A collection of ideas, comments and notes on recent events...
1. Warner's first dkos blogging
Okay, I read Mark Warner's diary yesterday. A Warner staffer using the ID, TexasNate, stuck around and answered questions because Warner was off to Iowa, apparently.
And Nate answered plenty of questions (to the best of his ability). But he also noticeably skipped over a few, not the least of which was, "How much longer does Warner think we should stay in Iraq?"
You could hear the crickets chirping.
Of course, we all know the thinking of Warner on that question: "I don't have to address that because I'm not running until 2008."
And the defenders will offer the now standard excuse, "But he can't affect that policy, so why should he offer an opinion?"
Well, gee, I don't know... To show some actual leadership, perhaps?
Just an observation...
(More notes, below)
2. The DLC hedging its bets for `08
Warner's posting got me to thinking that the geniuses at the DLC have decided they won't make the same stupid mistake in 2008 that they made in 2004 when they put all of their eggs into Lieberman's basket. (That has to rank as one of most ignorant tactical moves in politics in the last 30 years.)
For `08, they're flooding the zone, so to speak, hoping one of their own comes out on top in a war of attrition. We have Clinton, Warner, Biden, Bayh and, possibly, Richardson and Vilsack all in the hunt.
Perosnally, I hope they all cancel each other out. I'd laugh almost as hard as I did at Joementum's incredibly inept `04 effort.
3. I finally agree with Tucker Carlson on something
Last week, Weenie Boy made news by announcing he was shedding his bow tie. He was quoted as saying:
"I just decided I wanted to give my neck a break."
You and a million others, Tucker.
4. Opening a Republican's eyes
I sent around Roddy McCorley's Seussian gem, "I'm the Decider," to a bunch of friends, including a few good-hearted Republicans (yes, there are a few).
A Republican friend responded:
OK. I painfully winced when I read his quote in the NY Times this AM. The thing that blows me away is that Moveon.org and the author of this little ditty are supposing that Bush wants to "nuke" Iran. Even if we attack, there is no way it would be nuclear. It's an absurd viewpoint. I received an e-mail urging me to e-mail Bush against nuking Iran. How does this perception become reality?
I responded with this:
Well, according to Reuters yesterday:
Bush declines to exclude nuclear strike on Iran
TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Bush refused on Tuesday to rule out nuclear strikes against Iran if diplomacy fails to curb the Islamic Republic's atomic ambitions.
Not saying he'll use it, but he's not ruling it out, either. My guess is that we would not be hearing from all these retired generals if the option wasn't on the table. Don't know if you read Seymour Hersch's piece in the New Yorker last week, but his sources in the Pentagon and on the Joint Chiefs told him that several members of the Joint Chiefs said they would resign if the administration did not remove the nuke option from Iran planning.
My Republican friend's response:
I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking it anymore.
What the fuck is wrong with him? Nuke them before they nuke us? How much more likely would a rogue terrorist set off a weapon of mass destruction in the US if we used one of those weapons in the Middle East. Then we can be in first (Hiroshima), second (Nagasaki) and third place in the use of nuclear weapons.
I'm the decider.
Aaaaarrrrrrggggghhhh.
Granted, this guy is a reasonable and well-read fellow who is not particularly a big Bush fan, but even he hadn't heard that Bush is leaving the nuke option "on the table."
Every now and then, we can open someone's eyes.
Thanks for reading. Enjoy your day.