Hugh Hewitt thinks that being a cybercampaign has made the Deaniacs too insular, insulating them from reality.

The nuttiest 1 percent of the American electorate is going to number around 1 million voters. Gather those people in one place, let them talk to each other and cheer each other on, and they are going to begin to assume that their 1 percent is much more numerous than it is, much more powerful, much more authentic than the 99 percent not at the rally.

This appears to be happening among the Deaniacs. They believe themselves to be far more numerous than they are, and to think that their self-referential assurances of virtue and victory carry weight beyond their chat rooms.

Someone over at Free Republic commented that the Dean campaign is just “one extended flash mob.” I think that’s a good characterization.

Here’s a Democrat who could give George Bush a real challenge on foreign policy. Luckily for the Republicans, he’s not running, and if he were, he’d almost certainly not be nominated by the moonbattery that is the current Democrat Party.

Rich Lowry describes how we rewarded terror and attacks on us in the nineties, in the Khobar Towers bombing.

When Freeh told national security adviser Sandy Berger there was evidence to indict several suspects, Berger asked, “Who else knows this?” He then proceeded to question the evidence. A reporter for The New Yorker who later interviewed Freeh about the case writes that the FBI Director thought “Berger . . . was not a national security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press. After more than two years, Freeh had concluded that the administration did not really want to resolve the Khobar bombing.”

The price of not getting to the bottom of the matter ? although the Saudis opened up somewhat in response to Freeh’s proddings and allowed the questioning of suspects ? wasn’t just shrugging off the murderer of 19 Americans. It was failing to understand fully the changing nature of the terror threat. “Khobar provided the keys that unlocked the new terror world,” says one terror expert. “Everything you needed to know about the new terror network, the cooperation between all the different sects and factions, the rise of Wahhabi radicalism in Saudi Arabia, the changing dynamic of the Middle East ? it all was present in that case.”

I would note that, similarly, we’ve never really found all of the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing, for the same reason, with an additional one. Not only would proof of a Middle East connection have required undesired action on the part of the Clinton administration, but it would have diluted the politically-useful message that this was the sole act of “angry white men,” the same ones who’d been stirred up by Rush Limbaugh into giving the Republicans control of Congress the previous fall.

One other interesting parallel.

The pattern of Saudi non-cooperation had been set after the Riyadh bombing, when the Saudis denied FBI agents access to four suspects, and swiftly beheaded them to lend finality to that lack of access.

And interestingly, Tim McVeigh is also no longer around to tell the whole story (had he ever been willing to do so–it appears that he wanted all the credit for himself, and wouldn’t want it to look like he needed foreign assistance).

Rich Lowry describes how we rewarded terror and attacks on us in the nineties, in the Khobar Towers bombing.

When Freeh told national security adviser Sandy Berger there was evidence to indict several suspects, Berger asked, “Who else knows this?” He then proceeded to question the evidence. A reporter for The New Yorker who later interviewed Freeh about the case writes that the FBI Director thought “Berger . . . was not a national security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press. After more than two years, Freeh had concluded that the administration did not really want to resolve the Khobar bombing.”

The price of not getting to the bottom of the matter ? although the Saudis opened up somewhat in response to Freeh’s proddings and allowed the questioning of suspects ? wasn’t just shrugging off the murderer of 19 Americans. It was failing to understand fully the changing nature of the terror threat. “Khobar provided the keys that unlocked the new terror world,” says one terror expert. “Everything you needed to know about the new terror network, the cooperation between all the different sects and factions, the rise of Wahhabi radicalism in Saudi Arabia, the changing dynamic of the Middle East ? it all was present in that case.”

I would note that, similarly, we’ve never really found all of the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing, for the same reason, with an additional one. Not only would proof of a Middle East connection have required undesired action on the part of the Clinton administration, but it would have diluted the politically-useful message that this was the sole act of “angry white men,” the same ones who’d been stirred up by Rush Limbaugh into giving the Republicans control of Congress the previous fall.

One other interesting parallel.

The pattern of Saudi non-cooperation had been set after the Riyadh bombing, when the Saudis denied FBI agents access to four suspects, and swiftly beheaded them to lend finality to that lack of access.

And interestingly, Tim McVeigh is also no longer around to tell the whole story (had he ever been willing to do so–it appears that he wanted all the credit for himself, and wouldn’t want it to look like he needed foreign assistance).

Rich Lowry describes how we rewarded terror and attacks on us in the nineties, in the Khobar Towers bombing.

