Sealing the Deal

I think Barack Obama just won the Michael O'Hanlon primary. Everyone's favorite expert on everything explains that the problem with Obama is that he "seems contemptuous of the motivations of those who supported the war." Oh dear! We learn that, after all, he "had used chemical weapons against his own defenseless people.":

Sanctions limited his funds for military programs, but the sanctions were eroding fast in the years before the invasion. Saddam's links to al Qaeda were overdramatized, but Saddam's own record of atrocities against his own people, Iranians and Kuwaitis, as well as his support for anti-Israeli terrorists, were heinous enough.

Yet Mr. Obama consistently accuses those who supported the war of political motivations -- and unsavory ones at that. On Dec. 27, for example, Mr. Obama said in Des Moines, Iowa, "You can't fall in line behind the conventional thinking on issues as profound as war and then offer yourself as the leader who is best prepared to chart a new and better course for America."

Now I think you've got to draw a distinction. Given the large number of people who supported the war in some form or another, a viable politician obviously can't have help for each and every person who did so. But a politician who has contempt for the opinion leaders like O'Hanlon who helped sell the country on the war seems like exactly the sort of person you want in the White House.

From the standpoint of foreign policy doctrine, this has been a frustrating primary to watch. The candidates have debated the main issues of domestic policy at a high level of detail, despite (or perhaps because of) everyone agreeing that they share the same basic approach. On national security issues, it's always been far less obvious how big or small the disgareements really are. And yet, few broad issues have really been mooted and everyone's quite vague. Instead of hearing thing straightforwardly, we're left in the position of trying to assess the contenders' likely conduct by judging the shadows. But this shadow definitely points in Obama's favor.

Comments

This opening makes almost no sense: "I think Barack Obama just won the Michael O'Hanlon primary. Everyone's favorite expert on everything explains that the problem with Obama is that he "seems contemptuous of the motivations of those who supported the war." Oh dear! We learn that, after all, he "had used chemical weapons against his own defenseless people.":"

Who is the "he" who used chemical weapons against his own defenseless people? Do you mean Saddam?

Also, what in the world does this sentence mean?

"Given the large number of people who supported the war in some form or another, a viable politician obviously can't have help for each and every person who did so."

can't have *help* for each and every person?

Posted by MY Strikes Again | January 7, 2008 10:53 AM

That first one isn't much of an error, unless you think there's some chance that O'Hanlon was actually referring to Obama as the one who "used chemical weapons against his own defenseless people." O'Hanlon has said a lot of dumb things in recent times, but that would be...a bit much.

The second one, though...yeah. "Have help" for each and every person...WTF?

Posted by Haggai | January 7, 2008 11:00 AM

Well one thing is clear. O'Hanlon hasn't coordinated its message with the Clinton campaign. As Matt noted yesterday, the campaign is now desperately trying to portray it's candidate as someone who did not really support the war, and who "would never have taken us to war in Iraq" herself, but who for some reason fell in line behind both the authorization resolution and the actual invasion in March, 2003, and subsequently criticized only aspects of the handling of the war but not the decision to go to war.

So which Clinton is it? The O'Hanlon Clinton who actually supported the war, or the Clinton Clinton who opposed the war in her heart but never spoke up? Sincere war hawk or weak leader? I'll believe either one.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 7, 2008 11:01 AM

I think a repudiation of the Ken Pollack class of Democratic elites is one of the best reasons to Support Obama or Edwards over Clinton.

Furthermore, people seem to underestimate the advantage of having a candidate who in november can say "I was against this war from the beginning". This is a far stronger message than "I supported this war but I was misled" or "I voted for authorization of the war but not the war itself".

Obama can run against Iraq without sounding like he's splitting hairs or waffling. That'll be incredibly valuable in the general election.

Posted by WillieStyle | January 7, 2008 11:01 AM

he "seems contemptuous of the motivations of those who supported the war."

Personally, I don't think O'Hanlon is strategic enough to pull of the "double bank shot" that would involve making this comment in order to convince Obama-skeptics who might be turned off by Obama's center-pandering rhetorical style. I really think he's turned off by Obama's contempt for the war-supporters, and that can't help but make me feel better about Obama.

Posted by Tyro | January 7, 2008 11:06 AM

Non-tricky version.

