What was he afraid of?

It's easy to forget now, but everyone in politics and in the press was afraid to speak their mind against the war back then. There was such a patriotic frenzy, so many flags out, people were afraid their careers would end if they spoke up. That's probably the worst part of what happened, and it can happen again.

Jesus fucking Christ. Can't we quit with this idiot? He is the ultimate Wanker of the Year -- just STOP!

JS,

Exactly. You conceed Klein is a spineless mediocrity cowering in fear of his own career, deathly afraid that by saying what he really thinks, he'll end his career instantaneously. Remind me why he ought to have a column in Time Magazine and endless airtime on television news?

What was he afraid of?

His own shadow.

I'm reminded of the cowardly lion in that old movie...

Just to clarify -- I'm not talking (just) about his lying about his opposition to the war. I'm talking about his constant and dishonest bashing of everyone who was right about the war as a "dirty fucking hippie." Just one example -- his misquoting Howard Dean in Time Mag to make Dean look ... well, in retrospect, still correct. But dishonest all the same.

And his insistence that every politician make him, personally, feel all manly and smart. To call him a "douchebag" is an insult to female hygiene.

First off, he was afraid of saying anything that disagreed with the convential wisdom of the day, because that kind of thing can get you in trouble if people remember it, and can cause your number of cocktail party invitations to decline significantly.

Kevin,

You have asked perhaps the most important question of the last six years - the one historians will be trying to answer for the next hundred. What were people afraid of? What were the implicit and explicit threats?

My own father - a perpetual hawk and right-winger - now claims he was always against the war, even from the start.

Which is utter bullshit. He was all for it, until it turned into a clusterfuck.

Seems there's a lot of Iraqocaust denial going around these days.

Because if he had done so he would have no longer been asked to appear on TV.

He kept his mouth shut in order to protect his wallet.

Like most of them.

I was totally against the war in 2002, but never blogged about it. Maybe that's because I didn't have a blog...

Trying that same old lame excuse, NTodd???

Being ostracized.

I saw the headline on something by Kaus, something about Klein trying to have it both ways. Didn't read the article. Then I saw this by Kevin. Did Kaus finally get something right for a change? Is he worth reading again?

Wow, Kevin! You were insulated.

Living in the mid-West, deep among subliminal and denied racism, stars and stripes all flying, boy, it didn't seem so free.

Remember the "with us or against us" speech? How gungho the unimaginative section of US society gets when war looms?

I really toned down my resistance to the path to war.

You have to work among people who say, about unemployment benefits or progressive taxes, "Why would you take money from people who make money and give it to those who don't?" Management that's about as progressive as the Catholic church and about as interested in debate or discourse.

Sorry. It was another if mini McCarthy period that culminated in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo (5 years and still holding), suppression of legal representation, habeas corpus, extra-ordinary rendition.

In 20 years, the embarassment over all this will be far greater than what we already feel over the internment of US-Japanese.

You are one insulated dude.

What we need from Clueless Joe and the rest of his tribe (including possibly Kevin Drum, et al.) is for them to retreat to their lairs to write about their own utter and complete failures over the last 15 years that have led us to where we are. I can't see how any of them can ever (re)gain credibly otherwise.

When it was popular to be pro-war, a lot of people, including politicians, were pro-war, or at least sat quietly while others were pro-war. When it got safe to be anti-war, they all popped up and claimed to have been anti-war the whole time. They just got misled.

A good example of this behavior.

Right or wrong, the politicians who actually act on their beliefs and principles, and don't ditch them the second it looks like they're on the wrong end of the popularity polls, are few and far between. Democrats like Kucinich, Lieberman, or Dean, among others. And, like it or not, Republicans like Bush.

Maybe he and others were afraid that what happened to me might happen to them - after I appeared at a televised candlelight vigil opposing the war, I was fired from my job by my Republican officeholder boss with no explanation.

Dear Kevin,

Ask him. Maybe he heard about Phil Donahue's fate over at MSNBC and got scared that he might get fired. Remember, people who opposed the war at the time were being tarred as, well, pick your description (anti-American, traitor). Opposing the war at the time in the media was not going to get you invited on too many talk shows. Dark, heady days indeed.

Maybe he was being courageous!

What are they all afraid of?

A lot of media personalities create a niche for themselves by playing against type. Take Andrew Sullivan for example, as a gay conservative he’s a-- man bites dog-- story. If he were a gay liberal he’d be -- dog bites man. As people of Klein’s age and “liberal� social background have climbed the social ladder they've mileage out of bending over backwards to avoid looking like a stereotype “bleeding heart liberal�. Maybe some of think they can game the system and be more effective in ways that don’t involve confronting issues head on,but they’ve spent so much of their careers carefully cultivating one Sister Souljah moment after another that in a crunch they are not able to deal with real issues honestly.

What are they all afraid of?

Being wrong.

Here is what they are afraid of:

Anybody who EVER believed that running Christian tanks through major Islamic cities was ANYTHING but a recipe for disaster is obviously as dense and dopey as Bush.

Yes, Figaro, but in the end, it does matter if you stuck to your principles and were RIGHT. The results of this disaster were predictable and predicted, as James Webb said recently. It was a hell of a lot easier back then to bang the war drums and badmouth the "traitors" than it was to state the obvious. Remember the tongue-lashing that Dean got for suggesting that we were no safer with Saddam Hussein in custody? In contrast, to stay on the war side now, when it is so manifestly a failure -- in every way foretold by people like Webb, Dean, Clark and Scowcroft -- is less sticking to one's "principles" than it is an act of stubborn and tragic desperation.

JOE KLEIN: He [John Kerry] read me his speech supporting Bush and asked what I thought. I said I thought it was an ok speech, but I wouldn't be voting that way. But I can't prove that...

There sure was a hell of a lot of intimidation and flag-waving and rally-round-the-president going on, and then there was also the uncertainty. If Colin Powell is trying to make the case, could it be true? Even if you HATE this president, isn't it possible he has access to intelligence that you don't and SURELY there must be SOMETHING to hang the case for war on?

