Dick Cheney is just going to keep on spinning his way out the door.

In an exit interview with ABC News, he was asked if he agreed with Karl Rove's recent statement that had there been better prewar intelligence the Bush administration would not have invaded Iraq. (In the months before the war, George W. Bush and others in the White House had plenty of reason to know the WMD intelligence was iffy; still, they overplayed it for public consumption--but that's another story.) Cheney shot back:

I disagree with that. I think the--as I look at the intelligence with respect to Iraq, what they got wrong was that there weren't any stockpiles. What we found in the after-action reports after the intelligence report was done and then various special groups went and looked at the intelligence and what its validity was, what they found was that Saddam Hussein still had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the technology, he had the people, he had the basic feedstocks. They also found he had every intention of resuming production once the international sanctions were lifted.

Well--how to put this?--no. Not at all. That's not true.

In the past few weeks, I've been repeatedly asked by friends and acquaintances, "Well, what do you think of Obama's first appointments?" These various inquisitions gave me a chance to organize conflicting thoughts--which was fortunate, for The Washington Post's "Outlook" section asked me to contribute a piece on this question. The article will appear on the front page of the section on Sunday. But it's already been posted--old media meets new media--and here are some excerpts:

The more things change, the more they stay . . . well, you know. And looking at President-elect Barack Obama's top appointments, it's easy to wonder whether convention has triumphed over change -- and centrists over progressives.

A quick run-down: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who supported the Iraq war until she initiated her presidential bid, has been handed the Cabinet's big plum: secretary of state. And Bush's second defense secretary, Robert Gates, will become Obama's first defense secretary. The Obama foreign policy adviser regarded as the most liberal in his inner circle, Susan E. Rice, has been picked for the U.N. ambassador slot. Obama is elevating this job to Cabinet rank, but he's still sending Rice to New York -- and in politics and policy, proximity to power matters. For national security adviser, Obama has picked James L. Jones. The retired four-star general was not hawkish on the Iraq war and seems to be a non-ideologue who possesses the right experience for the job. But he probably would have ended up in a McCain administration, and his selection has not heartened progressives.

Obama's economic team isn't particularly liberal, either. Lawrence H. Summers, who as President Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary opposed regulating the new-fangled financial instruments that greased the way to the subprime meltdown, will chair Obama's National Economic Council. To head Treasury, Obama has tapped Timothy F. Geithner, the president of the New York Federal Reserve, who helped oversee the financial system as it collapsed. Each is close to Robert Rubin, another former Clinton Treasury secretary, a director of bailed-out Citigroup and a poster boy for both the corporate wing of the Democratic Party and discredited Big Finance. Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board will be guided by Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman whose controversial tight-money policies ended the stagflation crisis of the 1970s but led to a nasty recession. (A genuinely progressive economist, Jared Bernstein, will receive a less prominent White House job: chief economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.)

It's no surprise that many progressives are -- depending on whom you ask -- disappointed, irritated or fit to be tied. Sure, Obama's appointments do represent change -- that is, change from the widely unpopular Bush-Cheney status quo. But do these appointments amount to the kind of change that progressives, who were an essential part of Obama's political base during the campaign, can really believe in?

Perhaps Obama is trying to pull off something subtle -- a sort of stealth liberalism draped in bipartisan centrism. But it's understandable that progressives are worried....

So with these hawkish, Rubin-esque, middle-of-the-road picks, has Obama abandoned the folks who brought him to the dance?

My hunch is that Obama has made a calculation. In constructing his administration, he has decided not to create a (liberal) Washington counter-establishment. Instead, he's fashioning a bipartisan, centrist-loaded version of the Washington establishment to carry out his policies, which do tilt to the left. (And good news for the establishmentarians: Having screwed up on Iraq or the economy is no disqualification.) When asked at a Nov. 26 news conference whether his appointments of old Washington hands indicated that his administration was not going to be a festival of change, Obama replied, "What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking. But understand where the -- the vision for change comes from first and foremost. It comes from me." His job, he added, was to "make sure . . . that my team is implementing" his policies. In other words, la change, c'est moi.....

For the moment, the watchword for progressives ought to be a version of an old Reagan trope: hope, but verify....

You can read the conclusion and the entire piece here.

Is it spin or self-delusion?