O'Hanlon is over-reaching. It's essential that we have contempt for the motivations of some of the people who supported the war since some of those motivations were nasty business. O'Hanlon wants forgiveness for his support of the war not by explaining what his motivations were but by seeking a political advantage based on a false reading of Obama's position.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 7, 2008 11:19 AM

Tyro, that was the point. Given that Yglesias didn't bother to explain, it's possible that you (or other readers) aren't familiar with what Yglesias has called the O'Hanlon Primary: a contest for Yglesias's approval that can be won be alienating O'Hanlon.

The first post I could find that framed the idea in such terms (albeit as the O'Hanlon Factor, not yet the "Primary") is here, and a good example of Yglesias referring to the O'Hanlon Primary a bit later is here.

Posted by Warren Terra | January 7, 2008 11:21 AM

The situation seemed very clear to me back in 2002. Many leading democrats weren't interested in the war, but they didn't want to be left off the bandwagon if it went well. Guys like Lieberman were for it, obviously, but there was no vocal, principled opposition from Clinton and others. It was all about looking towards 2004 and 2008. If Clinton had come out at the time and said the war was a bad idea, she wasn't going to vote for it, and that was the end of it, she'd be looking at the presidency now.

She took the low-risk approach, and she lost her bet.

Posted by Helter | January 7, 2008 11:25 AM

Re O'Hanlon's comment "Sanctions limited his funds for military programs, but the sanctions were eroding fast in the years before the invasion"
------------
Good point. There was a strong likelihood that 66 year old Saddam could lie low for 7 or 8 years, restart his WMD program and lead a jihad at around ..oh, when he reached 80 years old.

66 year old men plan for the long term.

Posted by Don Williams | January 7, 2008 11:33 AM

Quick question: Who killed the most Iraqi civilians in the last ten years -- the Neocons or Saddam Hussein?

Posted by Don Williams | January 7, 2008 11:36 AM

I'm "contemptuous of the motivations of those who supported the war," but I want to be sure Obama will get us out of Iraq fast.

Posted by Jennifer | January 7, 2008 11:50 AM

The full article is firewalled, so I don't know if there's more context to the quote you presented. Having said that, this is a complete non-sequitur:

Yet Mr. Obama consistently accuses those who supported the war of political motivations -- and unsavory ones at that. On Dec. 27, for example, Mr. Obama said in Des Moines, Iowa, "You can't fall in line behind the conventional thinking on issues as profound as war and then offer yourself as the leader who is best prepared to chart a new and better course for America."

This blatantly isn't Obama accusing war supporters of political motivations. It's him saying that their support for the war casts doubt on their judgement.

Maybe in the rest of the article O'Hanlon goes on to present examples of where Obama says war supporters' judgement was clouded because they were politically motivated. But in the absence of that link this quote doesn't do the work it seems to be trying to do.

Posted by william | January 7, 2008 11:57 AM

I personally am not contemptuous of ordinary Americans who were persuaded by jerks like O'Hanlon that Hussein might actually give weapons to terrorists.

But the imperialists who thought an illegal, unprovoked was a good idea? Or the cowards and opportunists and liars who pretended to agree with a popular president? Heh.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 7, 2008 12:05 PM

She took the low-risk approach, and she lost her bet.

Which is odd, in a way, since Ken Pollack, Michael O'Hanlon, Bill Kristol, Frank Gaffney, Michael Ledeen et al. paid no price for making that bet. Nor did George W. Bush in 2004, which shows that Betting On War isn't by definition a losing strategy, even in elections. Unless you're a Democrat, that is, where the results are less clear-cut.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 7, 2008 12:11 PM

Obama "seems contemptuous of the motivations of those who supported the war."

It's amazing that O'Hanlon can write this with no sense of irony. Was there anyone in 2003 on the Democratic side who was more contemptuous of opponents of the war than O'Hanlon. I seem to recall he even wanted the Democratic foreign policy establishment to shun his former Clinton Administration colleague Ivo Daadler for his apostasy in acting as a foreign policy advisor to Howard Dean.

Posted by Ben Brackley | January 7, 2008 12:21 PM

Here's my question, especially directed at the Obama-philes...

