Some of you noted that Walsh has had a tendency to, well, "misspeak" when describing Salon's coverage of the candidates. I just want to quote a paragraph from her previous blog entry on Clinton's war vote:

"Here's the thing: Many of us -- a small but not silent majority -- knew enough not to take the president at his word. Many of us knew he was determined to go to war, alone if necessary."

I would like to see Walsh's evidence that Bush gave his word that he would not attack Iraq alone (or with his small coalition). He did say he would go to the UN, but when did he say that the UN would limit US options? The war resolution, in fact, meant just the opposite: it allowed Bush (Powell) to go to the UN and say "with or without you." The issue was not that Bush broke his word!

Similarly, I find Walsh's "small majority" estimate of people who knew Bush was "determined to go to war" entirely suspect. A vast majority assumed we were going to war. Some people opposed the war. Many more people supported it; people like Clinton.

Walsh is helping Clinton perpetuate falsehoods about her involvement in the Iraq war, just as Salon has ignored and enabled Clinton's lies about her involvement (or lack thereof) in the Bosnian conflict.

One of the problems for Democrats caused by Clinton's mendacity on war questions is the real possibility of trouble in Iraq this spring and summer even as the primary season drags on in the states. Up until now, the primaries have coincides with a decrease in violence in Iraq following the surge.

You might say that one of the biggest primary battles of the moment is not in Pennsylvania, but in Basra. Not between Clinton and Obama, but between the Iraqi Army and the Mahdi Army. If the Iraqis cannot go it alone, there will be calls for more US troops, including votes in the US senate. Even if US troops are not sent to support the Iraqis in Basra, there are signs of worsening security in Baghdad (including missile attacks into the Green Zone!). Should more troops be sent to hold the gains of the surge?

Who will people trust to make vote correctly? A liar like Clinton? Who do you trust to report on the votes in the context of the political campaign? Salon?

It's no surprise that Obama has regained points in the polls while Clinton has lost her standing. Obama's honesty on the war trumps not only Clinton's dishonesty on the war, but Clinton's attempt to turn media attention to "issues" like a religious test on Obama's fitness to be President and covert race-baiting. Democrats should wake up and realize that Clinton's efforts reflect poorly not only on her fitness to serve, they reflect badly on Democrats. They also need need to realize that Clinton's approach is an impediment to a realistic approach to Iraq, where tough decisions need to be made with the trust of the American people.

Many people here have drawn apt parallels between the investigative methods used by the federal government against radicals in the 60s/70s and post 9/11.

But there is a major disparity in the jail sentences given to the convicted.

In 1972, four young men blew up a building on the campus of the UW-Madison as an anti-war protest. Although they detonated the bomb at time when the building would likely be vacant, they killed a grad a student in his lab. The bombers fled to Canada and were extradited (one is still at large). The longest sentence given to those caught was 23 years, and that person only served seven years in prison.

I find these two cases quite similar in several respects, though the bombing seemed far more likely to destroy and more likely to kill. And, of course, the bomb did kill and the fire did not. It wasn't just property damage; it was manslaughter.

But look at the huge discrepancy between the sentences that young boomers faced and those faced by young people today.

Sorry for the typo.

Slate has an article today by Erich Lichtbau about the NYTimes decision to delay (and almost not publish) the article on the government's secret domestic spying program. What's striking is that Lichtbau says the Times was worried about harming US anti-terrorism efforts, and characterizes criticism of the delay in publication as leftist. What he doesn't say is whether the Times had any qualms about the negative effects the government program might have on legitimate protest domestically, and whether that might be a reason to publish.

I mention that here because within weeks of 9/11 the government saw an opportunity to expand "terrorism" to include environmental protest. Bush even used vaguer language at times to say that any activities that might destabilize the economy might be terrorism. I suspect very strongly that there was a range of dirty tricks that may eventually come to light, including the use of domestic spying to monitor activist groups under the cover of preventing terrorism.

The convictions that the feds have gotten may or may not be legitimate. They may have gotten the actual arsonists or not. But there has definitely been a feeling of federal creepiness and monitoring even among those who would never destroy property or take lives, but who do have concerns about the environment. Not only have nonviolent people been harassed by the feds and other law enforcement agencies, it has become harder to get information on facilities that pollute or may pose environmental risks. And, unlike the situation in the sixties, if you are wrongfully thrown in jail today you are looking at a long hard time with limited appeals.

Where are our leaders? Where is the media?