RNC? Where were you when MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS of dollars were (and still are) siphoned off of the American taxpayer into a black hole called Iraq? Where were you when the real significance of Scooter Libby was being discussed? If it wasn't for talkingpointsmemo.com and firedoglake.com and all of the other blogger 'journalists' doing your and your colleagues' jobs we wouldn't know half the outrages we do now. Thank GOD for bloggers. You are now one, sort of. Defend yourself. Don't call Greenwald a propagandist..that's stupid. Tell us why he is a propagandist.

I suggest you either make your case or take your dollies and go home. Either way, I don't think you'll be staying at Walter Reed or under a tombstone.

Joe-
Next time you interview one of the Republicans calling for a House and/or Senate resolution condemning this ad, will you ask them to include a condemnation of Saxby Chambliss for the 2002 ad video-morphing Max Cleland into Saddam Hussein? And post their answers verbatim for us?

kthxbai

Why is General Petraeus the bad guy here?

What did you say when the Swift Boaters were afoot? Did you defend John Kerry? Did you trash Boone Pickens by name? Did you name Rove in that plot? If not shut up.

“To read him, about me, you'd think that I was some kind of frothing nut exclusively and constantly attacking liberals. Swampland readers, like Bill Kristol, know that this is not the case, that Greenwald is engaging in crude Big Lie propaganda.”

Funny, everyone but the freepers finds Greenwald both measured and scrupulous with the truth. You, on the other hand, sound like some kind of…well, not exclusively and constantly attacking liberals, I suppose. Just consistently and egregiously.

Want a funny? Type "betrayus" into google and see what it asks you. As sure a sign of the effectiveness of the moveon ad as any I can think of. It is an internets hit.

But a quick check of the major newspapers here in Missouri reveals nothing going on. It is no a story.

The only people that are interested in the moveon ad are the Washington DC Serious people and us netroots nuts

Jack

OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGOD!!!!!! THE WEEKLY STANDARD IS GOING TO TRASH THE DEMOCRATS NEXT WEEK!!!!!

WHAT DID WE DO TO DESERVE THIS????!!!! THEY WOULDN'T ATTACK US FOR NO REASON, WOULD THEY???!!!

Oh, yeah. I guess they would. Go back to what you were doing, everyone.

Joe, I love you, man, but in your post the first paragraph references the Weekly Standard's sliming of the vets who wrote the anti-surge op-ed, and the last evinces the fear of what the Weekly Standard will do with the "Betray Us" ad. But surely the real moral of the juxtaposed stories is that the Weekly Standard will defame anyone who disagrees with them, howsoever civil a tone they assume.

Since the right wing's response will always be to impugn the loyalty of anyone who isn't drinking the kool-aid with them, the downside of employing a disruptive style, such as in the Move On ad, would seem to be far less than you fear.

"Why would any good American care what's written in the pages of the Weekly Standard? Bill Kristol is an accomplice to War Crimes(if you have not noticed)."

Your last point is completely irrelevant. If your average American were more savvy to American politics, they wouldn't take him, or any of the other talking point pushers seriously.

Today's Headline: They aren't. Bill Kristol sandbagging the Democrats, just like Bill O'Reilly, Gibby, Brit Hume, or anyone else, affects the narrative. Idiots like Kristol are given just as much journalistic reverence, if not more, than a Gleen Greenwald in the mainstream.

An ad like "Betray-us", through the lens of a distorter like Kristol, may not have a net effect on "left wingers", but you can bet it will catch the attention of part of moderate America.

And that was the gist of Joe's MoveOn column - "holy crap, the right wing reality distortion field is going to make the Dems eat this one". And sure enough, they went to work right away.

- Scott

The MoveAd is just another convenient excuse for the moderates and the right-wing extremists to do nothing about Iraq. They will reach for any straw to prevent themselves from having to make a decision, and act on it.

Oh my Lord how is life in Versailles on the Potomac? Do you honestly think anyone outside the beltway cares about your and Bill Kristol's online disagreements? Your insistence on obsessing about trivia and perceived blog slights an incredible waste of digital ink.

There's a war on. Write about that. General Petraeus doesn't know if the war is making us safer. Write about that. Congress can't bring itself to end a hugely unpopular war. Write about that.

You have a platform. Don't squander it perpetuating your petty online fueds.

