I'd like to dedicate this post to ol' Freddy LaRue, the Nixon White House higher-up widely purported to be agent "Deep Throat" - Bob Woodward's anonymous source at the Post. LaRue passed on to the great West Wing in the sky a couple days ago (the Plumbers are still in Purgatory...if they're lucky.)

My buddy Andy & I were laughing about Deep Throat yesterday. Which one of them came up with "Deep Throat"? Was it Woodward or LaRue? Can you imagine the awkward moment of silence after LaRue instructs Woodward, down in the darkened parking structure at 3am: "By the way Bob, call me 'Deep Throat.'" Or, on the flip side, LaRue's shock when he finds out Woodward's naming him after a cult porno flick?

If your name was Deep Throat, would you want to emerge from anonymity? Hmm... Anyways, this situation actually makes me regret growing up in the 80s instead of the 70s...if that's possible.

Of course the buzz is all about Kerry's speech last night. I give it a B+ - a triple on the Jeromy Burnitz scale. Well, definitely a stand-up double, and probably an exciting slide into third where he's barely safe. If his style wasn't so "I am giving a speech" and a little more conversational, ala Edwards or (moment of silence) Clinton - well, if the wind's right or you're playing at Coors field in Denver, then that sucker's over the wall.

(BTW, Burnitz almost did it AGAIN last night...the man must be stopped, at all costs.)

I liked pretty-much everything Kerry had to say. Of course the Republicans are gonna jump all over it with "How do you expect to pay for all that?" Like they can talk. We had a 200 Billion "surplus" (remember that word?) under Clinton and who-knows-how-much-more if we had continued in that direction. You ask me, anybody who votes Republican on the grounds of "fiscal responsibility" is severely misinformed.

As William Saletan points out, he really turned the Republicans' faux-optimism, appropriated-patriotism, and sleeve-worn religion on its head and eloquently took it back not for Democrats, but for all Americans. A great shoutout for tolerance, diversity, and, this little slip of paper called the Constitution. As Ali G would say, "BOOM-shaka me's gonna cap that waynkah Ashcroft likes a sissy boy, aaight??"

OK, the salute at the beginning was not great. It appeared contrived, even if Kerry has earned the right to do that ten-times over his competition. In the little written coverage I've looked at, I've seen a few comments on the "not if we want to, only if we have to" comment in regards to war. Even my girlfriend, who I will from here on out refer to as Cronkette because I know how annoying it is to hear people drag on about their significnt others ("'my girlfriend' this, 'my boyfriend' that..."). Plus, by sheer coincidence that name resembles Wonkette, which I
think's appropriate. - Even Cronkette, upon hearing that, commented "Didn't Bush say the same thing, though?" (To which I promptly replied, "Well yes, sort of, but he lied.")

Anyways, I'll hand it to the neighborhood critics that this comment opens up a whole can of worms. When exactly does "want" turn into "have to"? If you're talking about Somalia or Kosovo, did we absolutely have to? Is "have to" limited to national security? Or does it expand to include "have to" in terms of moral obligation? And if moral obligation fits under "have to" - what's the cutoff point? How many innocent civilians from abroad have to be slaughtered before 'Genocide' is slapped on there and we shift to global policemen? What if you're just one person short? (Sudan, I am looking in your general direction.)

They're tricky questions, and I guess Kerry could have used the rest of his speech philosophizing about just war theory, if he felt like it. Thing is, he didn't, because that wasn't the point. Kerry didn't mean to bring up speculation on "want to" vs. "have to," even if he inadvertently did (which isn't a bad national dialogue to engage, in my opinion) All he's saying is, "the current administration led us into THIS war because they wanted to, not because they had to - not by ANY definition of necessity." Pure and simple.

Critics will probably say: "Well, Kerry voted to authorize war himself, with the same 'intelligence.'" Kerry voted for the potential of war on the basis that Bush would adhere to international law, not going rogue and losing our credibility and world leadership in the process. Again, "complexity" - not just black and white, yay or nay - "with us or against us." Say what you will about his vote, Kerry presumably understands the real issues in international relations that Bush just blows by, consumed by his evangelical faith, among other factors.

Honestly, I'm just gonna vote for the guy because he administered CPR to a drowning hamster. It takes a special sorta hero to do that...

Wow, I should really get some work done....