In an interview with George W. Bush, ABC News' Charlie Gibson asked if he had a "do-over," what would it be. Bush replied:

The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

Whoa, there. Time for a reality check: much of the intelligence was indeed iffy, yet Bush acted as if it had been as solid as Dick Cheney's arrogance. Bush, Cheney and others claimed that Saddam Hussein had obtained aluminum tubes that could only be used for enriching uranium for bombs--when the intelligence community was split on this point (with the true nuclear experts maintaining the tubes could not be used for such a purpose). At one point prior to the war, Bush said that it wasn't known whether Saddam yet had obtained a nuclear weapons--suggesting that the Iraqi dictator might have already gone nuclear. But every intelligence report noted Iraq was years away from producing a nuclear bomb. In the run-up to the war, Bush hyped less-than-definitive intelligence--insisting it was indeed definitive--and exaggerated the case for war. (Don't believe me? Go read Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn.)

Gibson followed up:

On the road for the holiday, but here's a little nugget--and it's updated below. And let's notice that this Thanksgiving, George W. Bush did not bother to visit the troops in Iraq and serve them turkey....

As George W. Bush continues his vanishing presidency act, he's not had to deal with much fallout from the agreement his administration has negotiated with the government of Iraq--an agreement that compels the U.S. to remove its forces from Iraq. Given that Bush had repeatedly vowed that he would not agree to any timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq--claiming that making such a commitment would endanger the United States and its soldiers--his decision to do so is the equivalent of raising a white flag. Since most of the public barely bothers to think about Bush these days, his flip-flop has not been such a big deal. But those who watch Iraq closely have seen it for what it is.

For example, here's a press release from the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation:

Peter Galbraith, a top Iraq expert and former ambassador to Croatia, issued a statement today on the status of forces agreement recently signed by the United States and Iraq...."The agreement represents a stunning and humiliating reversal of course by the Bush administration, which had vehemently opposed any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq," said Galbraith.

Iraqi and American negotiators have been working on the security agreement for over a year. The Iraqi parliament is expected to vote on the pact on Wednesday. To pass, the agreement needs to get 138 votes out of 275 Iraqi lawmakers and also must be ratified by the Iraqi presidential council.

"For the last two years, President Bush has pretended that Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki is a democrat and an American ally. In fact, Maliki is a sectarian Shiite politician who heads a government dominated by pro-Iranian religious parties," remarked Galbraith. "The U.S. presence now no longer serves the interests of Iraq's ruling Shiite religious parties or their Iranian allies, so we are now being asked to leave."

The agreement mandates that "all U.S. combat forces" withdraw from urban areas in Iraq by June 30, 2009, and that "all U.S. forces" withdraw from the country by December 31, 2011. The agreement upholds Iraq's "sovereign right" to demand the departure of U.S. forces anytime and recognizes the United States' "sovereign right" to remove its forces earlier than the end of 2011.

....The agreement also bars permanent American bases in Iraq, prohibits the United States from using Iraqi territory to launch attacks against other nations, and bars any residual U.S. forces in Iraq beyond the end of 2011.

Galbraith concluded: "While U.S. withdrawal is made easier by the fact that both the Iraqi government and the new U.S. administration want American troops out, the confluence of events leading to the agreement underscores the folly of President Bush's lost Iraq war."

The Iraqi parliament was expected to vote on this agreement on Wednesday.

UPDATE: On Thursday, the Iraqi parliament approved the agreement, adding some provisions that restrict certain U.S. military activities in Iraq.

The Bush administration feels done. But examples and indications of Bush incompetence are going to be with us for a while. For example, it's remarkable that seven years after 9/11, not all the obvious security steps have been taken to protect Americans from a similar attack. From a press release issued by the Center for American Progress:

The Center for American Progress will release a new report that identifies the 101 most dangerous U.S. chemical facilities, which security experts say are possible terrorist targets. These facilities each threaten one million or more Americans who could be killed or injured in the event of a catastrophic chemical release.

The report also identifies safer, more secure chemical alternatives and processes that are readily available to these facilities. Adopting these alternatives would take tens of millions of Americans out of harm's way. With temporary chemical security standards set to expire in 2009, the report recommends that the incoming Obama administration and new Congress adopt measures to promote facility conversions.

Why has the Bush administration not moved assiduously on this front? You got me.