I was only about 80% sure that it was all lies, and I'm rabidly anti-Bush. Here in Podunk, DR (Deep Redstate) there was generally NO QUESTION that Patriotism=LoveofBush=SupportfortheWar.

Now, my conservative Republican friends (hey, here in DR, if you want to have any friends, some of them will be conservative Rs) are acknowledging that the war was a mistake sold with lies, but they explain that they were 90% sure Bush was right because SURELY he must have SOMETHING to hang the case for war on so let's TRUST HIM.

Now, I don't know how this felt among the Beltway Cool Kids, but clearly there was endemic groupthink and pressure to conform.

The difference between the Cool Kids and my Red State friends is that the Cool Kids can't really change course -- they rationalize what they did instead of admitting wrong, and they still demonize everyone who was correct.

Ah, Kevin.

You guys are pretty busy patting yourselves on the back.

But, something deep inside you eats away at your soul, day in and out, keeps you from sleeping good.

What? What if the war succeeds. It's not over yet. The surge will put an additional 50 thousand boots on the ground (21 from actual physicle people and 30 or so from delayed redeployments.) Petraes has a new plan where like every four blocks will have a dedicated grounp of American and Iraq forces patrolling robustly, firing on anything that so much as steps out of line. The city's gonna be in lockdown for the next six months. Nothing will get in or out. It'll be dead silent, save for the odd insurgent getting his skin blown off. This is going to make the insurgents sit up and take notice, and it'll have the Iranians pissing in their pants. Maybe it'll force them back to the negotiating table.

But you pantywaists would rather ring your hands over global warming and "understanding Islam."

Is it remotely possible that there is finally a movement away from the disgusting meme that only people who were in favor of the war now have credibility to criticize it?

That would explain why shrub dick-suckers like Klein are now lying about being war cheerleaders right up through the 2006 election.

What we need is a Truth and Reconcilation Commission, in which everyone who did not scream loudly and publicly against the Iraq invasion starting the day after the Axis of Evil SOTU in 2002 must stand naked on national television, confess their sins, renounce shrub and beg forgiveness.

Not that they will ever, EVER get it.

I'm in the Midwest, and I definitely remember that time and how hard it was to say anything against the war. Still, Klein has at least two things to answer for:

1. His job is to state his opinion and justify it, not spout whatever position is easiest.

2. Even if he felt he couldn't speak out against the war, he CERTAINLY could have treated opponents, and liberals and progressives in general, with more respect. Instead, he denigrated them at every opportunity.

People like Klein are paid to express their opinions about why Bush and the Republicans are good for the country.

Very few pundits were courageous enough to oppose the war vigorously...and the ones that do come to mind were not invited onto TV very often. Some names that come to mind are Paul Krugman, the late Molly Ivins, and...uh...uh... Well, I can't really think of that many.

Chris "Tweety Pie" Matthews was absolutely schizo during that whole period. One minute he'd seem to oppose the war, and the next minute he and G. Gordon Liddy were drooling over the Shrub during the Mission Accomplished stunt like a couple of queens sitting in a bar as Brad Pitt walks in, shirtless.

I also haven't seen any apologies to the two very prominent politicians who were courageous enough to oppose the war, were smeared and ridiculed for their courage, and have turned out to be right: Al Gore and Howard Dean.

As bad as his silence may have been, Klein seems to me to be way down on the list of people who should be criticized for their war positions in 2002. I would start with those Democrats who actually voted for the AUMF, then go to journalists who were vocally pro-war, and only then to those who kept silent.

(This is not in defense of Klein -- I don't read him often and don't care for the guy. But I think that too many of those who actively pushed for the war have escaped scrutiny. And incredibly, some Democrats until recently were saying good things about McCain -- I think some still are).

Note Pocket Rocket's post above. Proof that we actually reached a stage of fascism. And it is scary to think that the only reason we got out of it (at least for now) is that Iraq degenerated into a civil war.

I also haven't seen any apologies to the French, who also turned out to be right.

thank you owlbear1:

it's all about ACCESS!

take a page out of woodward's wallet.

Kevin, although you set up a good question with this, I think its not about being afraid. Klein is just lying now, probably most to himself, because he had finaly clued into being a fool back then. Sad for him, his opinions are easily retrieved public record. There is just no hiding when you are a blow dried pundit.

Like Jayarbee said, Klein wasn't against the war then.

I'm sure his mother would be most upset if he was.

As for what everyone else was afraid of - it's a good, but complex question. Mostly ratings, if they were mainstream media types (their producers would surely axe articles questioning the righteousness of any American actions). And politicians wouldn't risk unpopularity.

These were sides of the same coin - ratings, votes, popularity. "America" was right, no matter what it did. (But oddly, almost half of the peons in the US did oppose it, along with about 85% of the rest of the world).

There wasn't a market for anti-war or anti-American messages or positions. These things reinforce each other, with no political opposition to give voice to anti-war positions, there was only the pro-war assertions. The media wasn't going to go out on a limb and question them - that would be "taking a side" and carried a risk. The "He said/She said" model failed since there was only one party talking.

And without a public space for anti-war positions, risk averse politicians weren't about to espouse them. Still, to this day, you get (even on this site) "if we knew then, what we know now!", or complaints focusing on the competence and execution. (It doesn't matter IF the war could have worked, it's WRONG to attack another country unprovoked). People STILL don't like to say it was wrong.

It was wrong.

egbert:

But you pantywaists would rather ring your hands over global warming and "understanding Islam."

Ring and in wring?

Or wing as in wingnut?

Sarge (101st Fighting Keyboarders)...
you got egg on your face.

Can't we quit with this idiot? He is the ultimate Wanker of the Year -- just STOP!

Because he was, and still is, a pundit with lots of influence and respect in the media. And one of the primary goals of political bloggers is to try and influence and/or correct major media figures.

At first, I thought this was admirable attempt by Klein to engage with the blogging community. But it appears he actually didn't give this much consideration -- possibly thinking it was some bit of entertainment, or slumming.

Regardless, this has been a great opportunity to communicate directly with one of the most reviled members of the elite punditry, and I am enjoying every minute of it.

And since Klein is obviously not one to accept criticism, then the uglier it gets, the better. He may not come away from this humbled, but he's definitely getting embarrassed.

