Saturday, September 27, 2003 You don't protect national security by revealing the names of CIA agents as partisan payback MSNBC reports and Time Magazine follows up: "The DOJ opens a preliminary probe into whether the White House illegally unmasked a CIA operative." Ambassador Joe Wilson had bent sent to Africa to investigate claims about Saddam seeking nuclear material a year and half ago, and he found no evidence of this. Somehow this didn't make it to the President's desk before the war. When Wilson later spoke out about this, columnist Robert Novak wrote that 2 top White House officials had told him that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer. The idea was that Wilson's wife had somehow suggested he be selected for the mission, and this made him guilty of nepotism, I guess. Wilson said that if Novak's reporting was correct, the naming showed "a deliberate attempt on the part of the White House to intimidate others and make them think twice about coming forward."
The disclosure of an undercover CIA officer seems to violate U.S. law (for the administration officials; journalists usually have more protections). The Washington Post reports that another senior administration official has said that these two other officials had called at least 6 journalists (only Novak went public) and that this disclosure was "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility" and said of the leak: "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge." Bushies turning on Bushies.
While some journalists know who these two officials are, they apparently do not know "for the record." But back in August, Wilson said he wanted "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." Wilson said that if Novak's reporting was correct the naming showed "a deliberate attempt on the part of the White House to intimidate others and make them think twice about coming forward."
Posted by Jonathan,
1:10 AM
-
Friday, September 26, 2003 Why Buzzflood should intentionally be left blank No need to read this if you have read Jon's protest against Buzzforce below, and have sent your agreement to stoptheflood@alum.dartmouth.org.
But if you are not yet convinced Buzzforce is a silly operation, read on for one small example. You may remember that Buzzflood was originally named Blabberforce, until Dartlog revealed John Buckholz's discovery of another college consulting group already named Blabberforce. How did Blabberforce react? They quickly proclaimed that a deliberation about a name change had been in works for a month and after "hundreds of bad suggestions" they had decided to rename themselves Buzzflood. Way to bounce back, P.R. boys!
According to an email posted on The Dartmouth Observer and Dartlog, Buzzflood will soon give more information about the excellence of Dartmouth through "the launch of our new website (www.buzzflood.com) that will further our goal." So I decided to visit www.buzzflood.com. All that popped up on the screen was "This page has intentionally been left blank." Clicking further I had found out this was part of the this-page-is-intentionally-left-blank" project, in remembrance of old test taking booklets:
Nowadays the "This Page Intentionally Left Blank"-Project (TPILB-Project) tries to introduce these blank pages to the Web again. One reason is to keep alive the remembrance of these famous historical blank pages. But it is the primary reason to offer internet wanderers a place of quietness and simplicity on the overcrowded World Wide Web -- a blank page for relaxing the restless mind."
How fitting: if any webpage should intentionally be left blank, it is buzzflood.com.
EDIT: In the original version of this post, I had said "It seems the excellent Buzzflooders either sent out the wrong URL, or hadn't even bothered to check if the domain name was available." For this, I said the Buzzflooders had once again seemed to get ahead of themselves. Sylvia in comments makes this point: "actually i think buzzflood.com (and .org) is owned by the dartmouth group.. if you check where the domains are registered to it gives a hinman box address. they probably just set up a redirect while their website is in the works." I thought the intentionally-left-bank group bought up domain names in order to keep them permanently blank. But there was no reason for that assumption. Buzzflood could just have a temporary pointer to their website until they get their own site up. Oops. I still think it is funny that they point to a page that wants quiet space on the web, when that is the opposite of what they intend to do. But I think they knew what they were doing, and I am the one who feels like an idiot.
I am attempting to construct an online levee in the face of this BuzzFlood stupidity. Because this is not a "public interest" issue, and is only a petition against the "non-violent expression of opinion" of another group, I can't host it on that online petition site. However, I would like to see this as widely circulated as possible, so Dartloggers, if you'd like to help with the effort, it's much appreciated.