Meanwhile, USA Today reports:

In a front-pager on Sunday, The New York Times took on the question, is John McCain a warmonger? The paper did not put it in such an indelicate manner. But that was (and is) essentially the issue at hand. The story reminded readers of McCain's bellicose rhetoric after 9/11. In October 2001, he appeared on David Letterman's show and said that Iraq might behind the anthrax attacks. He also claimed that Mohamed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, had met with Iraqi intelligence--even though the evidence at the time was unclear. (The entire charge was eventually debunked by U.S. intelligence.) And on an aircraft carrier in January 2002, he yelled to sailors, "Next up, Baghdad!"

None of this trip down memory lane was surprising, given that McCain months ago was joking about bombing Iran. McCain is a guy who despite his own military service and POW experience has been too eager in recent years to play the war card. Not only was he among those who made false claims about Iraq to win popular support for a U.S. invasion of that country; he seemed eager for the war. The Obama campaign might consider reminding voters of his excessive enthusiasm for military confrontation with Iraq and Iran.

But that's not why I'm writing this posting. What stood out in this article was McCain's response to a query posed to him by the Times. Asked about his support for the war in Iraq, McCain replied via email:

Given Mr. Hussein's history of pursuing illegal weapons and his avowed hostility to the United States, "his regime posed a threat we had to take seriously." The attacks were still a reminder, Mr. McCain added, of the importance of international action "to prevent outlaw states -- like Iran today -- from developing weapons of mass destruction."

Okay, when will the war backers stop spinning? As it turned out, Saddam posed no immediate treat to the United States. He was, of course, a problem--but not a threat. And the war did not prevent his outlaw state from developing nuclear weapons because Iraq was not developing nuclear weapons at the time. Saddam's nuclear program was kaput. In fact, the international inspections program that was ended by the U.S. invasion was itself effectively preventing Saddam from developing nuclear weapons and other WMDs.

McCain would not admit that he had gotten Iraq wrong. He said that his pre-invasion remarks about Iraq's WMDs were misleading because of "Iraq's opacity under Saddam." But that's a convenient CYA excuse. The weapons inspectors had gotten it right at the time and were saying there was no evidence of major WMDs in Iraq. McCain, like others legislators (Republicans and Democrats), simply chose not to believe them.

On this crucial issue, there's no straight talk from McCain. Then again, there cannot be. For any admission of error might make it harder for him to rush into the next war.

I'm still on vacation. Posting will suffer for a few more days.

It was inevitable. American advocates of the Iraq war are now arguing that they know better than Iraq's leaders when it comes to how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq. And this approach seems to be animating John McCain's view of the war.

Advocates of the war received a blow recently when the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said several times that it would like to see some sort of timetable for a U.S. pullout. For McCain, this was particularly troubling, for it placed the Iraqi government closer to Barack Obama's position (set a schedule for a gradual withdrawal) than his position (stay and win, win, win, and then withdraw). So what's a neocon to do? Simple: attack Maliki.

In The Washington Post, Max Boot, a foreign policy adviser to McCain, wrote:

There is some irony in the fact that Democrats, after years of deriding Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as a hopeless bungler and conniving Shiite sectarian, are now treating as sacrosanct his suggestion that Iraq will be ready to assume responsibility for its own security by 2010. Naturally this is because his position seems to support that of Barack Obama.

A little skepticism is in order here. The prime minister has political motives for what he's saying -- whatever that is. An anonymous Iraqi official told the state-owned Al-Sabah newspaper, "Maliki thinks that Obama is most likely to win in the presidential election" and that "he's got to take preemptive steps before Obama gets to the White House." By smoothing Obama's maiden voyage abroad as the Democratic nominee, Maliki may figure that he will collect chits that he can call in later.

Giving the Iraqi prime minister an added motive to posture about troop withdrawals, even while he explicitly eschews binding timelines, is that he is engaged in contentious status-of-forces negotiations with the United States. He may figure that threatening to boot us out gives him more leverage over our troops. Beyond the negotiations, there is the imperative of Iraq's provincial elections, supposed to take place this year. Maliki no doubt expects that his Dawa party will reap political benefits from appearing to stand up to the Americans.

Oh my goodness! A political leader making statements and setting policies because of...politics! How dreadful. Boot goes on to diss Maliki: "Keep in mind also that Maliki has no military experience and that he has been trapped in the Green Zone, relatively isolated from day-to-day life. For these reasons, he has been a consistent font of misguided predictions about how quickly U.S. forces could leave."