There are two unforgivable sins for Democrats to commit in the eyes of the MSM. The first is to criticize. The second is to do something rightwingers criticize. Criticizing equals extremism. Getting criticized equals guilt.

"Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald is after me again. ... To read him, about me, you'd think that I was some kind of frothing nut exclusively and constantly attacking liberals. Swampland readers ... know that this is not the case, that Greenwald is engaging in crude Big Lie propaganda."

I agree (and I'm pretty sure that Greenwald would agree) that Joe is not a "frothing nut exclusively and constantly attacking liberals".

The actual critique is that Joe is so thin-skinned and insecure that he can't digest criticism or substantively respond to challenging arguments, that he has terrible political judgment, and that he is almost comically inept at fact-gathering and conducting basic journalistic research.

If Klein wants to find instances of people questioning the loyalty of others he should check out his good buddy Kristol.

But I suppose Klein would never attack Kristol.

Mr. Klein's implied definition of journalism:

"Kinda-sorta nonfictional prose that I think is good. Because I say so. Nyeah."

Two honorable soldiers died in Iraq on Monday. One dishonorable soldier told fairy stories fed to him by the Whitehouse in front of a congressional committe on Monday. I just watched Joe on Hardball. He and his buddies smirked and giggled through a segment about how Bush won this round. How is it the only honest journalist on TV these days is John Stewart. A sad day for people who truely love this country.

"The MoveAd is just another convenient excuse for the moderates and the right-wing extremists to do nothing about Iraq. They will reach for any straw to prevent themselves from having to make a decision, and act on it."

This just isn't true.

Joe, caught you on Tweety. Your discussion of Petraeus' testimony [trained to be a glass 1/2 full guy, he received a call from the WH after his 'I don't know' gaffe during break, being disingenuous about Basra] including he is not a puppet, made me think that Petraeus has long been one of your 'inside sources'. If I'm right about your source, it would certainly explain a lot of position statements that you have made over the course of the BushCo years. Sorry, you were 'confused' by Crocker. Given recent history you have to know that it is 'go along or just go'.

I would highly recommend Olbermann with Paul Reickhoff for a good discussion of 'issues', including a salute Omar Mora and Yance Gray. And don't pass up the Dodd interview about 'Letters from Nuremberg'. [Wed.] Because we've been discussing this stuff.

Good, also short comments:
http://jeff-huber.dailykos.com/

PS. I see that Glenn Greenwald has gone on to another better discussion.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald

and these archived post are also good:
Brit Hume
Documenting Gen. Petraeus
War supporters and enablers
DC establishment

Joe, you do know that "the Big Lie" comes from Goebbels? I'm always careful not to use that term even when it might be apt, such as, say, Cheney's repetition and promulgation of the lie that Saddam was involved with 9/11. I don't want it to be said that I'm comparing those I disagree with with the Nazis.

So boy, was I taken aback when you say Glenn Greenwald is using "the Big Lie" against you. For one thing, it's not a lie to disagree with you or even to argue with your position and yes, even to misrepresent it, if that's what you think happened (you provide so little evidence, it's hard to know). It's certainly not "the Big Lie" capitalized when a commentator takes another commentator to task. To be the Big Lie, the lie, if there is one, has to have large consequences, such as invading a sovereign nation or killing innocents. Merely hurting a pundit's feelings really doesn't qualify, and trivializes the meaning of the term, both actual and historical.

Yes, Greenwald is a lawyer, and so he knows how to build a case. You could learn from him. You are so quick to leap over that important step (gathering and assembling evidence), and getting right to the intemperate closing statement, and never so much when your feelings are hurt. I don't understand it-- did everyone always agree with you before this? You sure don't seem to roll with the punches.

And Glenn, with his incisive cool edginess, sure does get your goat. I am willing to listen if you want to explain, with chapter and verse and evidence and all that good stuff, how he misrepresents you, but you never get to that point. It's sort of amazing you have gotten so far with such a thin skin.

You can do better, I know it. I have confidence in you! At this point, Glenn is beating you with both hands tied behind his back, but you have to be holding some savvy in reserve for the last round, right?

