May 25, 2004

TOM CLANCY IS calling the Iraq war a mistake. He’s got a new book out with Gen. Zinni. Richard Baehr, meanwhile, thinks that some of Zinni’s criticisms are dubious.

Professor Bainbridge, who was pooh-poohing my earlier post about Bush’s vulnerabilities, thinks that this is really bad news for Bush, who can’t afford to lose the Clancy-fan vote. That’s absolutely right — though judging by the current Amazon reader reviews Clancy’s fans aren’t persuaded just yet.

UPDATE: Joe Gandelman observes a trend: “The bottom line on GWB’s vulnerabilities: each day it seems like another group in the coalition that helped elect him in the nail-biting election against Al Gore is dropping away. What we seem to be seeing now is a slow but steady trend away from Bush, rather than to Kerry, who remains as exciting and palatable as a bowl of frozen chopped liver.”

Meanwhile, reader Chuck Pelto emails:

I think Tom, with his expressed desire for a cause belli, was thinking we needed something like 10,000 dead from a weapon of mass destruction that could be traced to Iraq, as the use of ebola by Iran in his book Executive Orders.

I think Bush is correct in being more pro-active than Ryan. We’ve
already had our mass casualty event.

Well, there’s a possible Russian Ebola bioweapon story in the news today. (Here’s the New York Times link.) It’s probably not a bioweapon, but given that it was a scientist at a “former” bioweapons lab who died, you could certainly spin some Clancy-like speculations if you wanted to.