That is, Boot, who toils as a fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations, knows more about conditions on the ground than Maliki. One need not be a fan of Maliki--who has indeed run a corrupt and inept administration--to note that he's the guy who was selected by Iraqis to be their leader and render such judgments. And that his ineptitude does not allow the United States--or the McCain campaign--to dismiss his decisions. (Can other nations do that regarding George Bush?) And what's the logical extension of Boot's (and McCain's) stance? To lean on Maliki? To support "regime change" in Iraq? To threaten to stay in Iraq no matter what the Iraqi government says. Boot does acknowledge, "Of course, if the Iraq government tells us to leave, we will have to leave." But he's essentially saying, pay no attention to what the Iraqi government is signaling. What a nice lesson for the burgeoning democracy in Iraq.

On the Hill, Republicans have been taking a similar posture. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt told the Post, "I find it interesting that Prime Minister Maliki is now the person to go to." This was a sneering remark. But whom should be gone to? When the Iraqis voted for the new government, supporters of the war hailed the event as a breakthrough justifying Bush's decision to invade a country on false (or inaccurate) pretenses. Oh, what to do when the results of that election produce inconvenient consequences?

It may well be true that Maliki is declaring he wants U.S. troops out to enhance his political standing, as local elections approach. But all politics is local. As local politics in Iraq places Maliki and his government more in sync with Obama than McCain, the McCain camp is left with the Ugly American option of insisting it knows better than the locals. And who's going to buy that?

Will John McCain soon move to an all-Iran-all-the-time campaign?

Consider this: as I've noted previously, Iraq may be fizzling out as a campaign issue for McCain. One of his strongest arguments against Barack Obama is national security. And he has used Iraq as a battering ram, claiming that Obama is a defeatist who would let the terrorists win in Iraq. Though the war is quite unpopular, McCain and his strategists apparently believe that voters don't want to lose the war and that voters can be frightened into supporting the candidate who promises triumphant victory not tail-between-the-legs extrication. At least, McCain can tout his Iraq stance as evidence that he is tough enough to take on the evildoers and protect the homeland. George W. Bush sort of pulled this off in 2004. Much of the public by then had turned against the war, but Bush and Karl Rove pointed to the war as proof that Bush was willing to everything necessary to defend the United States. The argument was something like this: Bush is so committed to protecting the United States he'll even invade the wrong country. And it worked.

Can McCain's variant--championing an unpopular war to display cajones--succeed? His problem is that the Iraqis may not cooperate. The other day Prime Minister Nouri al-Malki said that there should be a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. And the negotiations between Baghdad and the Bush administration over the agreement governing U.S. forces in Iraq has bogged down because of the Iraqi demand for a timetable and for stripping immunity from U.S. troops and contractors. A source who recently spoke to the Iraqi foreign minister tells me that the foreign minister was insistent that this agreement contain some sort of timetable.

So if the Iraqis end up endorsing a timetable or asking the U.S. to leave, McCain won't be able to use Iraq as an issue. (And, of course, if the ground reality in Iraq becomes worse, McCain's case will also be weakened.) So what's a hawk to do? Thankfully for McCain, there's Iran. He can bang that drum from now until Election Day. Hype the threat. Promise clear and decisive action--and confrontation, if need be. A warrior candidate needs a war (or near-war). Expect more Iran-slamming from the fellow who has had lots of trouble telling apart Sunni from Shia.

BTW, yesterday I linked to a Reuters article quoting military analysts who said there was no reason to go ballistic over Iran's recent missile tests. It's a point that was lost in all the tough talk that politicians dished out yesterday. So here are some excerpts from that article:

Iran showed footage of missiles on Wednesday it warns could reach Israel and U.S. bases in the Middle East, but military analysts said the damage they could wreak was limited and not enough to deter any would-be attacker....

"This is the Iranians saying: 'We can match you if it comes to that'," said Andrew Brookes of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think-tank in London. But, he added, the "possession of some rockets" was not going to stop Israel from going ahead if it felt it must bomb Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear arms.

Defence analyst Paul Beaver said Iran's missile programme was fairly advanced but that it still needed to get accuracy and guidance systems right for long distances. "They are some way away yet from threatening Israel or U.S. bases," he said.....

Iran may fire the missiles if it were attacked but its "real strength lies elsewhere," Pieter Wezeman, a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Analysts say Iran could employ unconventional or "asymmetric" methods to strike back, for example against U.S. forces in Iraq and by disrupting crude supplies vital for the world economy with hit-and-run attacks against oil tankers.

