I saw the funniest thing on Tucker Carlson's PBS show. Carlson said Kerry was a 'wuss' and that women didn't find him attractive. No disrespect to Carlson, but when Al Franken challenged him to a boxing match, Carlson appeared to wet his thong on CNN and passed on the whole hand-to-hand combat thing. For Tucker Carlson to call Swiftboat Commander Kerry a 'wuss', that's not spin, that's dementia.
But it was his comment about Kerry not being attractive to women that was bizarre. If Commander Kerry isn't masculine enough for women, what chance in the world would Tucker Carlson have?
Tucker Carlson is a very bright, articulate, witty guy. He wears a cute little bow-tie. He could fairly be described as 'wussy', but I'd think he could find himself a girlfriend. Why would he think women aren't attracted to articulate men like himself? How could he even bring himself to say such a thing--on television, no less? I mean, how could he even form the concept in his mind that men like himself aren't attractive to women? His male guest, an urbane, sophisticated man, immediately responded, "Well, I do pretty well with women." He kind of 'pimped' when he said it. That's the response I'd expect from a sophisticated, articulate heterosexual man. Tucker's female guest just looked at Carlson like he was crazy.
Can you imagine 'Wolf' Blitzer on CNN saying, "Women don't find men like me attractive. They like the caveman type."
I can only conclude that Carlson was talking about his own taste in guys. He doesn't find sophisticated men like himself attractive. So what does it mean? If Tucker Carlson likes the 'George Bush' type, if he wants a hillbilly to drag him out of a singles bar by the hair, more power to him. Have a ball, baby! It just means that nothing he says in the campaign has any credibility.
Iranian Missle Crisis
Take a close look at the debate clips when Bush talked about Iran's nuclear program. Consider that the Iranian government was watching one of the most feeble, nonsensical and incoherent performances by an American President in history. "We have a good strategy. I hope it works." "We already put on sanctions. We can't put on any more sanctions." "Foreign ministers are carrying the message to the Mullahs."
Yeah, and the Mullahs are sending a message to Israel: so much as blink at our reactor and we'll strike first. They've publicly stated they don't fear America because we're bogged down in Iraq. And they can 'tweak' the insurgency any time they want to make things worse for us. Iran shows contempt for Bush, and he can't do anything because he blundered prematurely into a glue trap in Iraq. What message does that send to the world?
I doubt the Mullahs were impressed by Bush's squinting, drawling and banging on the podium. They think Bush is easily outmaneuvered.
To protect his slim hopes of a stable Iraq, President Neville is appeasing Iran over nuclear weapons. If either America or Israel shoots at Iran's reactor, Iran will shoot at Israel, the whole region will explode and Iraq is lost. By invading Iraq, Bush has handed the Iranians a trump card.
Now what is Israel supposed to do, let Hezbollah become a nuclear power?
Would Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, or Bush Sr. have failed to anticipate the Iranian play before invading Iraq? Hell no.
And the question still remains, were we fed false intelligence by Iran to bait us into Iraq, precisely for the purpose of distracting us while Iran goes nuclear. Were the Iranians thinking that far ahead of George Bush and Dick Cheney?
If Nixon had strategized this poorly, the Soviets would have won the Cold War (or the Cold War would have gone hot).
And don't give me that homily, "9/11 changed everything." Yes, 9/11 changed everything. Post 9/11, I fear Iranian nukes more than I would fear Soviet missles in Cuba.
When the Iranian crisis comes to a head, Bush will bungle it just like he bungled Iraq. Where is Nixon when you need him?