We, the undersigned students and alumni of Dartmouth College, believe that BuzzFlood, an organization whose purpose is "to simply point out what's so special about Dartmouth College," is making a mockery of the College, its goals, and ideals.
If you're interested in amending or "signing" this statement, please blitz "stoptheflood@alum.dartmouth.org" with your name, class year, and any "amendment" you wish to propose. After I've amassed some number of blitz, I will post here once more, as well as blitz back to the respondents, with a final "amended" version of this statement. I will wait for those individuals to give their final assent, as well as accept new "signatories." I will then submit the names and the petition to The Dartmouth.
Posted by Jonathan,
2:53 PM
-
Catch of the Day: Red Herring Freedom of Speech and Telemarketing
Short and sweet. The latest hurdle in the way of the implementation of the National Do-Not-Call List is a finding that the FTC's initiative, despite recent reaffirmation in Congress, violates the First Amendment Rights of telemarketers. I'd like to see Emmett weigh in on this, but my opinion is that this is a bogus argument. Sure, the telemarketers have a right to say whatever they'd like, free of government intervention. But let's take the telephone out of the equation as the "tool" involved here. I have a right to freedom of speech, but do I have a right to tunnel through the floor of your house, pop up in your living room, and begin shouting for your attention at the top of my lungs before launching into a marketing spiel? Nope.
The telemarketers may have a right to make their sales pitch, but they don't have a right to invade your house to do it. "Just ignore the phone" is not a solution for several reasons. First, it's like asking me to ignore the person that's tunneled into my house and is screaming at the top of his lungs. Why should I make an effort to ignore him if he's invaded my property to exercise his rights? Why not look at the government's Do-Not-Call list as working to enforce property rights, something with which even the most libertarian individual agrees? Second, let's assume that I am expecting another call. This individual is tying up my line, even for only a few seconds, to disturb me in my home. Perhaps this is a nitpicky complaint, but considering I am a priori disinterested in what the telemarketer is selling (I have a right to disinterest, despite what he may tell me, do I not?) and very interested in some other, more important call, even the small odds that the telemarketer disturbs my interests in my own home, on a phone line for which I pay, are unacceptable.
Does the telemarketer have a right to free speech? Sure. Does he have a right to disturb me in my own home, utilizing a service for which I pay, in order to exercise his right? He most certainly does not. Comments please.
Posted by Jonathan,
1:20 PM
-
News of the North Canada has become “the world's biggest suburb, a wealthy place that worries about schools and parks” while leaving the “downtown issues” of defence and nuclear proliferation to others.
It appears the cost of applying defense spending to health care and debt reduction makes you the world's Orange County.
Posted by T. Wood,
11:25 AM
-
Thoughts on Debate I hope im not stepping on scotties turf since he usually does the roundup, but here were my impressions I was VERY skeptical about focusing the whole two ours on the economy, as it tends to get very dry, and the first half of the debate sucked. but when gephardt and dean started yelling at each other it woke everyone up, and the debate was great from there
THE TRUE WINNER- As usual, Rev. Al Sharpton- dropped lyrical bombs with "slavery was a bad trade policy" and the "brother howard" line was wonderful. to joe lieberman- "my website is al2004.com, and this Al isnt gonna lose". the previously undecided girl i was watching with was blown away by him and is voting for him.
TRUE LOSERS- Joe Lieberman and Bob Graham are so painful to listen to it takes like 3 or 4 lines to stay awake during a 60 second response- they should drop out now and save us the agony
AND OTHERS
CArol Mosely Braun- My god, she actually said something interesting. i was blown away
The Koose- called the dems out on their shit. really took me back to the radical days of sophomore fall. hi clint!
John Kerry- man, they tossed him a softball with renewable enrgy and he hit a homerun. other than that he was just alright.
Gephardt- Looks like a dinosaur. its quite frightening. dean totally schooled him when gep tried to play the gingrich card.
Dean- Other than the gephardt come back, talked way to fast and was fairly unimpressive.
John Edwards- I think it was Brad who pointed to Eddie's civility through this whole primary, and last night was an obvious pitch for the vice presidency. I mean, he cant win the senate or presidency, so what else is there?