Never stick your neck out. Never take a stance. That seems to be his creed. Better to snicker and sneer, best of all to do it in all directions, so there's never any blowback. He writes like a reporter with reigns loosened slightly - he nibbles at the edge, always trying to find his "objective" hook (United Nations, Israel, hawks) into the story rather than just taking issues on substantively. It probably never occurred to him to devote an entire column to the merits of the war, or lack thereof. Professional pundits don't take stances! He covers the theatrics, never the play. He never wants to be confused with an activist -- or worse, a partisan -- those people are nuts! They make signs and march and so forth. No, he'll carefully distance himself from Michael Moore just as often as Ann Coulter. And at that point, our boy Joe is playing to type, convincing the audience not to listen to the rabble in the back but to the thoughtful men on the public stage such as himself. And suddenly, he's no longer covering the theatrics, he's part of them.

The wonderful bugger from whom I stole my nom de plume, aside from writing funny little pieces about softball and the quirks of modern life, managed to crank out some beautiful columns that took on hated, ignorance, corruption, civil rights. I don't think anyone ever thought of him as a dirty f'ing hippy, but I'm quite sure no one ever called him a Cool Kid. That's what a columnist is supposed to be. Part muckraker, part gadfly, part satirist, and always, always an advocate for his readers, the people.

Nowadays we have too many Kleins (Ezra excepted), and not enough Roykos.

I sure didn't have any problem telling anyone who would listen what a stupid idea it was to invade Iraq. I can't be fired because I own the company. I can't be accused of hating the troops because I'm an Army veteran.

My then 82-year old mom was out on the streets holding signs too, and getting insulted by people who were not remotely her equal.

I still can't believe that we were outnumbered by morons.

Time has always been right of center. Henry Luce hated FDR (who was quite petty right back at him). While they made Martin Luther King Man of the Year in Jan. 64, they had repeatedly bashed him and the civil rights movement right up until then. You should read it sometime, along with the Letters to the Editor that say stuff like, "If the Negro wants equal rights, then it's up to him to prove it!" Repeatedly. Time didn't become anti-Vietnam War until November, '69 - a full two years after the Gallop polls showed most Americans thought it was all a big mistake. So Joe Klein is upholding a smug tradition. How did he get his job at time? Partly by lying about his authorship of Primary Colors. So yeah, Joe, you have an honesty issue. On Iraq, he's certainly, uh, less bad then, say, Judith Miller or Tom Freidman.

ONOH, a lot of good people got this wrong in the beginning, and it should not be cause for Democratic blood-letting. (Let's save that for Nader.) Number One is to nominate a candidate who can win and unite our Country. It's my kids' only hope.

Kevin - you seem to miss a pretty important point here.

*John Kerry, like nearly everyone in the country, thought Saddam had WMDs*

John Kerry was not lying when he said Saddam had WMDs, and neither was George Bush lying when he said Saddam had WMDs. Scan the list: Hilary, Lieberman, the CIA, John Edwards, Tony Blair, Al Gore. On and on. Everybody believed Saddam had WMDs.

(At some point I hope sane people can move away from the "Bush lied!" garbage.)

Looks like Arianna Huffington (in her "Eat The Press" section) has already made minced meat out of Joe Klein. The article Kevin linked to was Klein's response to Arianna's first attack, where she included this quote from Klein on Meet the Press a month before the war started:

Klein: "This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it-it probably is." When Tim Russert presses Klein on why he thinks Iraq is "the right war," Klein responds, "Because sooner or later, this guy has to be taken out. Saddam has -- Saddam Hussein has to be taken out... The message has to be sent because if it isn't sent now, if we don't do this now, it empowers every would-be Saddam out there and every would-be terrorist out there."

So he wasn't silent. He was openly pro-war.

And here is Arianna's response to his reponse. Worth a read.

*John Kerry, like nearly everyone in the country, thought Saddam had WMDs*

Based on the highly selective intelligence that Cheney/Bush allowed everyone else to see.

"Bush lied" means "the Bush administration lied" means they misrepresented the facts. Deal with it.

Frequency Kenneth you mislead: Gore was adamantly against the war, for starters. Heck, i believed that Saddam had MWD - but I knew these thugs were not the ones to take on Iraq. As for "Bush lied" - well, he did, actually - continuously linking Saddam and 9/11; constantly changing the rationale; trashing our allies, who had been so with us but one year before. It was the constant lies and smears, abetting by the likes of Klein, that told the true story. Or Condi Rice, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." A defining moment was what Rove et al did to Max Cleland. Let's not debate established fact.

monchie b. monchum:

I also haven't seen any apologies to the two very prominent politicians who were courageous enough to oppose the war, were smeared and ridiculed for their courage, and have turned out to be right: Al Gore and Howard Dean.

Assume the truth of this lie:

John Kerry, like nearly everyone in the country, thought Saddam had WMDs

He didn't.
Now even rude rubes like you know for sure.

Question:
So why three years later are you still content to piss lives and treasure away in Iraq?

Answer:
Because it isn't your life that's being pissed away.

Conclusion:
You are a coward and a sissy and a republican.

"Why? What was he afraid of?"

Being excluded from the A List.

Washington Media Establishment was pro war. Not just pro war but openly contemptuous of those opposed to the war. Openly mocking ridiculing anti war views. Washington Post editorial page didn't just support the war but demonized those who opposed it.

Joe Klein clearly wanted to remain a member in good standing of this group. Timid skepticism was as far as he could go without being excommunicated from the A List.

I don't know of any A List Washington pundit who openly opposed the war. Maybe polite criticism of rushing in but that was about it.

Paul Krugman opposed it passionately but he is not a Washington pundit. He is not a member of that group. He doesn't live in Washington and doesn't socialize with that group.

In short Joe Klein did not have the courage to speak up and risk expulsion from this cozy group.

John Owens at 10:46PM is entirely correct. Feingold must be recognized as the only Democratic senator who voted not only against the AUMF but also against the Patriot Act (which passed 98-1).

