Is the "Intent" of Larry Craig Good Enough?

By John W. Lillpop

Perhaps I am too cynical, but Senator Craig's resignation speech seems to reflect a smidgen of uncertainty.

After all, Craig did say that it is his "intent" to resign. Does that not suggest that the issue is still open, if ever so slightly, and is tentative?

Example: It is my intent to play center field for the Los Angeles Dodgers and to hit a grand slam home run in the bottom of the ninth inning to win the World Series for the bums.

However, there may be a problem reconciling my intent with reality given my weight, age, lack of eye- hand coordination, and the refusal of the Dodgers' front office to accept my collect calls so that we can talk contract, bonus money, and the like.

It is also my intent to win the Power Ball lottery the next time the jackpot hits $300 million. Again, reality may get in the way of my intent.

But back to the United States Senator from Idaho. Why is this just your "intent," Senator?

Why not say:

"I hereby resign my position as Senator of Idaho. To allow for an orderly transition of responsibility to my replacement and to assure effective coverage for the great people of Idaho, I shall work in the senate through September 30, 2007.

Thank you.

By the way, did I mention that I am not gay?"

That would have been the perfect good bye with yet another "I am not gay" thrown in just to make Craig's point again.

Or is being nebulous and a bit iffy exactly what this Senator had in mind?

Was Senator Craig deliberately being vaguely specific, or is it a case of the senator being specifically vague?