I am now convinced that Time's new blog, Swampland, was an evil plot hatched by Wonkette Ana Marie Cox (Time.com's editor) to expose Joe Klein and Jay Carney as the know-nothing hacks that they are.
I mean, we've spent the last month in the blogosphere documenting McCain's flailings on the Iraq issue.
First, troop levels. Ever since President Bush unveiled his escalation proposal, McCain has been saying that he's "worried" that the 21,500 troop increase might not be enough and has been saying that he would have preferred to send more. But here's the thing: Before Bush unveiled his proposal, McCain himself actually volunteered that he thought a lower number than that would be enough.
He said very clearly back in October: "Roughly, you need another 20,000 troops in Iraq." Again, McCain himself volunteered that number. He did the same thing on another occasion. You can't volunteer a number that you say you think will work and then turn around and say that you're worried that a larger number might not work and that you actually wanted to send more than that larger number. That's not consistent at all.
Second, McCain's been quite inconsistent in his assessments of our progress in Iraq. The other day, for instance, McCain "grilled" General George Casey at a Senate hearing, blasting Casey by saying that over the past two and a half years, "things have gotten markedly and progressively worse" in Iraq.
But even a cursory bit of research shows that this criticism from McCain was completely inconsistent with his own past statements. During the same period that McCain said saw things get "markedly and progressively worse," McCain himself repeatedly offered optimistic assessments and even said several times that things were improving in Iraq. You can't say that things are getting better in Iraq before Election Day and then turn around after the election and say that things got markedly and progressively worse during the same time period. That's not consistent, either.
Sometimes, McCain flips on the issue within the same minute. There's also this, and this. And I could go on, but the point has been made.
Yet despite the near-real-time documentation of McCain's lack of consistency on Iraq, here comes Joe Klein, once again betraying his ignorant allegiance to stale DC beltway conventional wisdom:
McCain, whether you agree with him or not, has been entirely consistent about the war [...] I admire McCain's honorable willingness to take this unpopular position into the 2008 election.
Hilarious! Don't mind the facts, the DC gasbags will cling to their McCain narrative to the bitter end.
For good measure, Klein throws in this line, which he is fond of using these days:
I disagreed with him about going to war in 2003 [...]
Interesting that Klein was nowhere to be found on this issue in 2003.
One other quick thing on Joe Klein: He protests, possibly rightly, that he was an opponent of the war. And let's take the most forgiving interpretation of this quote and judge it a moment of televised self-doubt and/or relativism. That's the point. Klein may, in his hearts of hearts, abhor violence. And, late at night, he may shed copious tears for the mangled bodies and wounded souls being spit out by this grinding conflict. But the possible war in Iraq was the biggest issue in American politics for over a year. Try finding me ten columns where Klein opposed it. Find me five. Find me one -- just one! -- in Time about what a terrible idea all this is, and how the country will be morally and tangibly harmed by an invasion. Klein's example is from Slate, an insidery, online-only publication -- not from his prominent slot at CW-creator Time.
If Klein really was confidently prescient about our impending folly, then he was quiet and timid during a time when he could've played a leading role legitimizing anti-war opinion and diverting the country's disastrous trajectory. How different would the atmosphere have been if the talk shows could've booked Joe Klein, rather than Janeane Garofalo, to argue against the invasion? That Klein remained circumspect during the moment when his judgment could have mattered is all the worse, and it discredits him from associating with those who stood tall, said no, and paid a public price for their courage.
When people ask why Daily Kos grew so rapidly in its early days, I have a stock response:
"People were hungry for strong, unapologetic liberals, and those where completely absent from the media landscape. I mean, who did progressive have supposedly representing their side? Joe Frickin' Klein. Is it any wonder blogs grew in response?"
In short, my theory is that Daily Kos exists because of Joe Klein.
So thanks Ana Marie. You've given us a tool to validate, on a daily basis, the entire raison d’être for our bloggy existence.