The Iraq War is today very unpopular among the American electorate, and gigantically unpopular among the Democratic primary voters picking the nominee.

Since Obama did for various reasons originally oppose the war, he has a clear shot at being as negative as he wants about it, without being tagged as a "flip-flopper."

So why doesn't Obama make the crazy War his absolutely central issue in the campaign, and promise that if elected, he'll pull all our troops out within (say) one year?

The only reasons I can see is that (1) he doesn't really want/plan to do anything like that or (2) he's scared of alienating powerful elements of the media and the Democratic donor-base.

Either way, does it really suggest that if nominated he'd suddenly start moving "to his Left," or if elected, he'd actually then (voluntarily) withdraw from Iraq?

Unless we're (quite possibly) driven out of Iraq by forces beyond our control, I personally believe that a President Obama would end up running for reelection on a promise "to reduce our American army of occupation in Iraq."

Posted by RKU | January 7, 2008 12:22 PM

No one has ever lost a national election by being for a strong America, even when that strength is demonstrated by war.

Will the Kumbaya Krowd pull it off this this time?

I seriously doubt it. And the greater risk is that with Obama as the national figurehead the Democratic party will sink back into oblivian for another thirty years. Tearing apart Hillary Clinton, our most visable and productive progressive democrat, is not going to be a good thing for the long term ability to work together as a cohesive party. If the knives come out over Hillary just think of the recriminations we will see when Obama loses the general election.

Posted by ken | January 7, 2008 12:32 PM

Well, RKU, how about this from Obama's speech in Nashua on Saturday?

Golly, that was hard.

To answer the broader question you raise: yes, Obama is making his candidacy about more than the war. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because he trsuts those people planning to cast their votes based on the war to know that Obama opposed the war when doing so was politically chancy, at a time when Hillary voted for it and Edwards co-sponsored it.

Posted by Warren Terra | January 7, 2008 12:38 PM

Yes, this is definitely a big compliment (and complement) for Obama. As Willie notes, it could also be a compliment for Edwards, if anyone cared to think of it that way.

Obama can run against Iraq without sounding like he's splitting hairs or waffling. That'll be incredibly valuable in the general election.

I'm not sure this is as incredibly valuable, electorally, as you might assume. Edwards can also credibly run against the war as far as most people are concerned. It is definitely a strength for Obama, especially among younger people, I would guess; Iraq is the ultimate incarnation of the fucked up mess younger people are inheriting - and you can't blame them for being *extremely* pissed off. It's pure brutal, mindless-dumbass and they're going to pay for it, to a certain respect.

But it's worth remembering that much of the country was snookered into the war, and not just because pols and pundits approved it. A *lot* of people made a mistake - a majority of the country, really. I think Gore is a key person to think about here. As I mentioned in another thread, Gore very publically and dramatically changed his mind about a lot of things (it seemed more dramatic because it was him!), and his lionization was not impeded by it - rather the opposite. He had basically the Howard Dean position on Iraq in '02 - favoring a compromise amendment which really wouldn't have produced a different result (let's be honest folks). He really is a very popular figure across a broad range nowadays.

A lot of people changed their minds. It's not easy to admit a mistake, and that flash of character when you do so is a delicate thing. To some people's POV, Obama might sound like he's saying 'I was right and all of you were wrong - nya nya!' I'm obviously exaggerating, but...see the point? If Obama pushes too hard on his early (voteless) stand against the war, it's not necessarily all great for him. From everything I've seen, he's too smart not to see this.

OTOH, I watched a speech from Michelle Obama last night, and she was sometimes inspiring, but also kind of a scold, particularly on this question: Barack was and is simply morally superior, and we must Trust in the Wisdom of This Man. I mean, she's his wife, and I'm glad she trusts him - and you can't take it away from him that he WAS right. But there's only so much value to that at this point. She said that BO's stand against the war was couragous because he was in a 7-way primary fight in IL at the time, which is true. It's also true that, because he was in a 7-way primary fight he wasn't supposed to win, no one paid attention to him that much. Barack is a brilliant politician, but he was lucky, too. There was no enthusiasm at all for the tired mediocre hacks he was running against in the Dem primary in IL, and, due to the continuing nervous-breakdown of the IL GOP, he faced Allen Keyes in the general. Michelle noted that Barack got a lot of 'downstate' vote, which defines him as a 'new' kind of politician - sure, he got a lot of votes from all over IL against Allen Keyes. Why does he need that kind of spin if he's 'new'? I'd say he's lucky in this election too. That's not a slam against him at all - you could say that he knows how to pick 'em, which is good. But it's wrong to think he is a master of the universe here. I'd hope that any Democrat would win against the current field from the other side of the Security Fence (can we give 'the other side of the aisle' a short break, please?). But it matters how you do it, dangit!! Just winning the election isn't enough.