**Posted by Yadgyu
September 12, 2007
"The MoveAd is just another convenient excuse for the moderates and the right-wing extremists to do nothing about Iraq. They will reach for any straw to prevent themselves from having to make a decision, and act on it."
This just isn't true.**

It's partially true. Bush I mean Petraeus had decided to ask for another Friedman before anyone at MoveOn even thought about placing an ad, but tut-tutting about the ad means there's less ink and fewer electrons and pixels talking about the fact that the Great Petraeus Report for which we've all been breathlessly awaiting for the last Friedman.

Dear Mr. Klein,

Have I got you wrong? For you, it's not really that the MoveOn ad is politically stupid. It's that the word "betray" has no basis, and that this is self-evident. That's pretty scary. If you'd stuck to saying that the ad was stupid, I wouldn't have a problem, though it's a view I don't share. But that the word "betray" is so over the top that no discussion of it is needed?

You are apparently not able to get into heads that aren't pretty much like your own. This must restrict your journalism. If, as you seem to think, MoveOn suggests Petraeus is guilty of a capital crime, I'd part company with MoveOn. But if the ad dares to think that Petraeus has betrayed the country by abuse of his position, that seems well within a normal and healthy range of views. I think Colin Powell betrayed the republic in his address to the UN; and I think the Bush administration has given aid and comfort to the enemy--isn't this obvious? How could bin Laden and company possibly be having a better time of it? And they're doing so because of a level of negligence and corruption that has betrayed (seriously: that's over the top?) the trust a democratic people places in its government.

I have to work hard to accept that, for you, to say such things is not even controversial (that would grant too much, that a case can be made), it's shameful.

I don't get it: why the tunnel vision? And do you really not, if only at bad moments, see why from a certain, reasonably intelligible and not-ethically-compromised point of view, you remain a marvel: able to pick up such a narrow range of signals. And so sure that the range you hear is all the range there is.

Francis Ingledew

"Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald is after me again. What a lawyer this boy is! His work has nothing to do with journalism; it's all about building his myopic case. To read him, about me, you'd think that I was some kind of frothing nut exclusively and constantly attacking liberals. Swampland readers, like Bill Kristol, know that this is not the case, that Greenwald is engaging in crude Big Lie propaganda."

Wow. Let's take that apart.

1) "Glenn Greenwald is after me again."
The link goes not to Greenwald's column but to War Room, another section of Salon that Greenwald doesn't write. So this might or might not be true, but we can't tell by your link.

2) "What a lawyer that boy is!"
Well, unless he's the Doogie Howser of the Bar, he can't be both a boy and a lawyer, but yes, you're right, he's a lawyer. Good! A fact, and accurate too! And I like your exclamation point!

3) "His work has nothing to do with journalism; it's all about building his myopic case."
Hmm. Now Greenwald is not just a lawyer, which is a licensed profession; he is also a writer for a major online magazine. Journalism is -not- a licensed profession, so I suspect it's rather like Ben Gurion remarked, a journalist is whoever says he's a journalist (only I don't think he was talking about journos :). What is a journalist, then? I get the idea you think of yourself as a journalist, but you never really define what that means, and in fact, it's not the same as a "reporter", is it? The name indicates that it's someone who writes for journals, or periodicals. Greenwald does that. You might call him a "columnist" and I'm sure he'd agree. But since you're a columnist, there can't be anything wrong with that, right? Now if you mean that a journalist is the only type of writer that counts, please say so. And while you're at it, how do you define "journalist", and why are you the one who licenses them? As for "assembling his myopic case", don't journalist assemble a case for their story? Aren't they assembling facts and seeking to prove that something is true? As for "myopic", what's myopic? Greenwald writes several posts/columns a day, only a few of which in a whole year have been about you. So who is being myopic?

4. "To read him, about me, you'd think that I was some kind of frothing nut exclusively and constantly attacking liberals."
Does anyone copy-edit around here? Sorry, but that comma about me comma kind of distracts me, as it really messes with your meaning. (Take out the comma after him. Please. It's hurting my eyes. Come on, if you're a journalist, you should know about restrictive and unrestrictive phrases.)
Oh, right. Now does he actually say you're a frothing, etc., or is that your reading of his meaning? Can we have some evidence for your translation? Does he say you "exclusively and constantly attack liberals", or are you being, well, myopic?