The U.S. political discourse over Iran would be improved by the addition of such cool-headed appraisals. But that would not be in the interest of McCain and the Republicans.

Forget the recent manufactured news about whether Barack Obama was shifting his position on Iraq. (He's always said that he has a goal of withdrawing troops within 16 months and would aim to do so in a responsible and careful manner, meaning that it could take longer or shorter.) The real story is this: in the general election, one candidate says, This war was a mistake and we must end it and begin disengagement; the other proclaims, This war was righteous and we must keep our troops there (maybe up to 100 years) and win it. Given public opinion on the war, it's no wonder that the Republicans and the McCain campaign want to muddy up this stark difference--and the best way for them to do that is to make it seem as if Barack Obama has an unsteady hand when it comes to the war. So expect the desperate GOPers to pounce on any Obama remark that they can twist into purported proof that Obama is not really sure what he wants to do about Iraq.

But on Iraq the McCainiacs have more to worry about then Obama. They are being undermined by Baghdad. On Monday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that he wants some sort of timetable for a U.S. troops withdrawal. Though his national security adviser added that any timetable would be conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security, this was the first time the PM had mentioned a schedule for disengagement. (All politics is local: Maliki's party faces a stiff challenge in the upcoming provincial elections from Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has called for the departure of U.S. military forces.)

So how can McCain and his gang now accuse Obama of being a defeatist surrender-monkey when his call for a timetable for withdrawal is echoed by the leadership of Iraq? This is a real problem for McCain. He has no edge on Obama when it comes to the economy. His only hope of upstaging Obama--policy-wise--is on national security matters, with the Iraq war front and center. But if the Iraqis don't buy the absolute necessity of U.S. troops remaining in Iraq, what does McCain have to offer? (How do you say nada in Arabic?)

I've been repeating this for a year--sorry to do so again--but the reality on the ground in Iraq in the fall will have an impact on the U.S. election. The connection used to be obvious: bad news there would be bad news for the Republicans here. But there's now another possibility: good news there could be bad news for Republicans here. If there are too many explosions and little political progress in Iraq, McCain could pay a political price on Election Day. But if the Iraqis decide they want to go it on their own with the Americans gone, McCain would have no Iraq policy left. Sure, he could claim the surge worked and try to claim credit. But voters, as the cliche goes, tend not to reward presidential candidates for past actions; elections, the consultants keep reminding us, are about the future. Americans don't want other Iraqs in the future. And without Iraq, McCain is merely a sometimes quirky Republican ex-maverick who has yet to learn how to speak convincingly about the number-one issue, the economy. He needs Iraq. But he needs it not too hot and not too cold--and the stove is far beyond his control.

On a McCain campaign conference call with reporters on Tuesday, Senator Lindsey Graham and former POW Orson Swindle continued to bash retired General Wesley Clark for his recent statement that John McCain's military service did not qualify him to be president. Graham, who has become a lead attack dog for McCain, touted McCain's executive experience, citing his days as a squadron leader and his tenure in the Senate. And Exhibit A regarding McCain's spine-of-steel leadership, he noted, was McCain's criticism of Donald Rumsfeld's failed strategy in Iraq. This is a familiar refrain within the McCain camp: McCain was willing, even at political peril, to decry the disastrous Rumsfeld policy in Iraq. Supposedly, this shows McCain is a fellow of guts and grit.

Wait-a-second. It's not that gutsy when you scapegoat the Pentagon chief but let the commander in chief off easy. Moreover, why should McCain win points for denouncing a failure once it was widely perceived as a failure. Where was this former military man prior to the war. When informed experts--including General Eric Shinseki--were suggesting that the Rumsfeld plan for Iraq was inadequate (because a lot more troops would be needed inside the country after the invasion), McCain did not display prescience and courage by backing them up. I recall no sign of him questioning the planning of the war or the early post-invasion decisions of the Bush administration. Two weeks before the war, he said, "I have no qualms about our strategic plans."

After the invasion, McCain did stand by the administration and Rumsfeld for several years. In March 2004, he said, "We're on the right course." In May of that year, he was backing Rumsfeld, saying it was "premature" to talk of booting Rumsfeld from his job. "He's done a fine job," McCain remarked. In December 2005, he said, "I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq" and called for staying the course. And into 2005, McCain insisted that there were the right number of troops in Iraq--that is, that no surge was needed. (You can find a list of McCain's everything's-going-well remarks here.)