And he spoke eloquently at the time for the reasons that was the correct course. Six years later, and after the full assault on civil liberties that followd the PA, Feingold looks awfully smart. Here are his concluding remarks from the speech he gave on the Senate floor in October 2001:

But the Congress will fulfill its duty only when it protects both the American people and the freedoms at the foundation of American society. So let us preserve our heritage of basic rights. Let us practice as well as preach that liberty. And let us fight to maintain that freedom that we call America.

"Did Kaus finally get something right for a change? Is he worth reading again?"

No.

If you want to read GOP hacks go straight to Newsmax.

Huffington's response to Klien is great-thanks to JS above for the link. Here's the real gem:

"4. While I'm more than willing to accept your claim that, in October 2002, in the privacy of his Senate office, you told John Kerry that you wouldn't vote to give the president the authority to invade Iraq, this only makes your unwillingness to say the same thing publicly all the more cowardly, and your attempt to, in hindsight, make it seem like you did, all the more pathetic. You had the platform, you just lacked the spine."

Yep.

First, an awful lot of Democratic Senators were scared, too. There was a handful of heros, but strong opponents of Bush, like Senator Tom Harkin were scared to stick their necks out. Partially, it was concern about upcoming elections in a time of hard--and blind--patriotism. Partially, it was a fear that Bush had more intelligence than he was letting on, in an effort to set up and then dump on opponents. Klein was part of this gutless group.

Second, plenty of prominent people did NOT think that Iraq had WMDs. Many people believed that Saddam had some remaining chemical weapons stored, but most of the evidence indicated that he had not restarted nuclear weapon development and even if he had, was not remotely close to deployment. Cowed by the patriotism card, many of these people repeated Bush lines about concern that we would ultimately need to tangle with Saddam. But just off the mainstream press pages, much evidence indicated that aluminum tubes had nothing to do with WMD and yellow cake was a fraud.

This war was a sham from the beginning and one did not need access to high-level intelligence to know that. But now to put a good face on it, many senators must convince themselves that they were lied to or that our intelligence services were wrong. We were lied to and our intelligence was wrong, but even with that, you could oppose this war.

The fact is that Bush made out his best case and the evidence didn't justify war. Now we know that the evidence he used was not accurate anyway. Klein merely joins a whole bunch of elected representatives in his unwillingness to risk his career by doing the right thing.

The only proper response from those who chose this path is to apologize. Klein should do it, Hillary Clinton should do it, a number of others should do it. Klein at least admitted he was stupid. Now he must admit he was weak.

Columnists like Joe Klein should look for jobs inside the Bush Administration.

You can be dead wrong about everything and still win the Medal of Freedom.

I think this should the the end of tenured pundits.

"Professional pundits don't take stances!"

Right wing pundits have no problem taking stances. It is the so called centrist pundits who have problem taking a strong position.

Unfortunately on TV shows they usually pair 2-3 foaming at the mouth right wing pundits with a mild centrist and call it balance.

Nan -- Mickey Kaus is a Democrat, He supported John Kerry for President. I wish he were a Republican.

Kaus is one of the all-too-rare members of either party who is happy to criticize things that are wrong with his own party. Also, his points are intelligently stated and usually well supported.

"Klein merely joins a whole bunch of elected representatives in his unwillingness to risk his career by doing the right thing."

But Klein is not an elected representative. Time magazine supposedly pays him to write his opinion. Free and fair. Or so they say. Obviously this is a sham system. Pundits like Klein are not free to write what they think. Not if they want to remain a member of the A List.

"Nan -- Mickey Kaus is a Democrat, He supported John Kerry for President."

How do you know? Because he said so?

Wake up. Kaus is not a Democrat. He likes striking contrarian poses a la George Orwell because back in the day it was the cool thing to do. Kaus would feel right at home in Newsmax or at the Corner. Kaus' "I'm a Democrat but" act is stale. Nobody is buying it.

Here’s another example of scumbag Klein equivocating and backpedaling about war.

Klein first insults Kerry by calling him Frenchy in a previous post and then uses him as an alibi in another post. He can't even stay on the same side of who he likes and dislikes.

It's telling that almost every instance of Klein supporting the war is televised on either NBC or MSNBC. I'm sure he drifts off to dreamland with fantasies of "Coming up on Prime Time With Joe Klein!"
Saying things Monsignor Russert disagrees with is not the way to get your own show.

Mrs. Clinton pledges to bring the troops home as a first priority if she is elected president.

That's good enough for me.

Let's get on with it.

Two words about courage: Barbara Lee.
You've mentioned Gore and Dean and the like. How much balls do you think it took for this black woman to say NO?

What were they afraid of?

Ask the Dixie Chicks, Cindy Sheehan and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about that one.

Simple answers to simple questions.

For those of you who want the troops brought home in four to six months, fine. Arguably, that's a credible position. Argue away.

Kevin wrote:
"Why? What was he afraid of? Ditto for anyone else who does this kind of thing, since this phenomenon is hardly limited to Iraq or Joe Klein. What are they all afraid of?"

My response:
The poor man caught hisself the worst case of performance (er, castration) anxiety I ever seen.

Hey Joe -- taking you at your word -- the events of the last four years must make you (as an early opponent of the war) quite-righteously focking mad. How about expressing that anger RIGHT NOW and LOUDLY? How about really and truly joining war opponents? It isn't over by a long shot -- there's ample opportunity for you to redeem your whisper-garbled (and thus enabling) opposition of 2002.

Grab the megaphone and start screaming, Joe. You've got the ear of one of the few constituencies left in the U.S. that hasn't turned sour on the debacle -- the Washington elite. I'm sure you know some influential war supporters. Make it uncomfortable for them to read you. Make them cringe when they see you having cocktails at Signatures. Be an anti-war hero, for christ-sake.

Joe, I promise that if you start devoting your print and on-line space to full-throated, non-triangulating, non-hippy-bashing ANGER, I will do everything in my power to introduce the following aphorism into the English lexicon, "When you've lost Klein, you've lost the Washington elite." I'll also promise to subscribe to Time. (Well, maybe I'll just give it to someone as a gift ... but I'll definitely read it at the doctor's office when I haven't read the other magazines on my doctor's waiting room table ... or if someone leaves a copy in the men's room bathroom at work).

