2008 Woodie Awards
From the Prince opinions page. Because of things like this. A disgracefully stupid column. You really should be required to know something about Iraq before writing on it. Thus, I have been recommending Nir Rosen’s Atlantic piece to people. Rosen has actually been to Iraq and done phenomenal reporting, and refutes every single one of the truly obtuse claims made by this Prince columnist. Let’s go through it:
Democrats are not much better. In 2002, many acquiesced to war despite doubts because they feared appearing weak on defense. Now, to appease wealthy, vocal, pacifistic party power brokers, congressional Democrats are calling for troop withdrawal.
Excuse me. Many of the people calling for redeployment are military experts, such as former Reagan defense hawk Larry Korb. This is such a ridiculously stupid and inaccurate statement, I’m truly shocked that the editors didn’t take it out. Caro is a true conspiracy theorist, believing that those of us calling for withdrawal are somehow puppet masters behind Democrats. Does Caro believe Jack Murtha is “pacifistic”? Finally, I think I understand the ‘Princeton bubble’: Caro is stuck in the middle of it if he believes such ridiculously stupid things.
I do not agree with these calls for withdrawal. I have been particularly struck by comparisons between the current Iraqi government and the regime of Saddam Hussein. The argument is essentially that we have replaced one monster with another, and that this makes staying in Iraq worthless. But while it is true that some prisoners have been abused, the abuse falls far short of the systemic torture and murder employed by Hussein.
Ah yes. We’ve heard this one before from the liberal hawks. The humanitarian argument for the Iraq War. So how about replacing the millions of other monsters running regimes around the world? Why not invade Darfur? Hundreds of thousands of people are being slaughtered there for their ethnicity. Or is Caro just a moral relativist? Despicable.
My first report; more to come.
Over the next few days, we’re going to be making selected articles from the November issue of the Princeton Progressive Nation, just released at Princeton University, available here online. Today, we begin with editor Katie McCulloch’s analysis of sexism at Princeton publications.
I have more on this at CampusProgress.org, but I want to circulate this letter from CAP that I first referenced here. To my knowledge, this hasn’t been circulated very widely.
Just two USG vice-presidential candidates, and neither of them support the PJP’s proposal.
may actually be determined on an instance of the voting record of those running. I hope students pay attention to candidates’ stands on this, and vote accordingly.
The Princeton Progressive Nation be hosting a rally against torture today, Thursday, shortly after 1:30, here at Princeton University. We’ll be calling on the administration to withdraw its opposition to the McCain-Graham amendment to a Defense Department Appropriations bill that would ban the use of torture in the war on terrorism.
We’ll be in front of Frist Campus Center, and feature discussion of the issue by professors, deans, retired CIA officials, students, and community members. We’re then going to start a short march around campus beginning at around 3:15ish that’ll depart from the steps of Frist and go around Nassau Hall. And no, this isn’t Frist Filibuster, Part II 
It’s about standing up for the fundamental American values we should be promoting and defending, not undermining.
Okay, okay. I know. We should have written about this earlier. But school often gets in the way of life. But after I saw this at Think Progress (full disclosure: the Center for American Progress, which publishes Think Progress, also funds the PPN), I decided we have to weigh in here.
On Tuesday, the Princetonian reported that Alito’s thesis advisor, Walter Murphy, had said in an interview with the paper that he and Alito had “agree[d] that the 1973 landmark abortion-rights case Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.” In the original article, my understanding is that Murphy was not quoted as saying this; rather, Chan Sethi noted it as a paraphrase of a quotation from Murphy.
Now we learn that the Prince says it misinterpreted what Murphy said- which was that they never actually talked about Roe. I don’t think the Prince is at fault here in any way. Rather, I think Walter Murphy got called out by Republican operatives and was pressured to get a correction printed. I have a great respect for Prince reporters and editors. I simply can’t imagine that they would make that kind of a mistake. My suspicion (and I have absolutely no factual grounds for believing this . . . but speculation is what blogs are for, anyway) is that Murphy slipped up big time when talking to the Prince and said something he shouldn’t have said, got chastised by influential types, and is now backtracking under pressure.
Based on Murphy’s flip-flop, it’s probably wise to assume that we don’t really know what Alito believes about Roe. But I just can’t seem to believe that the Prince would have reported what it initially did if Murphy actually hadn’t said that. I know that some insider-types at the Prince read this blog; if you wouldn’t mind, send me an email, and tell me what’s really going on here.
Prince has a story:
Professor George Forgie, who served as the conference’s director, recalled in an email that Alito probably “played some kind of coaching role.” With four seniors serving as commissioners, Alito ostensibly guided the work of the 20 or so juniors participating in the conference. The conference is the equivalent of modern-day Wilson School junior taskforces.
Meaning that it was not reflective of his personal view.
Just another WordPress weblog
RSS 2.0