Why award McCain a medal for eventually slamming Rumsfeld and backing a surge? Had he earlier--even before the war--pointed out problems and called for a more effective strategy, he would deserve kudos for both smarts and political courage. He did indeed break with Rumsfeld (not Bush) sooner than some other Republicans. But he rode the Bush-Rumsfeld Express for years. Which leads to this fair conclusion: had he been in charge, he would have made the same mistakes they did.

Recent news out of Iraq is bad for John McCain--not the news about military developments there (May was apparently the month with the lowest number of U.S. casualties since the invasion), but the political news. On Friday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared that the talks on a new U.S.-Iraq security pact were deadlocked:

We have reached an impasse because when we opened these negotiations we did not realize that the US demands would so deeply affect Iraqi sovereignty and this is something we can never accept.

The U.S. and Iraqi effort to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement--which is supposed to be hammered out by the end of July--has become increasingly dicey. The Iraqi government, as provincial elections approach, do not want to say yes to the Bush administration demand that U.S. soldiers be afforded the right to jail Iraqis and conduct military operations on their own. Nor do members of Maliki's government and the parliament fancy affording legal immunity to U.S. soldiers and contractors. After all, whose country is it, anyway?

If the talks completely collapse (which is hard to imagine) and no new agreement is reached to replace the expiring U.N. mandate covering the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, the United States might have to withdraw. Whether the negotiations end in total failure or they produce an unsatisfactory-to-both-sides compromise, McCain could find himself in great political trouble.

Winning the Iraq war is the paramount issue of his presidential bid. But what if there is no war to win because the Iraqis either tell the United States to go home or won't allow it to conduct significant operations within Iraq? What if the Iraqis signal that maintaining a high level of U.S. troops in Iraq is not that important to them? How could McCain then continue to attack Barack Obama as a defeatist cut-and-runner who would imperil the United States by yanking troops out of Iraq? The war rug would be pulled out from under McCain.

I explain this more here. But the main point is that McCain's pro-war stance--as much as it is out of sync with popular opinion--could be further undermined if the government that he claims needs major U.S. military assistance says it would prefer, given the strings attached, to do without. McCain's presidential campaign is being held hostage by Iraqi negotiators.

Where's the apology?

Politico reports that in his new book, former Bush White House press secretary Scott McClellan says that Bush was not "open and forthright on Iraq," adopted a "permanent campaign approach" when it came to governing, and used "propaganda" to sell the war. He also writes that Scooter Libby and Karl Rove "had at best misled" him about their role in the leak that disclosed the CIA identity of Valerie Plame Wilson and that he (McClellan) had presented information to the White House press corps that was "badly misguided." McClellan notes that Bush "and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war."

Now McClellan says the media was not tough enough on Bush: "If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise....In this case, the 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."

Excuse me for getting a bit huffy. But when it counted there were a few of us in the media who were indeed arguing that the Bush White House was setting new records in presidential deception--especially when it came to Iraq. McClellan, though, was part of the White House's defense team, pushing back against media coverage that questioned Bush's rationale for the war and Bush's serial abuse of facts. Apparently McClellan has seen the light. Well, where's his plea for forgiveness? If he were truly contrite about his involvement in a deceptive, propaganda-wielding administration, McClellan could demonstrate his sincerity by pledging that all profits from his belated truth-telling will go to charities supporting the families of American soldiers killed or injured in Iraq. For history's sake, it is good that McClellan is confirming what most Americans (according to polls) have long known: the Bush administration trampled the truth to win public backing for the Iraq war. But as an enabler (witting or not) of that process, McClellan owes the public more than a for-sale account. He should not profit from this book, making bucks for correcting war-supporting falsehoods that he defended. He ought to be doing penance. True heart-felt confessions come free.

It's getting harder and harder to take John McCain seriously. In April, he said,

To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership.

On Thursday, he said in a speech that if he were elected,

By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy.

That sure sounds like a promise to withdraw troops. Now, of course, McCain is asserting that his troop withdrawal will be the result of victory in Iraq. But how the hell can he make such a vow? In his speech--which lists all the wonderful things that will be achieved by 2013 if he becomes president--he doesn't say what he will do to attain this victory. Right now, it looks as if he's going to stick to the current policy. At least Richard Nixon, campaigning in 1968, indicated he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War. And don't write in: I know Nixon never used the phrase "secret plan." A reporter devised the term, and Nixon never disabused the public of the notion. He, of course, had no such plan. And it's unclear whether McCain has a clue about what to do differently in Iraq in order to net different results than those already produced.

