I guess we should thank Al Gore for making his position clear on the war against Iraq. He says he’s for it, except he’s against it. The timing is wrong. The European allies are not on board. We need to debate it more. He’s for delaying it, but he’s against saying we will take on Iraq unless we do so soon. “I think the principle of ‘first things first’ does apply and has to be followed if we are to have any chance of success,” he expounded, arguing that we have to make Afghanistan a perfectly functioning democracy before we protect the homeland. Does he have any sense that Americans are under threat now, that we have already lost over 3,000 civilians to mass destruction, that the enemy is vowing to do more, and that Iraq is easily the most significant source of weapons of mass destruction? Yes, first things first. The first thing is ensuring the security of the citizens of the United States. Isn’t it clear what the strategy of Gore and perhaps some other Democrats now is? You use the corporate scandals to bring down Bush’s approval ratings and regain the Congress. You start making the case that a war against Iraq will be diplomatically inflammatory and militarily risky. You never actually have the balls to oppose the war outright, but you nitpick and cavil and undermine until you hope the president or the public blinks. If a hideous terrorist attack occurs, it’s Bush’s responsibility. If it doesn’t, you can claim he’s war-mongering unnecessarily. Win-win. Except for the security of the United States, in which it’s lose-lose. I used to be pro-Gore. Then I thought he was narrowly the worse choice for president. Now I think I’d rather have almost any Democrat in office than him.
WHY I CAN’T GET NO RESPECT: You’d be amazed how many liberals I meet who seem genuinely amazed I don’t actually have cloven hoofs. Charles Krauthammer charmingly exposes the reason why. A classic.
CLINTON ON FINANCIAL CRIMES: Jack Shafer has a point here. The man who pardoned Marc Rich is lecturing the president on corporate corruption? The worst that could be said about Bush is that he hasn’t been tough enough. At least he didn’t actively reward it, like the former president.
GAY MARRIAGE INEVITABLE? The polls in Canada show a narrow majority for equal civil rights for gay people in marriage – 48 to 43 percent. But in the 25 – 34 age group, the majority is 65 percent. Inevitable? Nah. But it’s clear which side is winning the debate, isn’t it?
A CLINTON FANTASY: “Under Clinton I believe there would have been no September 11, no Enron, no telecommunication meltdown, no collapse of the stock market, no deficits. Do you see what a little vision provides to this Great Country of Ours. Reagan had it, Clinton had it – and it showed. So do I pin this on this Administration, you bet I do.” This, a defense of Robert Rubin, a first-hand account of inter-racial marriage and much more on the Letters Page, edited by Reihan Salam.
The Dish 