Robert: See Edward Luttwak in today's NY Times. The troops aren't accomplishing anything because they can't possibly get intelligence or insert themselves cogently into the Iraqi political scene; they're like dumb signposts, everybody just moves around them, takes an occasional shot at them, and ducks for cover when they start shooting.

This explains why inserting more US troops has never done anything to improve security in Baghdad, and never will. Taking them out will do nothing to increase violence in Iraq, or to decrease it; it has no effect one way or the other. Our troops' sacrifices accomplish nothing, and keeping them there does nothing to redeem the sacrifices of those who have already fallen; it only adds to the toll.

However, also taking him at his word that the columns he links to are the best examples he has of his opposition...What are they all afraid of?

Maybe afraid of posts just like this and of Huffington's. Do you now have to prove you were a thoughtless rabid anti-war dog devoid of cognitive ability to qualify for club membership? Christ on a crutch, whatever happened to thoughtful discourse? This is assinine and uncalled for.

While I am no Klein defender/apologists, the links in the excerpt posted are not particularly the "best examples" and only tell half the tale; e.g.:

• A Screech of Hawks, Jan. 27, 2003:

  This raises the larger, more distressing political question. The Bush Administration has seemed to hurtle thoughtlessly toward this moment of truth, in a lather of righteous arrogance and dim-witted machismo.

• How Israel Is Wrapped Up in Iraq, Feb. 05, 2003:

  In his State of the Union message, President Bush devoted only a single, lapidary sentence to the most nagging of all foreign policy dilemmas: "In the Middle East, we will continue to seek peace between a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine." This was both appropriate and misleading.

• Two Cheers for the Peacekeepers, Mar. 17, 2003:

  What on earth has happened to American conservatism? It used to be a reliably dour movement, a sober restraint upon the wishful thinking of mushy-minded liberals. But it has slipped, somehow, from realism to utopian fantasy.

We don't run the government.

However, also taking him at his word that the columns he links to are the best examples he has of his opposition...What are they all afraid of?

Maybe afraid of posts just like this and of Huffington's. Do you now have to prove you were a thoughtless rabid anti-war automaton devoid of cognitive ability to qualify for club membership? Jeez.. whatever happened to thoughtful discourse?

While I am no Klein defender/apologists, the links in the excerpt posted are not particularly the "best examples" and only tell half the tale; e.g.:

• A Screech of Hawks, Jan. 27, 2003:

  This raises the larger, more distressing political question. The Bush Administration has seemed to hurtle thoughtlessly toward this moment of truth, in a lather of righteous arrogance and dim-witted machismo.

• How Israel Is Wrapped Up in Iraq, Feb. 05, 2003:

  In his State of the Union message, President Bush devoted only a single, lapidary sentence to the most nagging of all foreign policy dilemmas: "In the Middle East, we will continue to seek peace between a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine." This was both appropriate and misleading.

• Two Cheers for the Peacekeepers, Mar. 17, 2003:

  What on earth has happened to American conservatism? It used to be a reliably dour movement, a sober restraint upon the wishful thinking of mushy-minded liberals. But it has slipped, somehow, from realism to utopian fantasy.

It's pretty easy to see what they were afraid of - they were afraid of being painted as hippy liberal peaceniks.

That's how out here in CA by the bays we knew which of our congresscritters were conserative - including Pelosi.

Call it "Gulf War I Syndrome." It was the fear that people had that Gulf War II would be the same cakewalk that Gulf War I was, despite the fact that expelling Iraq from Kuwait was a far easier mission than toppling Iraq's government and turning it into a democracy.

Klein was afraid that Bush would invade despite opposition and that it would go quickly and that opponents would look bad for opposing an obvious winner.

It would be far too easy to bash or put down for his silence. Afterall, so many were.
I do think we need to come to the issue we never talk about. Why were so many afraid? This administation were bullies who set the noise machine on high octave to go after anyone who questioned or criticized. People were scared. it's easy to look back and be mean. but, we must look at it from the view that many had bills to pay and stay employed. Many had other things they needed to protect like families. Death threats are scary.
My mother is from France. During that time I feared she would be hurt by some crazy. A french bistro was vandalized badly then and it was not too far from mom's house.
Some had more strength than others. But, those who did not speak out were clearly scared.
Those who voted for the war were scared to be destroyed publicly and vilified as cowards and traitors. No one could know how it'd would turn out and if everything came out great, what would the attitudes be?
My senators were against this war and one voted against and the other wasn't there at the time.
I knew it was bad. But, I don't look back and hate those who did as they did. it's easy to look back and throw rocks.

No, not everyone thought Saddam had WMD. Scott Ritter was saying at the time that he did not, and Ritter was demonized and accused of being a traitor and an Iraqi agent. The same cable news networks that had Ritter on all the time when he attacked the Clinton administration from the right for not being aggressive enough with Iraq suddenly turned on him when he took a position they didn't like.

Ritter's position was literally considered unspeakable; no one who felt as he did was invited to appear on television.

Having their super-special pundit decoder rings revoked?

Joe Buck: Ritter's position was literally considered unspeakable; no one who felt as he did was invited to appear on television.

Joe, as best I recall, of those with a background to appear on TV, there were no others who felt as Ritter did. That is, I do not recall a single politician or well-known pundit who said in any part of the media that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

The chemical weapons in particular looked obvious. Saddam was known to have had chemical weapons when he pushed the UN inspectors out in 1998. It's hard to understand why he would have voluntarily destroyed those weapons once the inspectors were gone.

Do you think it's likely that Kerry will go public and call Klein a liar?

It's hard to understand why he would have voluntarily destroyed those weapons once the inspectors were gone.

only for morons.

for the rest of us who simply followed the story with a critical eye -- not so hard to correctly and easily predict there would be no wmd's.

but let's say I live in bizarro world like you where my IQ is 80 and I swallow this shit hook, line and sinker -- who the fuck CARES if Iraq has WMD?? they had nothing to do with 9/11 and lots of countries have wmd's, including us.

there was simply no legal basis for going after them and, as time has proven -- absolutely no strategic basis for doing so that wasn't mired in fantasy.