I would also just like to put in a good word for the general concept of being capable of changing your mind. It's a sign of intelligence, for one thing. I personally like the idea of a president (or other human) who is a serious enough person to be able to do that, and Obama obviously more than qualifies as that kind of serious person, no less than Edwards or Gore - and so different from the current Oval One. No matter how evil and fucked up the Republicans are, rigidity on our part is a trap and a mistake.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 7, 2008 12:38 PM

productive progressive democrat

You can say a lot about Hillary, but the claim that she is a "progressive" is just laughable. Try examining her record.

just think of the recriminations we will see when Obama loses the general election.

The Hillary camp sounds more and more like Glenn Reynolds everyday.

They don't seem to get the fact that most of the country can't stand Hillary Clinton -- and for good reason.

Posted by jim | January 7, 2008 12:41 PM

Ken, I don't hate Hillary - but where is the evidence that she's

our most visable and productive progressive democrat

Assuming you typo'd "viable" to "visable" (because any nominee will be "visible"), where is the evidence for any of those three adjectives? I, particular, I thought "viability" was determined in the opinion polls (where she has no advantage) or at the actual polls (where she is expected again to underperform).

Posted by Warren Terra | January 7, 2008 12:44 PM

"If Clinton had come out at the time and said the war was a bad idea, she wasn't going to vote for it, and that was the end of it, she'd be looking at the presidency now.

She took the low-risk approach, and she lost her bet. "-Posted by Helter

I don't think so.

Had she come out against the war, she would have been tarred and feathered in the press. Then afterwards, when vindicated, she would be punished for being right when the press was wrong ("right too soon syndrome"). She would be painted as a crazy anti-American who, like a stopped clock, was right once. Who opposed the war from a position of prominence and had a chance to be nominated?

Obama had the advantage of not mattering in 2002-2003. That's the breaks.

Posted by Njorl | January 7, 2008 12:52 PM

Obama had the advantage of not mattering in 2002-2003. That's the breaks.

Exactly. Not a slam on Obama, but simply true.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 7, 2008 12:58 PM

Clinton is still our most visable candidate nationally. Most Americans know nothing about Obama and Edwards except perhaps recognizing their names. I would bet that at this stage most Americans would not know that Obama was a democrat if they did not also know he was black.

And yes Clinton has been our most productive progressive candidate.

Obama's signature success, he claims, is to have help write and sponsored a bill that controlls how the Senators eat with lobbiests, ie. they now, thanks to Obama, have to stand up when they eat and can no longer sit down.

Big fucking deal, eh?

Clinton on the other hand was instrumental in getting S-CHIP passed, health care for children, when her overall univeral health care plan failed.

But hey, weight the merits of the accomplishments any way you want. For me though I take substance over symbolism.

Posted by ken | January 7, 2008 1:01 PM

Re pseudo in nc's comment "which shows that Betting On War isn't by definition a losing strategy, even in elections. Unless you're a Democrat, that is, where the results are less clear-cut."
------------
That's because if you claim to represent the common citizen, the common citizen expects you to not kill 3800+ of their sons in an unnecessary war -- and to steal $Trillions out of their Social Security/Medicare to pay for it.

They also expect you to tell foreigners like Haim Saban to piss up a rope when he suggests that US soldiers are "one of the two pillars of Israel's security".

By the way, how's the Republican Party doing? Donald Rumsfeld??

Anyone seen Dick Cheney out in public in ..oh .. the last two years??

Anyone notice Big Oil being praised in the last Republican debate?? Me neither.

Posted by Don Williams | January 7, 2008 1:03 PM

"Tearing apart Hillary Clinton, our most visable and productive progressive democrat"

This is such tripe on so many levels.