5. "Swampland readers, like Bill Kristol, know that this is not the case,"
Does Bill Kristol read Swampland? Hey, Bill! (Waving!) Oh, no, that's not what you're saying. You're saying that we AND Bill Kristol know this is not the case. Well, since you're the one who defined the "case", by exaggerating just a teensy bit, I think we all agree. You do not exclusively and constantly attack liberals. You have attacked plenty of other people. I think you were pretty harsh with Osama Bin Laden. And Hilary Clinton's not really a liberal, and you've sure gone after her. And I bet Bill Kristol's rump is really stinging after that lashing you gave him.

6. "that Greenwald is engaging in crude Big Lie propaganda."
I feel like I want to lash Michael Moore. Darn those propagandists! They just rant and rant and lie and crudely Big Lie, and never ever assemble a case.... Oh. Wait. You just said Greenwald assembled a case.... Hmm. I'm confused. Can you assemble a case here to help un-baffle me? Where did Greenwald merely lie, and where did he Big Lie? Can you quote here? I'd go find it myself, but you know that link you provided doesn't work.

Do "journalists" just say these things, you know, about other writers, without providing any quotes? Greenwald (I did find his column, and what a writer that lawyer is! I think Time should hire him!) does actually quote and quote more and analyze each quote. I can't tell if he's cherry-picking or misrepresenting you because, see, you don't actually tell us where you think he was wrong. I know, I know, we're just supposed to believe you. Sorry. I've used up all my openmouthed admiring belief on that honorable man General Petraeus, who you said was honorable, and that took even more unquestioning belief... I don't have enough left today for another un-documented belief request.

Carter was "as serious as cancer and as colorful as cement." "The 1970s were the 1960s for nerds." Dukakis "hailed from the National Public Radio wing of his party." In their obsession with the minutiae of environmental policy, Democrats "had trouble seeing the forest for the tree huggers.”

"constantly attacking liberals."

KLEIN (5/21/06): You know, there’s a big question here. If you read Al Gore’s speech just before the war in Iraq where he came out against it, it’s a brilliant speech. If you saw Al Gore delivering it, he looked like a madman.

Gosh, what
"an unconscionable slur against an honorable man,"

Okay, I found my way to the Greenwald post (not through Joe's link, alas, which led somewhere else) and... Joe, honey, did you read that? For one thing, it's not all that much about you. And it really does "assemble a case" in your terminology that your outrage is sort of selective.

See, the problem is, we keep pointing out how WEIRD it is that so many reporters/journalists/pundits so quickly jump on certain rather minor issues and pummel them, often using terminology that repeats that of Republicans, while ignoring or downplaying similar or worse instances. And the question is, and yes, it's one many of us are interested in, but never is addressed by you or your fellows, why is that? Greenwald has assembled example after example of Republicans and right-wingers and pundits impugning the patriotism and more of those who have spoken out against the war. And you don't deal with that at all. You, strangely, seem to think it's All About You, and that everything he's put together doesn't count, what counts is he mentions you as one of those who keeps falling for it.

So... is he wrong? At what point? And don't translate him. You aren't good at that-- you always use such extreme, hurting language that we can't really tell what you think he said. Notice that Greenwald actually quotes rather extensively from those he says impugn those who aren't for Bush's war. Can you quote from Greenwald to prove your point?

And please, can you answer that question? I just wish some MSM reporter/journalist/whatever would take this on as a valid question-- what actually happens when a "meme" suddenly arises like that, and why is it almost exclusively aimed at Democrats or liberals, and why is it usually right after (or right before) something the administration would like to pass unremarked, like Petraeus admitting the surge hasn't made us safer, and then, according to you and your colleagues, receiving a phone call from the White House and immediately backtracking on that? You don't think that's sort of ...weird? If it happened only a couple times, just a coincidence, maybe. But time after time? And you fall for it-- not you in particular, but far too many of your colleagues. And come on, you know that's Rove's trick. You even know he's the master of that. So... why do you guys keep falling for it?

Joe: If Progressives want to prove we've learned anything from our mistakes of The 60's it should be reflected in HOW your message is delivered & not just THE message. MoveOn had a good message but it's effectiveness was lost in the manner of delivery.

"...the seven enlisted men who courageously took on the official line about the dependability of the Iraqi Army..."

Their "piece" was an open invitation to terrorists to kill more U.S. troops.

That you continue to ignore that prima facie fact speaks grand volumes, beyond anything else you posit to the pandering Kos Klown contrary -- and calls into question your citizenship, not simply your weather vane excuse for adult judgment.

