Eli Lake launches a new weekly column in the New York Sun with a defense of Undersecretary of State for arms control John Bolton. I don't disagree with Lake that Bolton's "public statements advance the policy of the president and his administration." But I disagree with Lake that it's Bolton's critics who are the deceivers here; rather it's the administration that tries to get it both ways: to wink at their conservative and neoconservative base through Bolton, but without ever publicly backing up his statements, as if to wink at moderates that Bolton is a bit off the Bush reservation. What is Bush's policy on Iran? The administration hints to neocons, through Bolton's statements, that leave it to them, with a second term, Iran's nuclear program will be taken care of (just don't look at Bush's first term record on Iran for proof.) But Bush won't get reelected by stating clearly that a second term would could likely lead America to a new military engagement in the Persian Gulf, especially after the last one went so disastrously based on the fantasies the Bolton supporters wove about what that would entail, and indeed, about what the very threat Iraq posed was. Go read Eli's column and see what you think.

Update: Matt Yglesias has more on Eli's column, here.

While you're at it, go check out former Clinton speechwriter and Washington Monthly editor in chief Paul Glastris blogging up a storm this week on the Swift-Vets saga at the Washington Monthly:

What I find infuriating about all this is that Kerry’s willingness to protest the war is an essential part of what, to my mind, makes him one of the great heroes—indeed, perhaps the greatest hero--of that era. Here’s a guy who, as a college student, understood and expressed publicly serious and well-founded doubts about the wisdom of America’s Vietnam strategy. Then, unlike many others of his generation, he put his doubts aside and his life on the line in order to do what he could to make his country’s policy a success. Then, having seen first hand that his initial suspicions were correct, and that the line coming out of Washington—that victory was just around the corner, that the “Vietnamization” strategy was working—was a lie, he stood up and told the public the unvarnished truth. In my book, that’s three morally courageous acts in a row. And that’s not counting the thankless but vital roles he played in investigating and ending the POW/MIA controversy, opening relations with Vietnam, and improving federal services for veterans. Name me one person in public life today who negotiated the moral minefield of Vietnam with greater courage and sure-footedness.

Exactly right. As one reader BC wrote me over the weekend, "Bush, of course, never having written or reflected on anything, is immune to this sort of thing. (Did you hear the Swiftvets complaining that Kerry set aside 10 pounds of his 90 pound personal allotment for a *typewriter*? How un-American could you get?)."

While we're at it, can I just say how much Dole sucks? He should be ashamed.

A friend over the weekend reminded me that Karl Rove's strategy has always been: don't attack your adversary on his weaknesses. Those will take care of themselves. Attack him on his strengths.

But this can be played both ways, right? The fact is, Bush's so-called "strengths" have become his vulnerabilities. Even some Republicans recognize Bush's 'decisiveness' in taking the war to Iraq in hindsight reflects rashness and and lack of reflectiveness.

Posted by Laura at August 22, 2004 11:04 PM