And then this:

"when her overall univeral health care plan failed"

Yes, thanks for the simple reminder that had she not proceeded in so Cheney-like a manner in 1994, the health care crisis might not be so immediate and burgeoning. Wow, you could almost say she's the Rummy of health care!

ken, you need to go back and play with barbie.

Posted by heh | January 7, 2008 1:13 PM

"Had she come out against the war, she would have been tarred and feathered in the press."

At most, she would have suffered politically for a year or two, but she wasn't up for reelection until 2006 and she couldn't have been forced out of office. And the press loves it when a cassandra proves correct. Which politician have they "punished" for being wrong on Iraq?

Posted by Helter | January 7, 2008 1:14 PM

I figure she should have come out against the war because it was obviously crazy, the planning for the occupation, which was signaled in advance, was an open invitation to guerilla warfare, and we were opening up a war in the Middle East on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 while paying tribute to a country that did - Pakistan - and taking soldiers out of a country where the vacuum would invite back in our en enemies - Afghanistan.

But I know, valuing lives, American interests and whatnot is unimportant next to whether you can photo op your national security credibility into a presidential race. I mean, whose really important, Hil or 4,000 some dead loser Americans - the type of people who'd never get to pal around with celebrities at a cocktail fundraiser. Truly, it is just a bet in a horserace.

Posted by roger | January 7, 2008 1:37 PM

But a politician who has contempt for the opinion leaders like O'Hanlon who helped sell the country on the war seems like exactly the sort of person you want in the White House.

Geez, do we need a politician who has contempt for Matt Yglesias?

Until I figure out where his old archives are (next to Andrew Sullivan's?), I suppose this will have to do as a supplement to memory, that unreliable servant.

Posted by Tom Maguire | January 7, 2008 2:47 PM

Geez, do we need a politician who has contempt for Matt Yglesias?

Do we need a politician who has contempt for my uninformed views from 2002 -- sure! I mean, look, I was 21 in 2002. I didn't know anything about Iraq. I had a great deal of faith in Democratic Party leaders like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and DIck Gephardt who I naively assumed had scrutinized the intelligence. I thought Brookings "experts" like Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon were reliable sources of information. That was all totally wrong and dumb, and while a lot of people made the same mistake I did, a lot of other people saw through it.

It would be silly, obviously, to anathematize everyone who was wrong forever. But O'Hanlon's whining that people aren't treating the case for war respectfully enough is preposterous.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 7, 2008 3:18 PM

Geez, do we need a politician who has contempt for Matt Yglesias?

Geez, do we need a deliberately worthless, sourpants'd comment like this? Here's a question for the ages: A worthless physical letter is not worth the paper it's printed on. What is a worthless psyber-comment worth less than?

Posted by jonnybutter | January 7, 2008 3:21 PM

Don Williams asked pertinent question. Who killed more Iraqis and when? And during those timeframes when was Saddam a US client and not an opponent?

We forget how much we were in the bag for Saddam during the Iran/Iraq War. We had people on the ground supplying targeting information for his artillery even as he was deploying chemical weapons. "An Iraqi plane accidentally attacked the USS Stark (FFG 31), a Perry class frigate on May 17 (1987), killing 37 and injuring 21" Was it really an accident? Well in the event we gave Saddam a free pass. Where was the outrage then?

The quote is from a Wiki article that is pretty good. U.S. Support for Iraq during the Iran/Iraq War The Reagan Administration including some guys named Cheney and Rumsfield turned a blind eye to Saddam's past and current killings, and then turned around and let a lut of dual use equipment go through. Nor did they seem to trouble Bush 1 in 1992. Now O'Hanlon wants to blame me for not knowing that Saddam killed his own people! Well screw him. I know all about that and a lot more. Not everything goes down the memory hole.

Yeah I knew Saddam was a monster. I also knew that invading Iraq would in all likelihood, given the totality of what we knew at the time would turn into the exact clusterfuck that Billmon and Gilliard told us it would. This was never going to work and O'Hanlon needs to stop blaming the people who got this right and take a nice heaping gulp of STFU. This whole invasion was never about human rights violations, and this after the fact attempt to guilt trip liberals is just crap which no one should accept.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 7, 2008 3:21 PM

What william said. This is a total non-sequitur:

Yet Mr. Obama consistently accuses those who supported the war of political motivations -- and unsavory ones at that. On Dec. 27, for example, Mr. Obama said in Des Moines, Iowa, "You can't fall in line behind the conventional thinking on issues as profound as war and then offer yourself as the leader who is best prepared to chart a new and better course for America."

