Month: August 2010

Julian Sanchez wants the Government Accountability Office to oversee the intelligence community. The Obama administration threatens to veto.

Ross Douthat is disappointed in right-wing muckraking:

From the day I started this adventure ten years ago this summer, the Daily Dish has evolved. It evolved from a late night opinion dump, posted at 2 am to an ongoing blogathon, day in day out. It went from white print on navy background to what we have today. It once had no photos and no videos. Now we have window views and mental health breaks every day. From an independent site, we retained total editorial freedom first at Time and now at the Atlantic. And at the Atlantic, I was able to hire interns to add extra eyes and ears as the web exploded in size and scope and variety. Interns in turn helped increase reader-generated content so that we have the stream of collective consciousness of today's latest iteration of the Dish – in which I operate as a kind of composer/disk-jockey for the music that we play.

I'm more than psyched therefore to announce the latest evolution: in addition to Chris and Patrick, two other former interns are returning to add more beef and depth and color to the Dish. Zoe Pollock – coming from the NewsHour – will both be helping me organize this contraption that grew up around me, as well as under-blogging. Conor Friedersdorf, no stranger to Dish readers, will be under-blogging with his usual range of interests and keen eye, but also focusing on both the degeneracy of the conservative movement, and the green shoots we are beginning to see of a saner, more imaginative, more traditionally conservative policy revival.

We've added a new masthead to acknowledge these changes. They'll also, with any luck, relieve some of the pressure on yours truly to keep this ideas and news machine humming day in day out, while getting some time for more expansive reading, thinking and rest. Thanks to the Atlantic for finding the funds for these reinforcements. We hope the range and diversity and depth of the work we do will keep improving.

Bernstein yawns at a story about where various reporters sit at White House press conferences.

More gasoline on the Islamist tinder-box.

Andy McCarthy argues that sharia is the biggest foreign policy threat faced by the United States. But, in a move that his namesake would have loved, the threat no longer just comes from al Qaeda, but from Islamists under the bed:

Some Islamists employ mass-murder attacks while others prefer a gradual march through our institutions — our legal, political, academic, and financial systems, as well as our broader culture; the goal of both, though, is the same. The stealth Islamists occasionally feign outrage at the terrorists, but their quarrel is over methodology and pace. Both camps covet the same outcome.

So we’re slam-back in the 1950s, with American Muslims in general as the new reds. What to do about it? Uh-oh:

Will that entail an ambitious project to democratize Islamic countries — notwithstanding that sharia dictates waging jihad against Westerners who try? Gingrich’s embrace of President Bush’s second inaugural address suggests that he may think so. How we go about it and whether we use our military to spearhead a “forward march of freedom” are matters the former speaker did not flesh out.

So the basic plan is 50 years or more of nation-building via the military, as conceived by George W. Bush. What could go wrong?

It's in the Christian Science Monitor.

A round-up of the wave of marriages here. One single moment:

Just ask them how they intend to cut spending by the same amount – with specifics. It's really quite simple. Meanwhile, real conservatism shows signs of a pulse:

"I'm very much in favor of tax cuts but not with borrowed money and the problem that we have gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money," Greenspan said. "And at the end of the day that proves disastrous. My view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here."

A reader writes:

I have been reading you for close to twenty years, and I wonder why you post things without knowing if they are accurate?  I would really like an answer to this question. In this case, I am referring to the Mel Gibson case.  Do you realize this is a child custody case, with all kinds of wild charges being flown about?  Both sides have been ordered to be silent, but only one side (Mr. Gibson's) is following the judge's orders.

You are taking everything that his ex has said for the gospel truth, and worse yet, posting it on your blog.  Wouldn't it be better to wait until the case has been litigated in the court until you make your judgments?  I mean, aren't people still innocent until proven guilty in this country?

Since you have already posted something wildly accusatory and wrong, let me point you in the direction of something the mediators in this case have said.  They have no stake in the case.  They are the most IMPARTIAL.  If you have one ounce of class left, you will post this story. 

Since Mel Gibson admitted hitting his girlfriend in the teeth on tape, I find that pretty convincing evidence that her claim – and photograph – are legit. And for the record, we have aired emails doubting Oksana and defending Mel.