I do not recall a single politician or well-known pundit who said in any part of the media that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

But I'm sure you recall plenty who said that we should let the inspections proceed -- especially at a time when Blix was saying that the inspections were making progress, Iraq was cooperating, and the truth would soon be known. Ex-lib, it was that progress Blix was talking about that created haste to go to war -- your guys were worried that the inspectors would finally come up with a "no WMD" verdict. And we couldn't have that.

And as st points out, going after a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 at a time when 9/11 was the problem should was crime.

but I wouldn't be voting that way

Is that a simple conditional hypothetical or a statement unintentionally displaying Klein's grandiose self-image: opinion maker, world leader, etc.

Mainstream pundits like Klein and Friedman and Broder and Cohen all write for large, diverse audiences. Thus, they dance around all sides of every issue, bend over to appear reasonable, and end up not saying anything worthwhile. And their editors have to answer to their corporate superiors, and the net result is that we get served up the journalistic equivalent of Coors Lite. Thank god for the blogosphere...!

Just to reinforce JS, if I remember right, the administration with Colin Powell at one stage told the inspectors that they knew where the WMD and facilities were and would help them find them. It was the one time they overplayed their hand; it seemed a convincing ploy that they really believed their own lies. Then every time the inspectors followed up on information there was nothing there. And it's pretty hard to clean any weapons site of all contamination, even if given years to do it. Certainly we can't do it here.

So it backfired. Blix is quite drole about the water trucks and such like he was guided to. Then we couldn't have any final report so better get to war, asap.

The reason Joe Klein deservedly gets it in the neck is for being revisionist over his own history and following that up with selfrighteousness when he is called on it.

That makes him a pompous, self-serving ass that deserves the very heavy deflation he is getting on the Time blog. To hell with him. It will reflect badly on Time if they can't see what a hopeless pile of poop they're wasting paper on.

Remember this: "A conservative academic group founded by Lynne Cheney, the wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, fired a new salvo in the culture wars by blasting 40 college professors as well as the president of Wesleyan University and others for not showing enough patriotism in the aftermath of Sept. 11."

Has anybody seen Phil Donahue since he was fired (with the best ratings) from MSNBC?

All that we are left with are the cowardly collaborators.

I don't know enough about Broder and Cohen to care, but Tom Friedman is the same selfserving type as Klein.

He looks around to find a hackneyed cliché and makes it into a one-liner that he then grows into a "new" theory that he can speechify on, get paid big bucks, and that ignorant people can nod knowledgably about and believe there is some new wisdom.

The World is Flat = The Law of Comparative Advantage.

It's been coming with increasing rapidity in line with the growth in world trade. Perot called it "the big sucking sound" and it worked for him, too, but that was for a political campaign.

I'm not in the position to have talked to any real economists about Tom Friedman, but I'm thinking it says someething about our present society that we go to a stilted journalist and think he's got something original.

It's a sad joke. But he's just a carpetbagger.

No, not everyone thought Saddam had WMD. Scott Ritter was saying at the time that he did not, and Ritter was demonized and accused of being a traitor and an Iraqi agent.

More than that: "Scott Ritter, arrested sex offender."

Bush-Cheney were bent on going to war even if it meant smearing every last dissenter.

Joe Klein's tentative "toe in the water" act notwithstanding, please explain to me why everyone here is talking in the past tense?

This war is far from over, Bush-Cheney and the GOP are not anywhere close to saying "Uncle" (Mitch McConnell, Joe Lieberman and friends in the Senate today show us that) and we're on the eve of Bush-Cheney's next big adventure: Iran.

That "conservative academic group" Maeven mentioned was actually founded by Lynne Cheney and Joe Lieberman together. It wasn't really academic -- it had academic institutions as its target. It was formed to try to influence conservative donors to universities to attach strings to their donations. The intention was to influence academic hiring (in a conservative direction) in return for dollars.

By the way that link was broken, here it is corrected. And here is another one with Joe in the title.

While I'm on at Friedman, Ill add.

I've listened to him talk about The World Is Flat and I might have to admit that he actually believes he is a bloody genius, has discovered some new "paradigm", some new way of looking and explaining something, but is actually so intellectually incurious and narrow and self-believing that he doesn't even bother to look around to see if anybody already knew about his "discovery" and explained it better and in an intellectually more honest way.

Oh, well. He's rich. I'm not. So I'll put it down to jealousy and not worry how shallow our society is becoming.

The fact that Joe Klein penned the thinly-veiled Clinton tell-all novel Primary Colors as "Anonymous", then lied about it when his identidy was revealed, tells you all you need to know about him.

Anyway, I'll let stand as the definitive post on this rather tired subject Arriana Huffington's response to Klein.

JS --

Thanks for those links and the reminder. Somehow I completely forgot about Lieberman being involved in that pernicious escapade.

I've never liked him so how could I forget? Pity the majority is only one. He really does have bad instincts and bad judgement.

Oops.

Thanks for cleaning up after me, JS.

Joe doesn't seem to know
whether he's Arthur or Martha
it's really almost a thriller.
Could it be he's yet to decide?
Who am I really? A Sanger or a Miller?

Joke line - bumped into Bill Kristol the other day and showed him some documentary evidence of the Kellog-Briand pact and the Nuremberg precedent.
He smiled as he handed it back, ' Why this just proves my thesis!', he exclaimed. The Left are trying to outlaw politics-by-other-means!'

Kaus is one of the all-too-rare members of either party who is happy to criticize things that are wrong with his own party.

Um, that's his shtick. And he isn't paid to criticize things that are wrong with his own party. He is paid to criticize his "own" party. If he didn't do that, he wouldn't have a job. "Consistently contrarian" may fill a niche of readers who find that "original," but the rest of us caught on to the uninteresting pattern a long time ago.

In 2004 I wrote a letter to the Editor of my local paper, saying that not only had Bush taken us to war with Iraq on false pretenses, but that Bush was, in fact, not a Texas native but from Connecticut, a former Andover cheerleader, son of a Former President and grandson of a Nazi Collaborator...
I was attacked personally and called a traitor in front of the store (in Trendy Blue Ridge GA) I managed. It was boycotted by local right wingers...
There was a real sense among loyal Republicans that they could supress any dissent and that they had the right to. From my perspective, they were largely successful.