Wes Clark- The Real Deal? Not quite. While he sounded great much of the time, any one with half a brain could see he was dodging questions, and at times he explicitly didnt have an opinion. sure he's "only been in the race for 9 days", but i havent entered yet myself and i still have fucking opinions. the question is, will America notice? this is the country that voted for bush.
Posted by janos,
9:56 AM
-
What if the Presidential candidates were foods? Lists that debate watching, rummy playing, drunk Ph.D. students come up with late at night :
Howard Bean Dick Poptart John Cherry Dennis KuSpinich Bob Ham Wesley Carp Al Charred Bun Joe Liverwurst John Red Gords Carol Moldy-Prawn
Posted by Timothy,
12:23 AM
-
Thursday, September 25, 2003 Clark Round-up Warring DraftClark factions. Spinsanity on right-wing lies and smears. Tapped links to TNR's Foer on how the media can't comprehend Clark's war position. Calpundit argues that we need a real debate about the war on terror and Clark might be bring that about. Newsweek's cover story here: "[Clark] imitated a Bush official’s crude approach to power: “We unleashed force! We hit the Arabs! Clinton was a pussy!” Hearing himself, he hastily added, “It’s the way they think.” I don't know why it is a "shock" that Gen. Shelton isn't going to support Clark. Andrew Sullivan links to this AP story and says this quote of Clark's is important: "It's fundamentally a police effort against individuals. It's not a military effort directed against factories and airfields. You may still need to use military force, but you have to use it in a very precise way."
Posted by Timothy,
3:27 PM
-
Untelevised Scott just recently added him to our blogroll, but I like him already. I think Brad might find his thoughts on different Iraq invasion positions of note, whether or not he agrees with him.
Posted by Graham,
1:28 PM
-
Marist College Poll New NH Numbers came out today. Dean's holding strong at 35%, followed by Kerry at 22% and Clark at 11%. The reason that this poll seems like FreeDartmouth news to me is that they also asked some Hillary questions. Of the Democrats and Independents polled, a majority thinks that she should stay out of the race. However, according to the poll if she entered today, she'd be polling in second in the Granite State, behind only Dean.
So what's the Hillary factor? Laura, Dan, Buckholz, anybody. Could she win? Is she a polarizer? Is it bad to be a polarizer (the country seems pretty polarized already)? Does she bring anything to a ticket if she grabs the VP slot?
Posted by Graham,
1:14 PM
-
Wednesday, September 24, 2003 We Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Programming While the white boys duke it out in the major leagues, Carol Moseley Braun entered the presidential race today at Howard University, a move that was met with almost complete silence from the media and public. A chance in a million that she'll win the nomination, but a heartening decision to run nonetheless. LINK
Posted by Laura,
10:03 PM
-
The Clintons: Still The Root of All Evil (for Republicans) From the estimable WashPost: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) today denied reports that she and her husband are the agents behind retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark's presidential candidacy." Apparently, this speculation was running rampant in "Republican circles." A prediction: Clark asks Hillary to be his running mate if/when he gets the nomination. He'd be stupid not to.
Posted by Timothy,
6:39 PM
-
Civility The comments on this post are as good as argument as any for civility and dialogue. It also shows the shit the wingers are going to throw at Clark... I don't think being a general is going to make him 'invulernable' to this. (Though I do have hope this is fringe talk since I only came across it through Notgeniuses)
Posted by Timothy,
6:24 PM
-
War, Diplomacy, The Presidency and the UN There's been some loose talk about the UN coming from all 10 of the Democratic Candidates. In the debates, they all advocate bringing the UN into Iraq. While this is certainly a good idea, the question remains: who can do it? Bush sorta tried to bring the UN into Iraq last spring. So did Powell. Andrew Sullivan makes a point about what Clark and Kerry seem to be saying that their positions were on the invasion. But in this particular case, I don't mean to single out Clark or Kerry for ridicule. Of those two men in particular, Sullivan asks, "Is he simply saying that he would have had superior diplomatic skills and talked Chirac around? Superior to Blair's and Powell's? I think history will judge that there was no way on earth that France would ever have acceded to serious enforcement of 1441 by Western arms, under any circumstances. If that's true, would Clark and Kerry have acceded to Paris and called the war off? If so, they should say so." And the larger issue connects to the new positions on Iraq being laid out by all 10 candidates. They talk about going back to our old allies in the Security Council and changing their minds as though all it will take is a snap of the fingers. Sure it sounds good to talk about bringing in other countries, and we obviously should make every attempt to internationalize the occupation, but right now everyone seems to be playing fast and loose with their allegedly ability to sway global opinion. Now, I do believe that the right President could go back to the UN and try to make things well again with our allies. Nonetheless, it's time to stop discounting the autonomy of the rest of the world.
