I had a rushed (in that I had no time for side trips, or pics) trip across the glorious southern US, but arrived safely in Florida almost exactly three days to the hour after I left California.

The only immediate post I have is on an interview of MoDo by Charlie Rose just before bed (I had little time for anything except drive or sleep) in a motel just east of San Antonio. She was explaining how she was having trouble deciding whether Bushie attacked Iraq because Saddam attempted to kill his father, or because he was trying to upstage his father (for not taking him out thirteen years ago). Then one of her colleagues suggested, “why not both”?

Hilarious. That one certainly must have had them tittering about the water coolers on West 43rd Street. And, of course, Charlie wouldn’t ask the obvious question, so I will.

Why not neither, Maureen?

Why not employ Occam’s Razor?

Isn’t it possible that he invaded Iraq for exactly the reasons that he stated? That Saddam was determined to accumulate WMD, that he was in violation of every agreement since the end of the Gulf War, that we couldn’t wait until the threat was imminent, that he was a continuing source of instability in a region? Is it really necessary to introduce oedipal motivations into this, which half your readers won’t even understand?

Apparently the state of the Gray Lady is that, yes, it is.