Bush 41's mistake in 1992 was not calling Clinton what he was (and remains): An internationalist, and a pimp, where all else comes before the priorities of the simple Village that raised him (warts and all).

What a legacy.

"To read him, about me, you'd think that I was some kind of frothing nut exclusively and constantly attacking liberals."

That's not inaccurate. The sad thing is that you're an intelligent and witty man. But your pathetic crusade against the hippies in your head makes you look like a fool. You need to deal with this fact if you want to be taken seriously outside the enclaves of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Between you and Greenwald--I respect Greenwald more.

I suggest you learn from him and take it as a constructive criticism than fighting him. You are no match with him.

To reiterate what he said--he says Carney criticism of MoveOn Ad is much more respected than you who protray oneself as a liberal use it to, as always, thrash liberals and Democrats.

TomT-Joe is constantly looking for his "Sister Souljah" opportunities. He thinks that by attacking those who are generally on the same side as him on a specific issue he gains credibility as a truth-teller and independent thinker. Unfortunatley, by his words and deeds he has shown that he is neither.

Dearest Joseph. Let me help you. Here is the truth:

Petraeus is a shill, a propaganda stooge, a liar, a war criminal, and a mass murderer. If you doubt this, ask yourself this question:

Who does he work for?

Move On's little advert is actually only a mild version of the truth.

Moreover, as vituperation, it pales in comparison with the slop directed by the knuckle-draggers toward folks like Glenn Greenwald.

By the way, this is the first time I have visited this site. Your reaction to Greenwald makes it clear that he's got your number - he has weighed you, measured you, and proved that you are wanting.

Hang it up. It'll do ya good.

"It's partially true. Bush I mean Petraeus had decided to ask for another Friedman before anyone at MoveOn even thought about placing an ad, but tut-tutting about the ad means there's less ink and fewer electrons and pixels talking about the fact that the Great Petraeus Report for which we've all been breathlessly awaiting for the last Friedman."

Oh really?

"The fact that the other side is often puerile and disinterested in debate or anything approaching serious political engagement is no excuse, nor is the 'we have bigger things to argue about' argument very compelling to me."

Cheers, Paul, for making this point. But alas, it will forever be lost among this group. They are more interested in the same things Glenn Greenwald is: tarring Joe Klein with an anti-liberal brush and claiming that the MoveOn ad is justified because "they do it too" (an elementary school yard argument if ever I heard one).

The problem is, we live in a time of such ideological puritanism that those who do not toe the party line (left or right) are instantly villified as unfairly attacking the side they happen to disagree with that day. It is the climate that Bush has created, but it is sad to see that so many have made it their life's calling to spend the day on Time.com policing Joe Klein's ideological correctness.

Kind, can you provide examples? I see people challenging Joe on accuracy or lack thereof, his unquestioning attitude towards sources, his extremely thin skin and generally sloppy reporting. I'm not seeing any challenges based on 'Joe, you're not liberal enough'. I'm smelling some bullsh!t here, but I'll play along if you will.

Who's justifying MoveOn because the Republicans do it too? We are attacking the hypocrisy and double standard of breaking out the smelling salts when MoveOn says something true, and turning the other cheek when Republicans lie. I don't think MoveOn should lie. I think MoveOn ought to be able to say the truth, and if you're going to attack them for being uncivil about telling the truth, you ought to occasionally attack Republicans for intentionally lying. I'm not saying we should fight. I'm saying you don't end the partisan cynicism of Republicans by waiting for them to feel sorry for your bloody nose. Driving Vince Foster to suicide by making stuff up about him didn't make the WSJ spend even a second on self-reflection before they smelled an opportunity in his death they could exploit for partisan cheap shots.

They slime us. We kill ourselves for over the guilt of being lied about. They use our death to take out the survivors. They send people off to die in war, we ask why? Klein finds US offensive. They prop up "honorable" men who lie about the war so more people will die as long as possible. We demand the truth. They throw a fit about US riling people up. We get our limbs blown off defending this country, even if we have misgivings about the war. We suggest ignoring the people who attacked us on 9/11 to invade a country that didn't isn't wise, and we get called traitors. They don't say a word.

The four unforgivable sins of liberals: First, is to criticize, because that makes you rude. Second is to be criticized, because that makes you guilty. Third is not to criticize, because that makes you weak. Fourth is to stop doing what you get criticized for, because that means you have no principles.

