To everyone in the media who thinks that Dean's remark was self-evidently a gaffe: exactly how does Saddam's capture make us (including me, in the middle of West Texas) safer? And if you don't have a good, specific answer, then what is so preposterous about what Dean said?

In law school, they teach you that anytime you see a word like "clearly" or "obviously" in an opinion, watch out. It's probably there because the judge's point is neither clear nor obvious. The only purpose of overconfident rhetoric is to cover up weak arguments without having to acknowledge them.

"Flailingly stupid" probably falls into the same category...

Gee, that's funny. Kaus is calling coworker Will Saletan flailingly stupid (well, I sometimes agree with that--but he's more lazy than stupid), as well as the Vice President (parnoid and unethical, but not stupid). Kaus, on the other hand...

Saletan:

The line that in the speech that draws the most flak afterward is, "The capture of Saddam has not made America safer." But analytically, Dean is right. The people who are safer with Saddam in prison are in Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait. We weren't on the list. I supported the war to punish a scofflaw and put teeth in U.N. resolutions. Bush now defends the war as a rescue mission for oppressed Iraqis. Neither reason has to do with U.S. security.

Cheney:

Vice President Cheney warned this week that 'the major threat' facing the nation is the possibility that terrorists could detonate a biological or nuclear weapon in a U.S. city.

Cheney told commentator Armstrong Williams that the war on terrorism is 'going to go on for a long time' and that U.S. soil remains vulnerable to al Qaeda, the network behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The vice president said one of his biggest worries is 'the possibility of that group of terrorists acquiring deadlier weapons to use against us -- a biological weapon of some kind, or even a nuclear weapon.'

It seems Mickey has problems with pronouns -- "we" was/is perfectly accurate in this case.