Bush lied. And all the flunkies fell in line behind the lie. To invoke their "fear" is to assume they are not flunkies. Why would anyone make that assumption? Look at the trolls here. Was/is their "fear" a factor? No. Flunkies are flunkies. They just come in different sizes. We get little ones. The NYT gets big ones.

The Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, lawmakers said Tuesday.

Four billion plus dollars for the Iraqi people who never lifted a hand to help themselves out of despotism.

Not one extra dime than the very, very minimum for Katrina victims and America's elderly, poor, and needy.

That's the way conservatives spend your tax dollars.

Four billions plus dollars to try to save Bush's ass from his own arrogance, dishonesty, incompetence, and corruption.

Not a single dime more than the very, very minimum for global warming, stem cell research, port security for our homeland, enhanced foreign intelligence, going after bin Laden and the real perpetrators of 9/11, going after actual terrorists, going after nations that actually do sponsor terrorism, or providing medical care for all Americans.

That's the way conservatives spend your tax dollars.

They spend American tax dollars on administration shills, they funnel American tax dollars to wealthy campaign contributors for kickbacks into their GOP campaign coffers, they spend American tax dollars on government-sponsored partisan propaganda and false advertising for GOP initiatives, and they waste American tax dollars on an open-ended war and then lie about it.

"I have no knowledge of monies being diverted. I would certainly be concerned if I thought they were," Bremer said. He pointed out that the problem of fake names on the payroll existed before the U.S.-led invasion.

So, basically Bremer is saying the US knew that the payrolls were problematic and that many people would get money they were not entitled too, including perhaps terrorists and insurgents, but they went ahead and did it anyway.

Yeah, baby!

The special inspector general for Iraqi reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, said in a January 2005 report that $8.8 billion was unaccounted for after being given to the Iraqi ministries. "We were in the middle of a war, working in very difficult conditions, and we had to move quickly to get this Iraqi money working for the Iraqi people," Bremer told lawmakers. He said there was no banking system and it would have been impossible to apply modern accounting standards in the midst of a war.

So, again, they knew they weren't going to be able to account for the money and that therefore there would be huge amounts of waste and diversion to people opposing the invasion, but they did it anyway.

Wonder how much of the cash actually went to GOP candidates or supporters instead of the Iraqis.

"We are in a war against terrorists, to have a blame meeting isn't, in my opinion, constructive," said Rep. Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican.

We are not in a war against terrorists.

We are in a war against insurgents, Iraqi patriots, fighting against an illegal invasion of their country.

Wonder where Dan Burton was when Clinton was fighting against genocidal tyrants in Yugoslavia.

Don't have to. He was busy playing the blame game, quite willing to let hundreds of thousands or even millions of people be slaughtered and buried in mass graves.

If Burton didn't want the blame game played, then maybe he and the president shouldn't have done things they can rightly be blamed for, such as lying, stealing, cheating, torturing, and murdering.

RM has an excellent point. I clearly remember the message that we must trust the President because he had access to irrefutable top secret intelligence that he just couldn't reveal. Surely Daddy knows best. Everyone just had to trust him and not question. To not trust the President was unpatriotic. Then the truth finally comes out that no, there was no top secret evidence. They just cherry-picked whatever they could find, and bullied everyone into believing it.

Google_This wonders where Rep Dan Burton was during the wars in the former Yugoslavia.

Well, for one, he was signing on with Rep Ron Paul, Joe Scarborough, Bob Barr, Tom Tancredo and others in filing suit in Federal Court against Clinton for violating both the US Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act by sending our military into action in the Balkans without declaring war - Burton also tried to cut off funds.

It's easy to forget now, but everyone in politics and in the press was afraid to speak their mind against the war back then.

For rather selective values of "everyone"; its hardly as if, for instance, the vote for the war resolution was unanimous.

Klein may have opposed the war, but he was patriotic enough to keep his opinions to himself.

I would have liked Klein to have come out and said what he was thining, but I wonder: was it some reluctance to take off the "journalist hat" and put on the "opinion columnist" hat? Guys like Klein keep us guessing as to which one they are. It's not very helpful for his readers to have to guess. Either he should explicitly choose a role and stick to it, or at least explicitly tell readers in every written piece he puts out (or TV appearance he makes) what role he's playing.

To Frequency Kenneth -- For the umpteenth time, NOT everyone believed that Hussein had WMD. First among many, the UN inspectors in Iraq did NOT believe it. The CIA did NOT believe that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger. The US atomic experts did NOT believe that aluminum tubes were for ultra centrifuges. The people in a position to know did NOT believe Curveball. Those in a position to know did NOT believe that Powell's trailers were "mobile chemical or biological weapons labs". The September 11 Commission did NOT believe that there was any evidence that a savagely secular Hussein was collaborating with a savagely anti-secular Al Qaeda. The editor of one of the country's most main stream news journals (I recall it as Newsweek; of that I am not certain, but of the words spoken, and of the utterly mainstream status of the journal I am absolutely certain) did NOT believe that the US would be welcomed in Iraq; on the contrary, his words were, "The Iraqis say that they would be happy to have the US depose Hussein; they (they Iraqis) know that they cannot do it, so they say, 'Let the US get rid of Hussein; then we'll get rid of the US (a much easier task'". I sat in my car in a shopping center parking lot listening to the interview on the radio, before Shock and Awe got under way, and I thought, "My lord, if THESE people are talking this way . . . maybe there's hope." O sancta simplicitas! People whose expertise lay in the Middle East, in Iraq, did NOT believe the Cheney/Chalabi/Wolfowitz/Perle claims regarding either the reception the US would receive in Iraq or the ease with which the US would prevail there. Were Bush and those others who spoke in his favor lying? I don't know. Perhaps as Peter Kilfoyle, a former UK defence minister, is quoted by the Independent as saying of Tony Blair's statements on the UK relationship with the US, "It is delusional." Or as Alan Simpson, the MP for Nottingham South, is quoted as saying of Blair, "This is the politics of dangerous self-delusion." If it is not, with Bush/Cheney/Chalabi/Wolfowitz/Perle, lying, it is indeed "dangerous self-delusion." And why, if what we faced, and still face, as more and more are killed, maimed, traumatized in Iraq, was merely "dangerous self-delusion", and not the high crime or misdemeanor of lying the country into war(s), why then were Cheney and Rumsfeld compelling the intelligence people to write their reports the way Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to see them. NOT "everyone" believed what Bush was saying, and NOT all of those who did not believe were incredulous out of animus rather than wisdom and knowledge. Wisdom and knowledge -- rarely has this country been so long in the grip of those with so little of either and so much of arrogance and an utter disdain for the institutions (including the presidency, as defined by the Constitution rather than by the neo-cons) that allowed the country to flourish against such odds. In any event, it is NOT garbage to say, "Bush lied". If he hasn't been lying, the alternative situation may be even harder to correct, and therefore far more dangerous.