I don't want Klein to be pure. I want him to either start being honest, or stop being an idiot, whatever the case may be. He either needs to say what he believes, or stop helping to achieve the opposite of what he claims to be for. If he doesn't like Bush's handling of the war and people dying needlessly, then Klein needs to stop being such a tool for them to achieve those ends. Without Klein and his like, not even half the damage Bush has done could have been possible.

And keep in mind, Kind, Klein supposedly represents us. Why is it, do you think, that we despise him so much, when you never hear a Republican complain about FOX News?

**The problem is, we live in a time of such ideological puritanism that those who do not toe the party line (left or right) are instantly villified as unfairly attacking the side they happen to disagree with that day.**

Good lord.

It's not about toeing a party line. It's about recognizing what matters and what doesn't. The MoveOn ad was stupid, tactically, if nothing else. Or I should say, their choice of a single word, a bad pun, was stupid, in an ad that otherwise made a strong case that Petraeus has a history of partisan behavior. And he does.

The same day the horrible horrible MoveOn ad appeared, the man Joe Klein describes as being of irreproachable honor changed his testimony before Congress in order to make it (ahem) toe the White House line.

My source for this, by the way, is Joe Klein, who finds this development "funny", while he is outraged by a blunder from a group of political amateurs who make no decisions regarding national security, whose blunders, however tacky, will kill no one.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Priorities and proportionality. Think about it.

**nor is the 'we have bigger things to argue about' argument very compelling to me."**

That, by the way, is a bewildering remark. We don't have bigger things to argue about? I'll assume this is hastily written and posted (do that a lot myself) and not as stupid as it appears.

Hey butthead. Not everyone slavishly reads The Weekly Standard. Some of us out here think it, and the war whore Bill Kristol are full of sh**.
Unlike you - you get your talking points from the Drudge report and Rush Limbaugh.

Your not a liberal. Your not a conservative. Your just weak - the sycophant to the bully in the room

Listening to Joe Klein belittle Glenn Greenwald is a bit like listening to Sean Hannity belittle Walter Cronkite.

Max Thrax: "The fact that the other side is often puerile and disinterested in debate or anything approaching serious political engagement is no excuse, nor is the 'we have bigger things to argue about' argument very compelling to me."

Uhhh...how about this recent one from Memekiller: "And keep in mind, Kind, Klein supposedly represents us. Why is it, do you think, that we despise him so much, when you never hear a Republican complain about FOX News?"

Don't for an instance think that my comment is exclusive to this latest dust-up between Klein and the commenters on this blog. The above quote better illustrates my point than I ever could so I let it speak for itself. The hatred of Joe Klein on this board comes from his lack of ideological purity. Nuance, this day in age, has no place among the hardcore on this board: they expect an echo chamber and when they don't get it, they become incensed.

Like I said before, it's the environment that Bush fostered with his scorched earth approach to politics, but that doesn't mean that my extreme distaste for him or his policies will lead me to believe that anyone that doesn't totally agree with every idea I have about this situation is the embodiment of evil.

Joe, don't take it personal. For some reason, mainstream conventional wisdom has you pegged as a liberal pundit. We both know different. It's your job and you need to get along to go along. Can't stray too from the mainstream with all that anti-war, peace-lovin nonsense. So you kick a liberal now and then to keep your up street cred with the boss. Just don't expect us to sit back and take it.

Hey Joe - do you know what the truly perverse moment from the Petraeus circus?

The good general admitting that he has no idea if the war in Iraq is making America safer, but nonetheless arguing that we sacrifice more lives, more money and more goodwill to the Boy King's war.

THAT was perverse.

Kind, certainly one with your nuance realized my post directly above that pointing out the rediculousness of claiming we want ideaological purity. Did you miss it, or are you being intentionally dishonest to distort my position because I am not ideaologically pure enough for you?

"...when MoveOn says something true..."

What year was that?

Joe, allow me.

What's up with all the hostility? Sure there's a needless war going on but no need to get all crazy. You do know this Move-on ad is going to hurt Dems don't you? Big time. Score 1 for the GOP. If only both sides could just come together? Pissed off liberals are mean.

"Why is General Petraeus the bad guy here?"

Because liberal yap loathing of the troops and commanders IS not just a job, it's an adventure.

