He sort of has a point in that Democrats should be doing more to talk about post-Iraq foreign policy. Perhaps by emphasizing how being tied down in Iraq limits our options in dealing with Iran, by pointing out that our conscious effort to project a "cowboy" attitude has alienated moderates in the Arab world, by asking why America refuses to even talk to Iran.

Or at the very least emphasizing that people who messed up in Iraq can't be trusted to make decisions about Iran.

Ah, success. Instead of being years away from the point of no return for an Iranian bomb, as we were before we allowed Europe to divert anti-proliferation efforts into transparently useless talks, Iran is probably just months away.

Back in January "the point of no return" when Iran would know enough that it could build a bomb by itself even under sanctions was the big threat that would necessitate preemptive bombing.

Depending on how you define "point of no return" which I have never seen defined rigorously enough that it is possible to say a country has or has not passed the point - it may be fair to say Iran has already passed that point it might also be fair to say Iran had passed that point before January or before 2003.  It depends on how you define the point.

Now Krauthammer expected his readers to take from what he wrote that Iran would actually have a bomb in months or at least that his readers should be afraid that Iran would have some new bomb-related program activity in months. But the phrasing shows that Krauthammer himself knew better.

The funny thing is that Krauthammer talks about the future Post-Iraq war, but if I understand his policy on the war right, there will never be a post-Iraq war time, because we will stay in Iraq forever. Or until we achieve the unreachable "victory" that will never come. Same difference.

What's really disgusting is that his columns are in the MSM (WaPo, Time). He shouldn't be published anywhere outside the far right. I stopped subscribing to Time after getting disgusted by what he wrote once too often. Maybe they finally got rid of him; I don't know.

He's also awfully creepy. Ever see him on Fox? Why is that the case with so many GOP commentators (Bob Novak comes to mind)?

I don't think that's his point, but I do think the Dems should do that. They should continually re-emphasize the basics, that Iraq and 9/11 were not connected, that the administration's war plan and occupation have been a never-ending fiasco, that they have no plan except more of the same in Iraq, etc.

The Dems should also explain their foreign policy generally and that they are not antiwar, just anti-this war. Lamont's first and middle names have become antiwar candidate. They'll obviously continue to vigorously fight terrorism, regardless of the BS Krauthammer and Cheney are spouting, and they should continue to make that point. Fighting terrorism good, Iraq war pointless.

This comparison by Krauthammer is just ridiculous. In his view, the only good Iran policy is all-out war. He can't even convince the hardliners in the Bush admin of that, apparently, but no reason not to tar the Dems anyway.

Lamont seems to think that we should just sit down with the Iranians and show them why going nuclear is not a good idea. This recalls Sen. William Borah's immortal reaction in September 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II: "Lord, if I could only have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided."

Krauthammer makes a nice point: Lamontine foreign policy will lead to a tragic appeasement in respect to Iran, where Lamont advocates getting help from our allies and offering some carrots. According to Krauthammer, this is bad because it is exactly what we were doing for the last three years, to no avail.

Recap: Lamont's prescriptions are doomed to failure because they would continue what Bush is doing.

Neocons like Krauthammer cannot decide in which of the alternative realities their screeds are supposed to be true. Typical diatribe is "how dare you insinuate that we torture prisoners! If we did not torture, terrorist would already win!" (Exercise in logic: assume that it is correct, prove that terrorists have won already.)

Matt wrote 'confidently proclaimed', not 'appeared to mean'.

I'm sorry to say it, but Matt misprepresented what Krauthammer wrote. When I read Matt's paraphrase I got an impression in my mind. When I read the Krauthammer article, I discovered the impression was not accurate. Matt got it wrong. That's a plain, inescapable fact, not a 'semantic game'.

He reinforces the opinions of the stupid and allows them to feel better about themselves.