The Dish

There’s no question that the emergence of a nuclear Iran in the next year or so will be one of the most important foreign policy challenges either Bush or Kerry will have to face. Our options are limited. We can’t invade another country; surgical bombing will almost certainly miss its target; so we are left with sanctions and/or incentives. What are the differences between Bush and Kerry? In a word: attitude. Check out this piece today about yet another European initiative to try and get Iran to behave. John Bolton acquiesces in the new Euro-plan, but essentially disses it at the same time. Money quote:

A European envoy said Mr. Bolton had been unable to disguise his apparent disdain for the European proposal and spoke with “the minimum courtesy imaginable” in a way that “bordered on the unacceptable.” But he said Mr. Bolton nonetheless agreed tacitly to let the Europeans go ahead with their initiative. Mr. Bolton would not comment. “They didn’t jump on the train physically,” a European official said, describing the American attitude. “But there was nobody who told us, don’t go ahead.”
An administration official, amplifying the American attitude, said: “They didn’t ask for our approval, and we didn’t offer it. But everyone came out of the meeting understanding that we’re not objecting to it or blocking it either. They said they really wanted to do it. We said, it sounds like you’re going to do it anyway, so go ahead.”

I sympathize with Bolton. But why the undiplomatic huff? If we want to get eventual UN disapproval of Iran, we’ll need the Europeans. Why diss them now? If we’re going to acquiesce in something, what purpose does it serve to piss them off in the short term? The truth is: there’s little practical difference between what Bush and Kerry will actually do about Iran. But Bush will continue to do it in a way that needlessly alienates people whose help we could do with. That’s the choice we face.

Finally someone laments what a godawful embarrassment Crossfire is. Transcript from Wonkette:

Tucker Carlson: You always scold people like this at dinner at your house?
Jon Stewart: If they have a show that’s as stupid as this one.
Tucker: You know, you’re not as fun as you are on your tv show.
Jon: You know what, you’re just as big a dick as you are on your tv show.

Ouch.

Ryan Lizza follows another candidate.

One of my favorite bloggers, Dan Drezner, is leaning toward Kerry. He’s a hawk like me, and a conservative on many issues. He makes a good case. But don’t miss the counter-argument from a retired diplomat at the end.

Here’s an email that may help explain some of the mutual incomprehension now floating around:

While I’m sure some of the anger over Kerry’s mention of Mary Cheney stems from the bigotry you’ve described, that being gay is something unmentionable, I think the other issue here is generational.
For many people of a certain age (take your pick – 45? 50? older?) they were taught that you weren’t supposed to discuss politics or religion with strangers, much less yours or their sexuality. To mention a third party’s sexuality, someone neither of you know, in a conversation when it would be unnecessary to do so, would be at best guache, and at worst obnoxious.
Like it or not, for the “old school” among us, one’s sexual identity is intensely private stuff, something only the individual and their loved ones have the right to bring up, even when “everyone” knows about it. They recoiled from Kerry’s casual mention in the same way they would recoil from a neighbor casually mentioning something intimate about another neighbor down the street in a conversational tangent.
I think this isn’t the case with many people 40 or younger, who view sexuality as more mundane and matter of fact, akin to skin color. People can come to their own judgments about which way is better, but I’ve little doubt that this gulf in perceptions about social etiquette exists.

That’s probably true. I’ve lived my entire adult life as openly gay. Maybe I’m out of touch with the way others – especially older then me – feel about the propriety of mentioning it in public. But that doesn’t mean they’re right and I’m wrong. It just means we come to the problem with vastly different experiences. And of course, I am right; and they’re wrong. But we should probably close this discussion, don’t you think?

As usual, impenetrable. But civilized. And, at times, quietly contemptuous of the views of someone like Gary Bauer. Compare it to Bill Kristol’s hysterical notion that mentioning someone’s publicly acknowledged homosexuality amounts to “McCarthyism.” Yes, he’s lost it – but for a good reason. The reason is that Kristol can see when he’s been check-mated. It is indeed difficult to base part of an election campaign on the inferiority of a whole group of citizens if the family of the vice-president includes two (Mary and her partner). Kristol is incensed that the old gay-baiting tactics won’t work – because you actually have to bait your own offspring – and that Kerry has finally had the balls to call this bluff. Still, let the record show: this is the first time in history that Bill Kristol has ever written a defense of gay people. Again: better late then never.

CONSERVATIVES AGAINST BUSH: Another email:

I completely understand your frustration with the current administration and President. I too, am a classical conservative who feels completely abandoned in this campaign by the Republican platform, and am surprised how far right the dems have moved in recent months adopting so much of the opinions I find important. Although I still am hesitant to cast a vote for Kerry – I’m at this point abstaining out of protest – I find myself leaning much more towards Kerry than Bush.
Have you ever thought a Kerry election might actually save the party from the Fundamentalist Idealism that plagues the current administration? I think a witty slogan on your site might be: Save the Republicans, Vote for Kerry. Maybe a Kerry election will force the Republican brass to see they can no longer win national elections catering to their bigoted and close minded base, and thereby force them to adopt a more Reaganite approach to economic policy as well as finally dismissing its attacks on certain groups to enrage and engage this base.

If Bush wins this election, on the other hand, all bets are off.

Yes, there are some heartening developments – in Sammarra, as I’ve noted. Falluja is now headed, it appears, for a big showdown; and we can only pray for success. There seem to be cracks in the insurgency – between domestic anti-Americans and the Zarqawi fanatics. Great. Let’s try and widen them. But the security situation hardly seems to be improving. The Green Zone, which I was warning about a couple of weeks back, is no longer safe. If you cannot maintain minimal security in the inner sanctum of your own capital, then security itself is a misnomer. And now we have indications of some reservists – the victims of Bush’s awful war-management – who are simply refusing to go on what they are calling “suicide missions.” Even America’s soldiers are having a hard time defending themselves in a country where chaos reigns. Whose responsibility? Bush’s. Will he take it? Never.

“The quote you use for the Poseur alert was a joke! The paragraph continues, ‘The crude animation, much maligned, brilliantly distills and exteriorizes its makers’ Weltanschauung.’ Then comes the payoff: ‘Also, I really love the talking/singing poop that leaves big splotches of shit wherever it lands.'” Yeah, you’re right. My bad. Sorry, David.

From the Wall Street Journal.