This is in response to John Dickerson's "Boogeyman Foreign Policy" article. It employs some amusing political calculus. Especially the last paragraph.

In some sick, twisted, and messed up way, the article compares and analogizes President Bush with the Iranian President, Ahmadinejad. The article first argues a mere veritable truth by making an elementary point -- and making it sound as though it's some sort of a revelation: the point being that Obama is trying to link McCain to Bush for political advantage; and that McCain is trying to link Obama to Ahmadinejad for political advantage. Not exactly breaking news, is it?

The conclusion in the final paragraph is shocking and disturbing, because in this author's twisted analysis, Bush and Ahmadinejad are roughly equal factors! It's pretty scary that some American political writers would stoop so low as to compare Bush to Ahmadinejad in such a way (as though Admadinejad is as credible as the British Prime Minister, or the French President). I realize Bush is unpopular, but come on: he is still the President of the United States, twice elected by the American people. Ahmadinejad is the leader of a rogue state, a state that has been listed by the United States as a state sponsor of terror since WELL BEFORE George W. Bush took office; and who continually calls for the destruction of Israel, the foremost American ally in the region.

So, for this author to make the "guilt by association" political calculus comparisons -- and apparently assign Bush and Ahmadinejad roughly equal values within that formula -- simply cannot be taken with any seriousness. It's also downright un-American and unpatriotic to implicitly analogize and compare our sitting president to some rogue actor like Ahmadinejad in such a way as this author did. This author should issue an bona fide apology to all readers for this jouvenile, un-American article.

He didn't compare Bush to Ahmadinejad, you imbecile.

What he basically said was that McCain IS Bush. Whereas Obama has said that he might talk to Ahmadinejad. So which association is more likely to stick?

4000 soldiers dead

30,000 injured

Trillions of dollars spent on a war initiated on falsehoods

A war that has lasted longer than WWII

That's Bush's tally by the way...maybe if someone could come up with figures for Ahmadinejad we could compare and see which one of these leaders hates his own country more.

Well yeah, that's the dichotomy: McCain IS Bush, whereas Obama might talk to Ahmadinejad. But here's the problem: the author has assigned roughly equal negative values to both of the "negative characters" in the calculus. The author is saying that Bush and Ahmadinejad are both bad presidents of their respective countries (thereby comparing them and speaking of them in the same light), but concluding, as you said, that the McCain-Bush "relationship" will be more harmful than the potential "Obama-Ahmadinejad relationship." That's is a ridiculous assertion, because it assumes that Bush and Ahmadinejad are roughly equally bad presidents.

Here's the critical point: The author does not allow for the possibility that the American people may be so shocked merely by Obama's plans to TALK with Ahmadinejad, that that could outway McCain's more substantive ideological relationship to Bush. In that sense, the author does not recognize that Bush and Ahmadinejad are apples and oranges---that it's not possible to compare the their respective impact on McCain and Obama's campaigns.