Kind of a Big Deal is right. When I look at Bush's term so far, I see absolutely nothing worthing getting worked up over. It's fine time we start giving Bush want he wants and compromising, and never say anything rude the way the Republicans do.

Memekiller: "Who's justifying MoveOn because the Republicans do it too? We are attacking the hypocrisy and double standard of breaking out the smelling salts when MoveOn says something true, and turning the other cheek when Republicans lie."

Do you not see the contradicition in what you were just arguing? You're saying that you're not justifying it because the other side does it, but then you say that you're up in arms because no one gets mad when the other side does it. And, let me point something else out to you: in this day and age, what you hold to be the truth most assuredly is not to people you oppose, because in this day and age, everyone wants their own truth (kind of how everyone is drawing different ideas about what's going on in Iraq).

As you and I know, you can make an intelligent argument without silly personal attacks. The problem is, everyone in this current political landscape is so pissed off that they have forgotten how to do that and resort to the low blow instead of the intelligent argument.

The reason why this MoveOn ad will be noted for something other than the data it presents is because they implied David Petraeus was a traitor. People get offended when you accuse them of betraying their country; especially when they've served it in uniform for decades. And because MoveOn funnels its dollars to the Democratic Party, of course it puts Democratic Presidental candidates in a bit of a pickle because MoveOn chose to highlight their facts with a cheap shot that the candidates must either run away from or be tarred with the tag of dishonoring a decorated soldier.

And before you point to the antics of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin and Dinesh D'Souza and the rest of the right wing banshees, please keep in mind that it is understood what they are: pundits. And, more accurately, they are polemicists. Their job is to stur up sh!t. While they may drive people in the middle and on the left bonkers, they only really preach to their choirs. MoveOn, by comparison, is positioned as a PAC with strong ties to the Democratic party. They, in essence, advocate part of the Democratic platform and thus any antics they pull on par with Coulter and Malkin are seen in a more damaging light.

So, when I see people lose their minds on these boards because Klein is up in arms about the stupidity of the ad, I shake my head. Klein is right: it has legs because the insult was more memorable than the facts. Insults are always more memorable than facts. And those that go after Klein because he doesn't see it their way are looking through their partisan: Klein is not carrying the water that the ad is fine and dandy because all the facts are true and no one gets mad at Republicans. It's silly.

"Kind, certainly one with your nuance realized my post directly above that pointing out the rediculousness of claiming we want ideaological purity. Did you miss it, or are you being intentionally dishonest to distort my position because I am not ideaologically pure enough for you?"

I quoted your entire post. So, unless you're misrepresenting yourself, then that's the position you took.

"Do you not see the contradicition in what you were just arguing? You're saying that you're not justifying it because the other side does it, but then you say that you're up in arms because no one gets mad when the other side does it."

I didn't say MoveOn should lie! We don't lie, nor should we, even if Republicans do it. We should tell the truth, despite what you say, even if it upsets people. I am saying it's a double standard to complain that we're rude when no one ever, ever complains about Republican rudeness. I can only infer it is not rudeness that offends, but facts.

As for your postmodernism, I guess I'm not a subscriber. Maybe climate scientists don't think the Earth is warming, or biologists don't believe in evolution, or there were WMD in Iraq, and Hussein was involved in 9/11. We shouldn't judge such things. Facts are opinions. You say 2 + 2 = 5, I say 4, the truth must be halfway in between. And yes, different people have different ideas about what's going on in Iraq. I think things are going badly. So does Cocker and Petreus, but they're testifying that they smell roses, so who am I to say it's not dangerous to go for a stroll and see the sites in Bagdhad, perhaps go to the museum? The bullets only hurt if you believe in them.

That, or the world is round and the sky is blue.

"The reason why this MoveOn ad will be noted for something other than the data it presents is because they implied David Petraeus was a traitor. People get offended when you accuse them of betraying their country; especially when they've served it in uniform for decades."

It is my turn to allow the absurdity of the above statement speak for itself. As for MoveOn being connected to the Democratic Party -- they don't take orders from the Democratic Party. They call their own shots. Unlike, say, the SBV. And no, that doesn't mean we should because they do it, too. MoveOn is unafilliated. Just because the SBV were part of the Bush campaign does not mean MoveOn should start being connected. But it is hypocritical to wail about a connection that doesn't exist, when you ignore one that does, just as it is hypocritical to wail about MoveOn's data, while ignoring blatant, intentional distortions by General Petreus, at WH request.

Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Dinesh D'Souza don't advocate for the Republican platform? By contrast, a PAC like MoveOn should not advocate? A Political Action Committee, with the mission of pushing liberal policy, is required to be non-partisan, while regular members of our "serious" roundtables are supposed to be pundits and rile people up? Don't you have that backwards?

The only reason this ad has legs is because of people like you and Klein. You guys can make a controversy over the fact that Hillary has boobs, or Fox has the shakes, or Edwards cancer, or her husband advocates policy for poor people when he has money. All it takes for you and Klein to mainstream this diversions is to cater these partisan attacks to your ideaology of centrism, where absolute truth resides by splitting every baby, triangulating, and going halfway betwen Klein and Coulter. Sensible is not about sensible positions, but not ever finding anything about a needless war worthy of getting in a huff over.

Klein doesn't need to carry our water. He needs to either stop lying or stop being an idiot. Over at PublicEye, what they cite as proof MoveOn misstepped is Joe Klein. Joe Klein diverted attention from this hearing because Joe Klein is a fool Republican flacks can always count on to run with their smokescreens. They use that conceit of yours for tolerance and even-handedness to play you and Klein for suckers, and have done so, time and time again.

Kind of a Big Deal sounds like such a shrill extremist. Apparently, there's only a narrow range of stylistic expression and position-taking that's permissible in public discourse.

And if you step outside that range, you're just being silly, partisan, and unintelligent.

But of course, that's how he/she brilliantly transcends the problem of winning over polarized audiences: assume a pose of civil and intellectual condescension. Good job!

"I quoted your entire post. So, unless you're misrepresenting yourself, then that's the position you took."

You quoted the post as proof I demand ideaological purity. I don't. My entire post directly above that spelled out the case. I want him to stop undermining his own cause by being such a willing enabler of what he abhores. Or to be honest about loving the war and the Bush administration. He's welcome to oppose us. But I'm allowed to hate a guy who supposedly represents us and does everything within his power to undermine us. It's dishonest, or stupid, or both. Either stop being a tool, or let's get one or two people writing for Time who aren't Bush pundits or Bush enablers.

No, I don't think everyone should be pure. I think somebody, somewhere, ought to not be enabling Bush's failure. One would be nice. Or at the very least, stop saying these people represent me when they don't. I despise Joe Klein, and I despise CNN, the Joe Klein of Cable News, and I despise CBS. I guess that means I'm open minded because I'm so willing to criticize my own?

Or is it merely that there is nothing on this earth worthy of getting angry about, if you're not a Republican? To be serious means you never get upset about poverty or war or genocide because it's all part of God's glorious creation!

Hear, hear, memekiller.

Joe doesn't have a coherent political philosophy. There's a "good Joe" and a "bad Joe." They are very different; they even write differently. It's sort of a "Sybil" thing. And you never know which one you're going to get. Makes it kind of exciting, like Tweety, but ultimately you gotta wonder if there's any "there" there.

I've learned not to get my hopes up when I read a post by "good Joe."

Big lie?
I'm still trying to find even a small lie in Greenwald's piece.
He does a solid job of proving his thesis.
And, yes, he does it in a very lawyer-like fashion, but that only helps to prove his case.
It must be tough to be slammed, as Greenwald has done to you a couple of times, but I think the better course is to take the criticism, consider it more dispassionately than you've done so far and deal with it accordingly.
Frankly, if one reads this post, then reads Greenwald's column, it is clear that he is right on target with his point.
I'd like to see references to those 2004 columns where you slammed Bush and Rove for those Swift Boat ads. I may be mistaken, but what I primarily saw was a grudging admiration for the brutal effectiveness of those ads. I don't recall seeing many, if any, protestations about the impropriety of slurring a military hero.
Also, one minor point. You call the MoveOn ad a "slur". I read the ad and, factually, it appeared to be very accurate. What part was untrue and therefore a slur on Petraeus?

Joe: what is wrong with this? KKK: Krauthammer, Kristol and the Kagans (all 3) on one side as against Glenn Greenwald. Simple: the chickenhawks on the right never allow facts to get in the way of fiction. GG never allows fiction to get in th