Posted by Graham,
1:12 PM
-
Review Antics Worked My stomach churned to watch D Editor Richard Burst-Lazarus covering Linda Kennedy's and Alston Ramsay's dispute at the Media Fair last week (see this post for background). I suppose the inevitability of today's article , then, should give me some consolation...
The best line: Ramsay insisted his group did not come to the fair as a publicity stunt, saying "I would much more have sat and talked to freshmen for an hour than be escorted away and have an article written about it."
"All this, of course, pleases the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. "We want beef in dessert if we can get it there," Ms. Hogan said. "
Check it out in the New York Times. I'm not linking because I'm tired and drunk.
Posted by Jonathan,
12:44 AM
-
Tuesday, September 23, 2003 Frank Rich strikes back at Mel
In the New Yorker profile, Mr. Gibson says that "modern secular Judaism wants to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church," a charge that Abraham H. Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League, labels "classic anti-Semitism." Mr. Gibson also says that he trimmed a scene from "The Passion" involving the Jewish high priest Caiaphas because if he didn't do so "they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come to kill me." Who is this bloodthirsty "they" threatening to martyr our fearless hero? Could it be the same mob that killed Jesus? Funny, but as far as I can determine, the only death threat that's been made in conjunction with "The Passion" is Mr. Gibson's against me....
The few Jews invited to "Passion" screenings by Mr. Gibson tend to be political conservatives. One is Michael Medved, who is fond of describing himself in his published "Passion" encomiums as a "former synagogue president" — betting that most of his readers will not know that this is a secular rank falling somewhere between co-op board president and aspiring Y.M.H.A. camp counselor. When non-right-wing Jews asked to see the film, we were turned away — thus allowing Mr. Gibson's defenders, in a perfect orchestration of Catch-22, to say we were attacking or trying to censor a film we "haven't seen."
I thought it was funny how the Frank Rich Column began with this quote from the New Yorker: "Then Gibson expressed his feelings about Rich. "I want to kill him," he said. "I want his intestines on a stick. . . . I want to kill his dog." — The New Yorker, Sept. 15 "
Posted by Timothy,
3:05 PM
-
Dartmouth in the NYT Again
Head on over nytimes.com to see a Joe Mehling photo on the "front page," or click here for an article on VoIP.
Posted by Jonathan,
2:30 PM
-
Janos at Convocation Student Body President (and DFP contributor) Janos Marton delivered a characteristically schizophrenic oration in Leede Arena this morning. [link here] Those of us who have witnessed Janos' previous speeches heard him in classically self-aggrandizing, yet somehow inspirational, form. The '07s, who haven't heard his schtick before, seemed taken by him.
Peppered with references to the Free Press, Chi Gam, John Kerry's campaign, and Marton's own aspiration to elected office in the NH state house, the speech sparked laughter and sustained applause. Even Provost Scherr and President Wright seemed entertained by his remarks.
From describing his first encounter with Jim and Susan Wright (Marton had been dressed in a yellow jumpsuit), to quoting Richard Nixon and F. Scott Fitzgerald, Janos managed to bring it all together.
One of his strongest (and most surprising points) was a frontal attack on the $40 billion War on Drugs. As he said, "remember that while hundreds of you will at one time or another smoke weed at Dartmouth, being caught with a joint will send you to Dean Zimmerman's office, not the New York State Penitentiary...that's invisible privilege."
