Michael Jackson TalkRadio Content

e know that a second aircraft carrier task force is rapidly steaming to the Persian Gulf. Is the self-described "war president" planning another war? There are those who feel that he is embarking on another military (mis) adventure. We have the White House claiming, on the basis of flimsy evidence, that Iran is arming Iraqi insurgents. George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney still appear to believe that our military superiority can be used to achieve any ends. There are even critics who look to the White House to launch an attack by spring. Perhaps naiveté on my part, but I can't believe that bleak assumption or assessment. Trouble is, it may look like preparation for warfare, but if we are bluffing - and for very good reasons - the situation wouldn't appear any different than preparing for a real attack. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is continuing with his potentially dangerous nuclear program. Once again, as we've seen with the Bush approach to foreign policy, the Bush administration is not much for strategic chess games. And to quote Frank Rich in the New York Times, "... but if Bush, Cheney and Carl Rove do have a talent for anything, it is for using fear "to distract the public from reality that runs counter to White House political interests". Think about it, if Bush can paint Iran as a dangerous nuclear power, seeking regional domination, then we wouldn't be able to pull our troops out of Iraq. Sadam would have been replaced with Mahmoud. Prince Charles's younger son, Harry, a junior officer in the Household Cavalry, will later this year deploy to southern Iraq, even as the British government begins withdrawing some of its troops. As he put it to an interviewer, "There's no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst (the military academy), and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country." I admire his courage and decision, beyond his bucking British public opinion on the war, because he will surely become a prime target for jihadists seeking, as the Wall Street journal put it, "a trophy kill". He will be fulfilling a sense of duty, loyalty and honor. Have the Bush twins done anything for the war effort? Long after this year's Oscar presentations are forgotten the real Hollywood story of the moment will continue to be the attack by billionaire movie mogul David Geffen on Senator and Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton. He told columnist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times that she was "incredibly polarizing, consumed with ambition and, along with her husband Bill, "lies with such ease, it's troubling". Not co-incidentally Mr.Geffen is a strong supporter of candidate Senator Barack Obama. There are almost two years to go and already mud is flying and apologies are flowing. These candidates are going to have to learn to have thicker skins. The Clinton campaign has demanded that the rival presidential campaigner apologize. Mr.Obama's comment in response was, simply, "It's not clear to me why I'd be apologizing for someone else' remarks. Veteran columnist and broadcaster Daniel Schorr wrote a column for the Christian Science Monitor headlined "Will voters accept Hillary Clinton's non apology?" and went on to describe the evolution of her thinking on the Iraq war this way: At first in 2002 she made a speech supporting the resolution, In 2003 she said "I stand by the vote." In 2004: "I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction." In 2005: "If Congress had been asked, based on what we now know, we never would have agreed." And February 17th in New Hampshire: "Obviously, I would not vote that way again if we knew then what we now know." Dear Senator, why don't you just apologize and help us move on. It appears you won't. Your lack of contrition my haunt you further in this campaign - I hope not. Let me try again, Senator why don't you simply say, the administration conned us, lied to us and mislead us. I am truly sorry.