When Freeh told national security adviser Sandy Berger there was evidence to indict several suspects, Berger asked, “Who else knows this?” He then proceeded to question the evidence. A reporter for The New Yorker who later interviewed Freeh about the case writes that the FBI Director thought “Berger . . . was not a national security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press. After more than two years, Freeh had concluded that the administration did not really want to resolve the Khobar bombing.”

The price of not getting to the bottom of the matter ? although the Saudis opened up somewhat in response to Freeh’s proddings and allowed the questioning of suspects ? wasn’t just shrugging off the murderer of 19 Americans. It was failing to understand fully the changing nature of the terror threat. “Khobar provided the keys that unlocked the new terror world,” says one terror expert. “Everything you needed to know about the new terror network, the cooperation between all the different sects and factions, the rise of Wahhabi radicalism in Saudi Arabia, the changing dynamic of the Middle East ? it all was present in that case.”

I would note that, similarly, we’ve never really found all of the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing, for the same reason, with an additional one. Not only would proof of a Middle East connection have required undesired action on the part of the Clinton administration, but it would have diluted the politically-useful message that this was the sole act of “angry white men,” the same ones who’d been stirred up by Rush Limbaugh into giving the Republicans control of Congress the previous fall.

One other interesting parallel.

The pattern of Saudi non-cooperation had been set after the Riyadh bombing, when the Saudis denied FBI agents access to four suspects, and swiftly beheaded them to lend finality to that lack of access.

And interestingly, Tim McVeigh is also no longer around to tell the whole story (had he ever been willing to do so–it appears that he wanted all the credit for himself, and wouldn’t want it to look like he needed foreign assistance).

Lileks, as usual, has General Clark’s supporters’ number.

…Of course, if the Republicans put a retired general on the ticket, half the chattering classes would take to the fainting couch: bonjour fascism, au revoir America.

But Clark’s different! He’s pro-choice, pro-high taxes, at least at press time. And he wants “a new patriotism,” the old one presumably sullied beyond use by the boot-clicking usurpers who foul the Oval Office now. “No administration has the right to tell Americans that to dissent is disloyal, and to disagree is unpatriotic,” he said in a recent speech.

Oh, absolutely. That’s why we need Clark: Enough of those big banners in the train stations telling us to SHUT UP AND OBEY, and the endless mandatory TV shows about our Glorious Leader and his plans to increase the radish crop by 170 percent for the next five-year plan. Don’t you wish your TV came with an off switch, so you could avoid the propaganda? Don’t you wish you could skip the Tuesday night book burnings? Don’t you wonder if we crossed the line the night John Ashcroft personally executed Al Franken on “Saturday Night Live”? I miss America, too.

Read all.

Now that the Perfumed Prince is in the race, is anyone going to challenge him on this bit of historical ignorance?

GEN. CLARK: Well, first of all, they were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs. There are more effective ways of using the resources. Secondly, the tax cuts weren?t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it?s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don?t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should?one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.

No, General, this country was founded on the principle of no federal income tax at all. We had to pass a Constitutional amendment, within the last century, in order to levy it.

[Update on Thursday morning]

There’s a debate ongoing in the comments section, but in the meantime, Professor Volokh has some thoughts.

Now that the Perfumed Prince is in the race, is anyone going to challenge him on this bit of historical ignorance?

GEN. CLARK: Well, first of all, they were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs. There are more effective ways of using the resources. Secondly, the tax cuts weren?t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it?s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don?t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should?one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.

No, General, this country was founded on the principle of no federal income tax at all. We had to pass a Constitutional amendment, within the last century, in order to levy it.

[Update on Thursday morning]

There’s a debate ongoing in the comments section, but in the meantime, Professor Volokh has some thoughts.

Now that the Perfumed Prince is in the race, is anyone going to challenge him on this bit of historical ignorance?

GEN. CLARK: Well, first of all, they were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs. There are more effective ways of using the resources. Secondly, the tax cuts weren?t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it?s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don?t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should?one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.

No, General, this country was founded on the principle of no federal income tax at all. We had to pass a Constitutional amendment, within the last century, in order to levy it.

[Update on Thursday morning]

There’s a debate ongoing in the comments section, but in the meantime, Professor Volokh has some thoughts.

They’ve (temporarily) postponed the recall election until March, prolonging the circus and giving Davis a much better shot, by having his fate decided by hordes of Democratic primary voters. It’s another attack of the chads!

We’ll see if the SCOTUS weighs in to preempt this nonsense.

[Update at 2 PM PDT]

The ever-perspicacious Eugene Volokh asks a great question:

Assuming that punch card ballots are generally less reliable than the alternatives, why should we think that using punch card ballots in several counties in Oct. 2003 would be less reliable than using the alternatives for the fist time in those counties in Mar. 2004?