He also encouraged '07s to get to know international students on campus because "they're the most interesting people you will meet."
Posted by Karsten Barde,
1:47 PM
-
California Recall Back on Track The 9th circuit reheard the case and the Recall election is going ahead as originally scheduled. See this Washington Post article, which has this interesting tidbit at the end:
Rep. Darrell Issa said Monday that if both leading GOP candidates remained on the ballot, he would urge voters to vote no on recalling Davis because a yes vote would assure a victory for Bustamante.
Issa spends his millions to fund the recall petition and then might urge voters to to say "no"? Issa originally was going to run to replace Davis. Did he honestly think everyone would have united behind him? What was he thinking?
Posted by Timothy,
12:51 PM
-
In case you missed it President Bush has now taken a somewhat different stance than his Vice President: "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." [link]
So Let me Get This Straight... A couple of Republicans claim that Clark said that he'd be a Republican if only Karl Rove would return his phone calls (dutifully reported by Howad "not so" Fineman.") Clark claims he was just tweaking them. The Weekly Standard reports that Clark never called Karl Rove, and in wingnut land this is proof that CLARK is lying? oy vey. Wingnuttery knows no bounds...
Posted by Timothy,
12:19 PM
-
Sometimes you come upon two sentences that are just very good. These two are just such. They were written by David Brooks here.
I recall the dispiriting moment — at a stately manor in Oxfordshire, I believe — when I realized I didn't really believe in foreign policy. Most problems are domestic policy to the people who matter most.
Posted by Jared,
12:06 AM
-
Monday, September 22, 2003 Howard Dean, Party Man From cnn.com: CALLER: Hi. Governor Dean, I have been so impressed by you ever since I saw you on "Meet the Press." And I'm going to my first Dean meeting this week. And my question for you is that many Democrats believe that if not for Ralph Nader staying in the election that we wouldn't have George Bush as a president.
So my question to you is, if you do not get the Democratic nomination, will you still run on the independent ticket?
DEAN: No, I will not.
CALLER: If so, how will that impact the upcoming race?
DEAN: I will not run as independent. I will support the nominee. It is essential that George Bush not be re-elected for the future of this country. It is essential for our economy. It's essential, so we can regain the respect we had around the world. And I will under no circumstances run as a third party and independent. I will back the nominee. I hope I am the nominee because I can bring about half those votes that voted for Ralph Nader back into the party. That's how we are going to win. And I think at this point there is no other evidence that any of the other candidates can do that and I think that's why I'm the most likely to beat George Bush.
Clear enough, Brad? Earlier in the interview, he confirms your assertion that he'll take it all the way to Boston for the convention. As a supporter, I'd expect nothing less. As Democrat, like Dean, I'll support the nominee.
Posted by Graham,
11:32 PM
-
I'm taking my ball and I'm going home! Howard Dean is probably not my ideal candidate, but I've always liked the guy on a basic level. I've always figured that, whatever his flaws, he's a good Democrat and genuinely wants what's best for the country. So I was a little taken aback by this quote:
When I ask Dean about Clark, his response is characteristically two-fold. He praises him with sincere fervor: “I know Wes Clark, he’s a very good human being, and he’s got an enormous amount of integrity.” At the same time, on the subject of Clark entering the race, he shows more than a glint of steel. “It’s going to be very hard to start late,” he says, “and think you’re going to do well in Iowa and New Hampshire. It’s going to be incredibly hard. I mean, we’ve already got 39,000 people working for us all around the country . . . I really do believe — and I think about this — I want to get this nomination, and if I don’t . . . these kids are not transferrable. I can’t just go out and say, ‘Okay, so I didn’t win the nomination, so go ahead and vote for the Democrats.’ They’re not going to suddenly just go away. That’s not gonna happen.”
