In Search of WM(S)D (Exactly what kind of trouble is the president in?)

[ozymandius]

The White House, the Democrats, and the media—all puzzled—are trying to make this calculation. You sense the precision instruments at work, measuring opinion and Zeitgeist air quality. Writers of all biases have been sent back to further develop the plot—we’ve gotten to the cliff-hanger without being sure of the outcome.

<..cut..>

The extent of the screwup in Iraq is nearly as great as it could possibly be. Nothing works in the country, a war of attrition continues and grows, and the U.S. bears all of the responsibility. It isn’t just a bad situation, but if, having so grandly assumed this gargantuan and imperial task, we don’t make it into a good situation, we’ve failed. The Bushies promised nothing less than Democracy in the postwar raj. What were they thinking? They didn’t, obviously, plan an exit strategy. (In Afghanistan, we were able to simply pack up and go.) Nobody left any wiggle room—there’s no graceful fallback.

<..cut..>

Blame is in play.

It’s on the CIA now. It’s hovering near Condi Rice (who hovered near the president during his press conference). It keeps moving and spreading. The inevitable effect of reassigning the blame is that you start to really piss people off. Indeed, you piss off vast and powerful parts of the bureaucracy itself. And the bureaucracy, loyal only to itself, inevitably turns on you.

more...

[ozymandius]

1. This will have to come out in the wash someday.

All we need is a few agitators. Unfortunately I cannot count on my Bush-sycophant Senators Miller and Chambliss to do anything. I've tried already. These two merely parrot whatever flows from the bowels to the mouth of Condescleezza Rice (just like Bush*).

Consider the reality, though: there are just so few ways this game can be played and I think that the Bush administration has a handful of aces and eights.