Ok--this is basically a one-line diary.  But I just caught this line in the NY Times story on Chimpy's big Fallujah decision, and couldn't resist posting my one line:

"Are you fucking kidding me?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/politics/25IRAQ.html?pagewanted=2&hp
From the Times, talking about our negotiations w/ the mayor of Fallujah:

"The political situation has been somewhat murky, with rival city councils appointed by American civilian and military officials, and it is unclear how Mr. Ibrahim remained mayor."

Forget democracy--we're establishing rival oligarchies!  In a town that we've long recognized as a problem hot spot, anyway.

Now I'm not even outraged, as I finish writing.  It's just too much.  God help us all.

Here's one answer:  He could have told John Ashcroft to stop cutting the FBI's counterterrorism budget!

But that's too short for a diary.  So my larger point--I'm worried that we're going to lose an argument that overreaches, and says Bush could have stopped 9/11.  That seems to be where the argument is heading.  That, or vague sort of "he should have done what he did (tell the FBI/CIA to work on it), but more vigorously."

I think we're better off focusing on some key specific actions that show Bush mismanaged security.  We need to back off on saying he could have stopped 9/11 (a meme that is just undigestible by too many, and speculative anyway), and instead focus on examples that will add to the general meme of no judgment/no management abilities.

Got any others?

From the (currently) front page artice on what was taking up Condi's time, pre-9/11:

"Ms. Rice also created a hierarchical, corporate style in which she largely delegated policy development to others. To oversee the creation of a new strategy on counterterrorism, she relied on her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley. For Ms. Rice, in part, that preserved time to concentrate on issues more familiar to her, to tutor Mr. Bush and to translate his instincts and decisions into policy."

I don't know how to put in bold, so I'll say it like this:  TUTOR MR. BUSH??!!  

Last time there were some links up to a couple of people blogging the MA ConCon.  There's some info on http://www.bostonphoenix.com/, but I'd love to hear more.

If you have comments, inside scoop, etc., please post!

I'm for Clark, but getting used to the idea of Kerry.  

However, I have seen two disturbing things re: Kerry on the Internet lately:
This TNR blog entry weighing the possibility of Kerry coming out for a constitutional amendment http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml
And Eleanor Clift's article (currently on the front of msnbc.com) discussing a potential "Sister Souljah" moment with Kerry re: gay marriage.

In short, Kerry has refused to rule out supporting a constitutional amendment on marriage.

I find this very, very difficult to swallow.  I would vote for Kerry over Bush, regardless, absolutely.  And, I consider myself typical of the many gay activists who have been measured and reasonable on this issue, accepting support for civil unions and even personal opposition to gay marriage, from the candidates.  I do not want this issue to interfere with the need to defeat Bush in order to right things on Iraq, health care, economy, general sanity, etc.  

But, I will not quietly accept being "Sister Souljah'd".  So I'm calling for comments, help.

Beyond refusing to vote for the nominee (presume Kerry, for now), or work for the nominee--both unacceptable responses, IMO--what are the potential responses?
And, what are people's opinions on this?  Am I out of the dKos norm, wanting Kerry to show some restraint on this?

Please, no responses telling me why to support other primary candidates on this.  One reason I like Clark, already, is that I think his military background gives him a bit of teflon on this.  But for the purposes of this diary, I'm accepting that Kerry is the likely nominee, and hoping for constructive suggestions--and for a measure of whether people care about this or not.