The example in the second sentence in no way proves the allegation in the first sentence.

Posted by Oberon | January 7, 2008 3:22 PM

But a politician who has contempt for the opinion leaders like O'Hanlon who helped sell the country on the war seems like exactly the sort of person you want in the White House.

So, if I substitute "blogger" for "politician," "an A-list blogger like Yglesias" for "opinion leaders like O'Hanlon," and "to pay attention to" for "in the White House," is it still right? Why not?

Posted by HTML Mencken | January 7, 2008 5:43 PM

Chris Matthews asked Clinton what the difference was between her and Obama as to when US troops would be out of Iraq.

She couldn't answer the question. She said simply that she would withdraw them quickly and "responsibly".

To which Matthews asked, "You're saying Obama is irresponsible?" which she ducked.

Then Matthews asked her to explain the difference. She testily said the news media could figure out the difference.

Bottom line: She had no answer.

Then she had to play the female card and go over and practically give Matthews a blowjob.

The video is over at HuffPo - check it out.

Hillary Clinton Battles Chris Matthews In Heated Exchange Over Troop Withdrawal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/07/hillary-clinton-battles-c_n_80297.html

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 7, 2008 7:38 PM

So basically Clinton voted killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of American troops for not being made fun of for two years. What a leader.

O'Hanlon is just basically made that he and his friends like Kenneth Pollack won't be working in an Obama or an Edwards administration. Boo fucking hoo. That's the price of being retarded and caring more about your career then whether or not your actions unleash ethnic cleansing.

Posted by Reality Man | January 7, 2008 9:41 PM

Saddam's links to al Qaeda weren't oversold. Unless you are needlessly obsessive about distinguishing between original members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and old Muslim Brotherhood that Zawahiri and al Masri came from and al Qaeda as being hugely different enemies then you know that Saddam had built up extensive links with Islamic militants that were part of Ansar al Islam, GIA, Abu Sayyaf and many other Islamic groups that were al Qaeda proxies around the planet.

I've documented the court findings on this from different countries at my site www.regimeofterror.com and documented the HUNDREDS of members of the former regime in custody who were caught working side by side with al Qaeda since 2002, before the invasion. Many of them in custody have admitted prewar cooperation. The two sides continue to cooperate in Iraq, in Syria, in Europe, Yemen and elsewhere.

The disgusting politicization of this topic is inexcusable and when additional interrogation logs come and further declassification of recovered documents (coupled with Ray Robison's new book "Both in One Trench") lead only the most partisan of partisans to continue saying "no links."

Posted by Mark Eichenlaub | January 7, 2008 11:30 PM

Bullshit, Eichenlaub.

The fact that you conflate all Islamic militants with "Al Qaeda" clearly shows how little you know about the issue.

Cheney and his ilk sold the specific line that Hussein was a supporter of Al Qaeda based on flimsy crap about Al Qaeda personnel allegedly being in Iraq or in some flimsy contact with Iraqi intelligence. None of which was born out by investigation.

I'm not saying that Islamic militants might not move from one organization to another or change their views and become more or less militant and thus change their allegiances.

I'm saying it was bullshit that Saddam supported Al Qaeda and people in the intelligence community treat that as consensus.

Which means YOU'RE the one "politicizing" the intelligence by conflating all Islamist groups into one big "trench."

Yes, I know Robison's books is a big deal with the right wing. As long as it does what you're doing here, conflating Islamic groups into one big "Islamofascist conspiracy" all run out of Iraq, it's bullshit.

The fact that the right wing nuts are crowing about how it will "prove that overthrowing Saddam was the right thing to do" is clear evidence that it's horseshit.

I don't care if Saddam HAD nuclear weapons and if Osama bin Laden was living in Saddam's palaces. Invading Iraq (and Afghanistan) was STILL STUPID.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 8, 2008 12:13 AM