These kids are not transferrable? So if Dean doesn't win the nomination he's going to sit home, cry, and refuse to support the Democratic candidate? Why exactly is he in this race, anyways? Am I overreacting (very possible...)? Dean has already promised not to drop out of the race even if he's (mathematically) lost the nomination by March 9th. Is this going to cause a problem? If I remember correctly, back in 1992 Clinton had already secured the nomination and Jerry Brown continued to run attack ads against him, helping Clinton drop to third in the national polls behind Bush and Perot. Could we see the same sort of destructive behavior this year? Is Dean serious about unseating Bush no matter what? Oh, I should mention that Jerry Brown's campaign was run by a guy by the name of Joe Trippi... interesting....
Posted by Brad Plumer,
10:39 PM
-
Slate Reports on a General Clark's New Patriotism
"I'm running for president because I could not stand by and watch everything that we fought for, everything that our nation had accomplished and become, unravel before our eyes," Clark says. He then talks about something I haven't heard before, something I expect to become the theme of his campaign: a "new patriotism" (though there's a chance it could disappear as quickly as Bill Clinton's "new covenant").
Clark's twin campaign themes are patriotism and public service, and he has to find a way to resolve those themes with his frontal assault on a sitting president during a time of war. He does it by appropriating the word "patriotism" and redefining it for himself. On a campus where students march and chant in lines, not in puppet-brandishing crowds, Clark declares that dissenters are the true patriots: "Patriotism doesn't consist of following orders—not when you're not in the chain of command. For the American people, for citizens in a democracy, patriotism's highest calling isn't simply following what the administration says. It's not blind obedience. It's not unquestioned adherence. The highest form of patriotism is asking questions. Because democracies run on dialogue. Democracies run on discussion. No administration has the right to tell Americans that to dissent is disloyal, and to disagree is unpatriotic. …
"We need a new spirit, a new kind of, a new American patriotism in this country. … [T]his new spirit of patriotism should be dedicated to the protection of our rights and liberties. … In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised."
No other Democratic candidate, not even John Kerry, could stand in front of two 75 mm howitzers on the quad of a nearly all-male military college and defend the antiwar left without looking faintly ridiculous. Wesley Clark is Howard Dean with flags. [link]
Posted by Timothy,
9:38 PM
-
Clark out to a Fast Start
The latest Gallup national poll has Clark jumping out to a sizable lead:
Clark is also on the cover of Newsweek and I'd say comes off quite favorably.
Posted by scott anderson,
9:18 PM
-
Bush hits new low in new CNN/USA Today Poll
While these numbers are unequivocably great news for Democrats, I would argue that they do not necessarily help one specific candidate. The national polling among Democrats is fairly meaningless as far as winning the primary. And the closeness of the numbers against Bush shows that half of America mostly just wants a different President, they don't seem to really care who. "51 percent said they did not agree with Bush on issues that mattered most to them"
Clark v. Bush = 49 - 46 Kerry v. Bush = 48 - 47 Dean v. Bush = 46 - 49 (error = +/- 3.5)
In a story possibly related to the fact that a majority of Americans think the country has gone to hell under George Bush, "Among Americans who drink, the percentage saying they have had at least one drink in the past week has risen from 48% in 1992 to 68% today"
Posted by Timothy,
8:28 PM
-
Polite Encouragement I just signed up with Alums for Social Change and noticed a lot of DFP alums were missing from the ranks. The site, run by our very own Jared, features links to both FD and the DFP website...it seems to me that us former FreePers should return the favor.
Posted by Laura,
6:51 PM
-
"Evil Sex" Angst A letter written by Ronald Reagan reveals that the former US president had guilty feelings about sex, even within marriage.
His misgivings, which he said he later laid to rest, are contained in letter to a friend written in 1951, before his second marriage.
It came to light with 1,000 others setting out Mr Reagan's personal views on a range of subjects including free speech and the Cold War.
Mr Reagan was offering consolation to an old friend whose husband had died.
"Even in marriage I had a little guilty feeling about sex, as if the whole thing was tinged with evil," he told the friend.
But Mr Reagan said a "fine old gentleman" had pointed him in the right direction by citing the behaviour of primitive Polynesians.
The same "fine old gentleman" could not, however, allay his "Evil Red Menace" Angst. Via the BBC.
