Two Things

First of all, Tim Carpenter's campaign website is up and improving daily (he's running for WI-4). By Monday, he assures me, you'll be able to contribute online (hint, hint). He's running for a safe Democratic seat, so it's not a question of who can beat some hypothetical Republican. It's a question of who will be the best Dem we can muster to represent progressive values and ideas in the Congress. Carpenter has the right idea on sound fiscal policy (including progressive taxation), health care, education, equal rights for all, and more, all those things that drew me (and Carpenter, by the way) to endorse Howard Dean. He's a tremendous believer in talking directly to constituents (the man walks his district almost constantly) and he's got the legislative record that some other, more establishment Dems in the race lack. Check him out.

There's a long rambling post buried somewhere within me on the whole 9/11 Commission/ Richard Clarke/ Condi Rice thing. But I haven't had time to actually write it, and I won't before I fly out. So here's the gist.

I think that we all must stop, now, saying that Bush deserves ouster because 9/11 could have been prevented. It's the wrong tactic, the wrong path. We must not politicize 9/11. And don't give me any hoo-hah about how Bush already has so we should to, or start crowing about hypocrisy. Plain and simple, it's an argument that we can't win and if we did we'd look bad for doing it.

Even if the 9/11 Commission says that 9/11 was preventable, I think it would be in John Kerry's best interest to rebut the Commission, and say that, in fact, he thinks the commission has it wrong and 9/11 was not predictable or preventable.

Why? Well, because Clarke and, inadvertently, the Bush Administration itself, have given us the best two approaches to this issue, and they are the ones that we can pursue without looking opportunistic or slimy.

Clarke, who we must continue to prop up as credible, laid out one line--and it is, by the way, Dean's line from way back:

"If we catch him (bin Laden) this summer, which I expect, it's two years too late," Clarke said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press. "Because during those two years when forces were diverted to Iraq ... al-Qaeda has metamorphosized into a hydra-headed organization with cells that are operating autonomously, like the cells that operated in Madrid recently."

In other words, Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. The USA Today article finds more: "Bob Andrews, former head of a Pentagon office that oversaw special operations, says that removing Saddam Hussein was a good idea but 'a distraction.' [. . .] Stan Florer, a retired Army colonel and former Green Beret, agrees that Iraq diverted enormous military and intelligence assets."

The second line of attack is the one best articulated yesterday by the Jersey Girls, 9/11 widows, as reported by Tom Schaller:

Kristen Breitweiser [. . .] said she voted for Bush, and considered him her "biggest ally" but now believes he is her "biggest adversary." She calmly said she would "give" the Administration the fact that they could not prevent 9/11, but was miffed because of the subsequent stonewalling, and that they should not be taking credit for their candor now because it was only after efforts by people like her to force out any of this testimony. All four widows were asked if the president's and vice president's insistence on a non-public, not-under-oath testimony was motivated by a need to protect national security or because it was political. All four unhestitatingly said: "political."

Call out the Republicans for playing politics with 9/11, I say, and for delaying, stonewalling, and whitewashing. This should be easy enough when they're meeting in NYC for their convention within days of the third anniversary.

Turns out I rambled on anyway. Sigh.