Well, the transcript is already available, so let me give my perspective on Senator Hart's comments.   First off, this worried me a bit at first:

KING: Senator Rudman, let's start with you. Has the president made his case to go to Iraq?

WARREN RUDMAN, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Larry, I agree with what the president is going to do, or it appears that way. But I must say that I think the case could have been made in a better way. Bob Dole referred to it. Whether or not the al Qaeda connection exists, it has not really resonated around the world. The statement that Iraq is an imminent threat probably doesn't really make it.

But the case is quite simply stated. Saddam Hussein for the last 10 or 12 years has been attempting in every way that he can to build weapons of mass destruction. His reasoning is quite obvious. He wants to dominate the Middle East. He has a lot of scores he would like to settle. And allowed to continue, without some sort of regime change or total disarmament, this man will come back to haunt all of us.

The president has taken on a decision which I think is politically very risky and quite courageous. I believe that if we don't move now, or something doesn't give in the next two weeks, we will live to pay for it in the Middle East and here.

KING: Senator Hart, what do you think of what Senator Rudman, your friend, just said?

GARY HART, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Well, I've listened to everything the president has said, and I'm more confused now than ever before. If, in fact, we are -- the justification for a military invasion is to carry out U.N. sanctions, apparently the U.N. doesn't want us to do that. If, in fact, Iraq on the other hand represents an immediate and unavoidable threat to us, we don't need U.N. approval.

What I think -- where I think we got caught was we're trying to get the U.N. to support us in the unilateral action that the president -- where the president believes Iraq represents a threat to the United States that is imminent and unavoidable, and the world simply doesn't believe it. And further, as I've said, the president has not leveled with the American people about the costs in dollar terms, but particularly in human lives that this -- this adventure might involve.

And until he does, the American people can't make a judgment as to whether they want their military committed in this cause.

Now before anyone gets me wrong, I think Hart's points are spot on.  Every point he makes is correct.  However, and this is what worries me, where are his thoughts on how Saddam should be dealt with?  On the way to making the pertinent points he made, he somehow avoided discussing whats to be done with Saddam.  Thankfully, later on he presents his thoughts:

By the way there is also another alternative. I know a lot of people say if we don't invade, then we're just going leave him alone. That's not the alternative. If the United States were to seek U.N. and international support for a declaration that we will have a uniform fly-zone over Iraq or an Iraqi no-fly zone nationwide, triple the inspectors, accompany them with U.N. troops, we can shut him down and nobody needs to lose their lives.

I think this is a completely reasonable answer to the above questions, however it didn't show up until 10 minutes after his above comments.  I think he needs to work more on connecting these two messages.  This is the second time I've come away from an on-air interview of his with a little confusion over his position on this issue.

I though it was an interesting show, featuring Bob Dole, and a panel consisting of former Senators George McGovern, Alan Simpson, Warren Rudman, and Gary Hart.  Hart didn't get much play, which was a little surprising considering he may be running for President, but I guess thats the price you pay for being coy ;)

The most surprising viewpoint in the show was that of Dole and Rudman (Republicans both) that the Administration had not made the case that Iraq posed an imminent threat or was linked with al-Qeada, and that attempts to make this case were taking away from the more reasonable reasons for war: freeing the Iraqi people and promoting democracy in the Middle East, and stopping Saddam from eventually developing WMD capabilities that could threaten the US through terrorist ties.  When Dole and Rudman are both making this case, while being fully supportive of the Administration's goals, it is time to reconsider the strategy.

I may have some further comments on this once I get a copy of the transcript.

Savage seems either incredibly dim or just plain nuts. Or just really, really terrible on television. Without any opposition, he still had a hard time scoring simple political points.

Salon weighs in on MSNBC's new show.  This guy is the biggest chump I've ever seen.