Posted by T. Wood,
3:08 PM
-
The Dartmouth Online TheDartmouth.com has a new design. I'm not a fan, but maybe I'll adjust.
Posted by Timothy,
1:32 PM
-
Sunday, September 21, 2003 Speaking of flip-flops... It's time to put an end to the idea that Howard Dean was any more ardently against the Iraq war than Wesley Clark or John Kerry. They all took pretty much the same wishy-washy position, and Josh Marshall has the quotes to prove it. This was taken from Dean's remarks on Face the Nation a couple of weeks before the war resolution vote:
My question is not that we may not have to go into Iraq. We may very well have to go into Iraq. What is the rush? Why can't we take the time to get our allies on board? Why do we have to do everything in a unilateral way?
...
My problem is not whether we're going to end up in Iraq or not. Saddam Hussein appears to be doing everything he can to make sure we do go into Iraq. My problem is, it is important to bring in our allies.
Obviously, given my remarks on Clark, I appreciate this position and have no intention on faulting Dean for taking it. But I can fault Dean for trying to paint himself as the unabashed anti-war candidate, the candidate who stood his ground while politicians like Kerry were waffling. These sentences from Dean's site are misleading:
I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning. While Saddam Hussein’s regime was clearly evil and needed to be disarmed, it did not present an immediate threat to U.S. security that would justify going to war, particularly going to war alone.
Good catch by Josh Marshall (as usual)... I also like this post by Marshall, defending Clark from accusations of flip-flopping. I guess this is what I've been trying to say below, only much more concisely:
[Clark] is one of the few candidates who strikes me as having given any serious thought to the question -- outside the context of the politics. And he is the only one who's written extensively on the national security challenges which face the country, Iraq, and the strategic and diplomatic shortcomings of the president's policy.
Posted by Brad Plumer,
10:47 PM
-
What a Dick So, as Brad pointed out a while back and all followers of the Democratic primary must now be aware, Dick Gephardt has started to attack Dean pretty hard. This is, of course, what everyone would expect him to do--this being an election and Dean polling well this fall. Problem is, most of his attacks rely on short, out of context quotes from the mid and early 90s. The other problem is that Gephardt has had his own share of "flip-flops." From The Washington Post via TNR Primary: In fact, one of the biggest knocks on Gephardt is his long record of flip-flops on key issues. Before running for president in 1988, he was antiabortion, pro-gun rights, pro-tax-cuts and anti-busing.
As my boy on vacation in Copenhagen likes to say, 'there are no saints...' Yesterday at the Rolling Thunder Down Home Democracy Tour (that's one absurd name, I know) in Manchester, NH, Michael Moore expanded on that point, going up and down the list of candidates for the Democratic Nomination and mentioning their strengths and flaws. He even gave a shout out to Joe Lieberman for being a long-time civil rights activist. The bottom line is this: nobody's perfect. But it's intellectually dishonest to hold people to things they said a decade ago if you wouldn't dare mention your own past record. It's one of the lamest tricks reporters, or politicians, play when they "catch someone in a lie" by bringing out something that somebody said 10 or 15 years ago and then compare it to their now modified position and say "SEE, HE'S CHANGED!" Show me someone who's views haven't changed in a decade and I'll show you someone in a coma. Dick should know by now that these campaign tactics are bound to be "a miserable failure." And if he wants to play the history game, he'll lose.
Posted by Graham,
9:24 PM
-
The Strike's Over! Nathan Newman declares victory for the workers.
Posted by Graham,
8:06 PM
-
Yawn This evening, The Dartmouth Review's Alston Ramsay, with two bright-eyed underclasswomen and a photographer in tow, set up a table and sign uninvited in Collis Commonground for the Class of 2007 Media Fair. After being informed of their intruder status and asked to leave, the three Review staffers went into high gear, chatting up first-years and handing out Indian head t-shirts. An '07 interviewee responded that he had picked up the apparel because "doing less laundry is always a good thing." Way to go guys.
They just left. Expect a gleeful account on Dartlog in the next few minutes...
