Glenn Reynolds is confused about Marsha Blackburn.

This is Putz's best attempt at correcting the record: (updated) (updated again)

DID SHUSTER HAVE IT RIGHT? Apparently, but the confusion displayed along the way would undercut any claim that Marsha Blackburn should have known what took MSNBC this long to figure out.

Er, the inner-workings of MSNBC aside, the problem -- which Putz avoids addressing -- is that Blackburn couldn't produce a name. Any name. The only "confusion," in fact, was on the part of wingnut bloggers, who claimed -- incorrectly -- that Shuster was wrong. Putz, naturally, led the charge and was quick to demand Shuster's contrition.

Now that Shuster has been exonerated, we put this question to Putz in his own words: "Will an apology be forthcoming?"

But the real point, as I noted before, is that the question was a cheap shot that Shuster wouldn't dare ask Hillary, who also voted for the war.

Nothing like wrapping up the Putzy package with a big, irrelevant, pretty hypothetical bow!

UPDATE

Heh.

So, here's the time line:

• David Shuster makes truthful broadcast.
• Member of Congress complains that it wasn't truthful
• Dan Abrams forces Shuster to apologize for fact which was true
• Truth of fact is backed up by the Department of Defense.

The guiding principle of modern journalism: just don't piss off the wingnuts.

UPDATE 2

Putz throws a hissy fit:

It's going to get kind of tough for the journalistic industry if they're all trying to feed themselves from an audience made up of one quarter of the population...Good luck with that business plan, guys.

More than two-thirds of the country hate the war and hate Bush, but I don't see that stopping Fox News.

But, anyway, if MSNBC gets only Democrats to watch on any given night, that's actually the best bet in terms of hard numbers as a business plan. Democrats currently outnumber both Republicans and Independents (36-27-24).

Pissy and innumerate is no way to go through life, son.