There are a thousand ways to take apart J.R. Jones's fawning article about Nader and the new film about him ["The Nader Strategy," March 2]. So I'll try and keep this brief: One, it's early days yet on what the Democrats are going to ultimately do or not do about Iraq. To make one obvious point, Hillary Clinton is clearly not a lock on the Democratic '08 nomination.
Secondly, Katrina, and here I have to turn the mike over to our era's closet equivalent to Will Rogers: Bill Maher. As Maher has said, who, with all their wits about them, really believes Gore would have handled Katrina exactly the same as Bush did?
And if Nader has a public reaction to Katrina, I must have missed it, or to torture, unwarranted massive surveillance, or the maltreatment of wounded vets, again I must have missed all that.
If Jones's reaction to the Walter Reed scandal is to say, "Whatever, but the rottenness of the Iraq war from the start . . . " Thanks, we got it. The '06 election results, books like Hubris, etc . . . we got it. Does Jones want to attack the twisted non-thinking behind the Iraq war by shrugging off the Walter Reed scandal? Christ, I hope not.
What most of us don't get is Nader's and J.R. Jones's "plague on both their houses" thinking, which is pre-Katrina, pre-Abu Ghraib, pre-Valerie Plame, pre-Walter Reed, pre-changing the public information at the Grand Canyon to keep the intelligent design crowd happy, pre-deciding stem cells have souls, and I forgot to check the news today . . .