Who cares what Joe Klein writes?

Two diaries discuss the recent Time opinion piece by Joe Klein: More on the Time idiocy by Kagen X and Time's laughable "correction" by Kos.  They take issue with Time magazine for its "correction" of a statement by Klein regarding provisions of the Democrat's take on FISA.

Who cares? Based on what Klein writes, the man is an idiot ideologue.

Kline wrote,

Senator Christopher Dodd had a nice moment in the Democrats' Las Vegas presidential debate.

So what was Dodd's "nice moment"? He answered Wolf Blitzer's Republican-framed question like a Republican.  In other words, Kline thinks Democrats have "nice moments" if they sound like Republicans.

Klein praises the Republican response and doesn't have the sense to analyze the inherent falsehood of Blitzer's question.

Blitzer asked Richardson,

"What you're saying, Governor, is that human rights, at times, are more important than American national security?"

The question is spurious, because it takes two categories that are not mutually exclusive and presents them as an either/or question.  It presumes that "national security" is a separate item of concern from "human rights".  The question makes unwarranted assumptions about "national security."  

Blitzer might just as well have asked if oil rights are more important than American national security?  The reality is that both human rights and oil rights are pieces in the puzzle of national security. And in most cases, the protection of human rights is more necessary for protecting American national security than protection of oil rights.  

Klein writes

It was Dodd's turn next, and he said without hesitation, "Obviously, national security, keeping the country safe." He was quickly seconded by Clinton: "I agree with that completely."

Obviously, that answer is stupid because it asserts that "national security" is alwahys more more important than protecting human rights because it says protecting human rights is not sometimes more important than national security.  

In some situations, it is more important to protect human rights than to protect national security. For example, is a US citizen says something against the Prophet Mohammed which fundamentalist Muslims find offensive and threaten the USA if the person is not prosecuted, then protecting the human right of free speech is more important than the national security interest of avoiding a terrorist attack.

In other words, sometimes protecting national security means not worring about unreasonable threats to national security.    

What would have been some good responses to Blitzer? He could have been asked, "Wolf, are you suggesting that there is no situation where protecting human rights is more important than a perceived threat to national security?"  Or "What do you mean by national security, because as I see it human rights and national security are mutuallly integrated American ideals both requiring protection without denigrating the other." Or perhaps "Wolf, are you disagreeing with Benjamin Franklin's adage that those who would give up essential liberty for temporaty safety deserve neither?" Or "Wolk, why do you frame the question in a Repubican manner that misrepresents the legitimate concerns for both?"

Klein opines

If the Democrats want to win in 2008, they can't be mealymouthed on issues of national security.

But if Democrats want to be anything in 2008, they can't take the mealymouthed approach that Klein offers. Taking positions on national security that amount to nothing more than Republican clap-trap make Democrats unworthy of support becasue if that is what you are interested in anyway you know that the Republicans play that propaganda card of fear better than the Democrats ever will or should.

Klein continues with the false Republican claim that there is "progress in Iraq" and Democrats had better recognize this.  In fact there is no progress in Iraq, there has been only a temporary cease fire while the parties wauted to see what the US policy was going to be.  Now that Bush has announced a deal with Malaki to establish permanent military bases in Iraq we can presume that the cease fire will end soon.  In fact, the bombings have increased over the last few days which signals the end of the lull in the fighting.

Klein's FISA comments are set within this potpouri of Republican framed spins.  Klein says

The Democratic strategy on the FISA legislation in the House is equally foolish.

But Klein's explanation is so vague that it makes no sense at all. First Klein says that the biparisan approach is that

if a suspicious pattern of calls from a terrorist suspect to a U.S. citizen is found, a FISA court warrant is necessary to monitor those communications.

He then says

Unfortunately, Speaker Nancy Pelosi quashed the House Intelligence Committee's bipartisan effort and supported a Democratic bill that — Limbaugh is salivating — House Republicans believe would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target's calls to be approved by the FISA court, an institution founded to protect the rights of U.S. citizens only. (Democrats dispute this interpretation.) In the lethal shorthand of political advertising, it would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans. That is well beyond stupid.

Klein thus presents two different scenarios (one where a US citizen is involved and the other where no US ciizen is involved) as if the Democrats are saying the two scenarios should be treated the same. But that is not what they are saying that at all. Not only that, but Klein writes as if this question is a matter of opinion and not something that can be ascertained by a journalist reviewing the text. AND THEN Klein goes on say that because Repubicans can misrepresent what the Democrat's version of the bill says the Democrats are stupid to support their version. How stupid is Klein for making such an assertion?

So, Klein misrepresents what the Democrat position is and Time abets the disingenous misrepresentation with a spurious "correction"? What else is new?