I marched against starting this war.

When I showed pictures of the march to a mixed group of people I was called a traitor and a "Saddam Lover" to my face, it was not a joke.

People like Joe Klein should get down on their knees and kiss the ass of everyone in the world who marched on 2/15/03.
Yes all 30 MILLION of us.

Joe, as best I recall, of those with a background to appear on TV, there were no others who felt as Ritter did. That is, I do not recall a single politician or well-known pundit who said in any part of the media that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

You're missing a huge distinction--Ritter, unlike all those others "with a background to appear on TV"(whatever the hell that means), Ritter was a weapons inspector who had, you know, actually been to Iraq and searched for WMD.
But why should anyone listen to him when you've got umpteen chickenhawk pussies shrieking about mushroom clouds?

"Intelligence sources say Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson's cover was blown, the Administration's ability to track Iran's nuclear ambitions was damaged as well."

Let us not forget Ms. Plame, an WMD/Iran monitoring agent sacrificed for mere payback. Going against Bush/Cheney was a lesson fast learned in WA.

I am reminded by the post of Feckless (who clearly is not) that on 02.14.03 my wife and I were in Paris. When we came up out of the Metro station for Valentine's Day dinner marchers were going by on the boulevard, curb to curb, as far as one could see in both directions. They kept on going by for some time. My French could stand improvement, but it was and is good enough to know that THEY did NOT believe that Hussein had WMD.

Like other posters, I resent the lie that at some particular time "everybody" believed that Sadaam had WMD. I didn't. When I saw Powell's lame presentation, and Blair's flimsy dossier, I was far from convinced. The only doubt I had was that they had a lot more evidence, but were unwilling to reveal it for security reasons - the vile Dick Cheney implied just that at one stage, with Larry King I think, and no doubt everywhere else.

Little did I know it was just a bunch of out-and-out liars - Chalabi, the oily Mansoor Ijaz, and all the rest.

Australia's John Howard, snake that he is, was clever enough not to make any clear cut statements that might come back to haunt him. He never does. He just went along, taking an unwilling country with him. He is still in power because the small Australian force in Iraq has been extremely fortunate.

I used to have an Australian flag decal on my car. No more. Patriotism has been hijacked by the scum of the earth.

JS made this significant observation on Feb 6. "Note Pocket Rocket's post above. Proof that we actually reached a stage of fascism. And it is scary to think that the only reason we got out of it (at least for now) is that Iraq degenerated into a civil war."

I was living in France from April 2002, til April 2005, and my news sources were quite different from those of the average Americans.

When I heard the 16 words in the SOTU speech, I agreed we should take out Saddam Hussein. When I saw Condoleeza Rice's pathetic exhibit on aluminum tubes, and Colin Powell's tragic display of mobile biological labs, I started to have doubts.

The French were more afraid of the consequences of the invasion than they were of Saddam Hussein. I never met one Brit that supported Tony Blair's position.

The question most asked by the French: How could Americans elect George Bush? Twice?

The Social Dawinists have not given up, despite the setback of the mid-term elections. The real war against terrorism is being fought here and now, in America, in the Red States, and will end in November 2008.

The comments to this post have addressed several essential issues, I think, but I was reminded by a letter in this morning's Phila. Inquirer that the original post asked the specific question, "for five solid months he opposed the upcoming war in Iraq but never wrote a single word clearly saying so in public.Why? What was he afraid of? Ditto for anyone else who does this kind of thing, since this phenomenon is hardly limited to Iraq or Joe Klein. What are they all afraid of?"

Perhaps "they" are afraid of views such as the one expressed in the letter to the Inquirer:

"With the president, 100 senators and 435 congressmen all skirting around what they really would like to say regarding Iraq, please let me be blunt and tell it like it is. It's simple: The hatred of liberals for George Bush is so strong that they don't want America to win this war. Why? Because that would make Bush look right, and that's something they can't tolerate. In addition, liberals don't want the troop surge to work - for the same reason. Do you really think the Nancy Pelosis, Harry Reids, Chuck Schumers, Ted Kennedys, and Hillary Clintons of the world really want America to succeed to secure Iraq? Of course not. Even if the troop surge works, are the CNNs, MSNBCs, and CBSs going to say it worked? No way. What a sad and pitiful way to live your life, hating someone so badly that you want America to lose this war."

Hector, how would you feel if you said in a business meeting that the company you work for is going down the wrong path and you were told that you hated your company? Would you consider that a fair way of arguing?

To say that liberals hate their country because they disagree with one president's policies is not very smart. When the conservatives disagreed with Carter or Clinton, was it because the conservatives then hated their country?

Sorry Hector, re-reading your post I realize that you were not defending the writer of the letter -- rather, the opposite.

Thank you, JS -- I was not at all defending the letter writer. I WAS trying to make the point that people like Feckless (who, as I said, clearly is not) deserve a lot of credit for speaking out in a world where people like the letter writer ALSO speak out, and hold more than a bit of sway, even with a growing majority opposed to the war. And beyond that, the comments here do, I think, suggest that with the restraint decent people feel in this country, a country that is not by any means the Germany of 1939 or the Japan of late 1941, we should be a bit humble in denouncing Germans and Japanese for not "speaking out" against the Nazis or the forces moving Japan to war in the Pacific.