“LESS IMMINENT”

Here’s the new phrase for critics of Bush’s Iraq policy:

They argue that the threat from Hussein was “less imminent than the administration claimed and that the United States should have done much more to win international backing and better prepare for postwar reconstruction.”

Well, it’s an improvement. But it makes as much sense as “less pregnant.” The general argument E.J. lays out, though, is a good one for the Dems. If I were running as a Democrat this year (ha ha ha), here’s what I’d say: “President Bush, thank you for taking the first bold steps in the war on terror. But you have become too polarizing a figure at home, and especially abroad, to win the battle we now wage for the hearts and minds of the world, especially the young Arab world. We intend to make even more of an effort to bring Iraq into the normal ranks of nations, but we also want to mend fences with our friends in Europe, and move the country forward. You have made too many tactical mistakes, even though we do not question your good will and courage. To pay for the Iraq project, we are going to rescind the tax cuts for the very richest Americans. Blah blah blah.” See what I mean? This would have been the perfect Clark argument. But he had to pander to the base and so destroyed his centrist credibility. Alas, that also applies to almost everyone else. And the likeliest nominee, Howard Dean, would be able to make this case with the least persuasiveness. Bush-hatred, far from wounding the president, has, I think, deeply wounded the Democrats. Just as Clinton-hatred (I plead guilty, in part) wounded Republicans. We never learn, do we?