I have responded to Matt Yglesias’s op-ed in the LA Times last week today on the LA Times website. I would welcome further responses on the actual strategy I am proposing re Iraq; I will respond later today both to Max Sawicky and on how I think there is a chance of developing a bipartisan group that can actually put real pressure on the Administration to change its strategy now, rather than just running out the clock and handing the mess over to a new Administration. But before everyone jumps in, let me try to respond generally to the many (almost 100) comments to my post yesterday and to Max’s response.

Read more »

The debate over bipartisanship continues. I wrote a response to the many responses I got, on this blog and others, to my initial article calling for more bipartisanship in the Washington Post. I've just submitted an op-ed to the LA Times that is really a response to Matt Yglesias's piece there last week.

But Max Sawicky's post last week attacking what he sees as the entire American national security establishment summarized EXACTLY what I am worried about in the current state of netroots politics. He argued that "to set the ship on a better course, you have to be able to sink it." That was Ralph Nader's view in 2000, and he succeeded precisely in sinking Al Gore's candidacy. That was a victory?

Here is my nightmare. The Cheneyites succeed in creating a situation in which Bush does decide to bomb Iran. Iran retaliates, as they openly threaten to do, with terrorist attacks against us on U.S. soil. That tilts the election. I can imagine a Karl Rove political calculation that would buttress a Cheney-Addington national security calculation, probably with Eliot Abrams' support.

Read more »