Meanwhile, at least one House Republican, looking to prevent a GOP electoral calamity in the fall, has said that the Republicans can't cling to Bush's Iraq war policy without being decimated in the coming congressional elections. After defeating a Republican primary opponent who had challenged his antiwar stance, Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina said it was time for his party to dump Bush on the war: "If this party does not look at options and figure out how to pursue those options, we're in real trouble."

McCain and his party are in a political quagmire. Forward-march rhetoric and hollow promises may not be enough to save them. As I've repeatedly said, the war will be back--as a political issue. And all indicators--including the GOP's three recent losses in congressional special elections held in Republican strongholds--now suggest that won't be to the Republicans' advantage.

Last night, as I noted yesterday, was the annual Radio and TV dinner in Washington. George W. Bush sent his regrets, citing a higher calling than dining with 2000-plus broadcasters, journalists, and others: that is, hosting a dinner for the pope. Yes, Bush passed up the chance to make jokes about the Iraq war, as he did four years ago. Bush's stand-in at the dinner as stand-up-in-chief was Dick Cheney.

Cheney did not sling any jokes about the war. Instead, he riffed on global warming and his own lack of enthusiasm for that particular threat, noting that he prefers to refer to global warming "as spring." And, he added, it's going to get a lot warmer and then it's going to get cooler. Get it?

His routine was good enough, if predictable. But what was not entirely predictable was that night passed without serious mention of the fact that U.S. troops are now at war. Cheney made not a reference to the war and the Americans serving overseas. Not that e should have worked them into his ghostwritten gags. But there was no moment at the end when the Veep got serious and noted that as journalists and Washington players eat, drink, and make merry, this is a nation at war, with thousands of its sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters in harm's way.

I don't want to come across as a stuffy killjoy. But there was a frivolity at the dinner that was out of sync with...well, the real world. I'm sure hardworking broadcasters and journalists could use a night out. But there was no recognition from our national No. 2 that this country is in a moment of trouble (and that would include economic trouble). And there was no nod to the guys and gals he dispatched to Iraq, Americans who are not able to take time out to joke around at a formal dinner. Talk about no class--or elitism.

This is not a first. Following the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2005, I wrote:

No mention of the US troops being killed in Iraq but a horse jerk-off joke--that is one way to sum up the First Couple's appearance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday evening.

So there is now a tradition in Washington. The president or the vice president laughs it up at the fancy dinners and ignores the troops in Iraq and the war they are supposed to be overseeing night and day. No wonder I needed a drink.

Tonight is the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association Dinner--an annual formal affair that is the cousin to the White House correspondents' dinner. And this reminds me of one of my (own) favorite columns, which came about four years ago when I attended the dinner and watched in amazement as George W. Bush made jokes about the missing WMDs in Iraq (that is, joked about the purported reason for which he had sent Americans to war and, for some, to death). But what was most amazing was that everyone around me was laughing at Bush's routine. And laughing. And laughing. Never in my two decades of working in Washington have I felt more alienated--and, perhaps, more angry. Of the thousands of people in the room--which included hundreds of working journalists--I was, I believe, the only one to immediately write a piece questioning Bush (and his audience). That episode remains one of the more telling and revealing moments of modern-day Washington. (Talk about elitism.) And I believe it should not be forgotten. So I've posted that column below.

And on the subject of misplaced humor, I recently suggested on NPR's Diane Rehm Show that in a decent world John McCain would have been disqualified for running for president when he answered a question on the campaign trail about Iran by jokingly singing, "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" (to the tune of the old hit "Barbara Ann") My point: anyone who would make light of launching a war--and killing people with bombs--should not be given the power to do so. As I made these comments, Tony Blankley, a PR man and columnist for The Washington Times leaned toward the microphone. Do you want to defend McCain's joke? I asked. Yes, he said, insisting that we had to allow for humor in politics.

Humor in politics? That's the job of Jon Stewart. Or Stephen Colbert. (Or me--to a much, much, much lesser extent when I do standup, once every year or two.) But laughing at a president or a presidential wannabe about wars they start or can start? That's truly amusing ourselves (and others) to death--to reference the late Neil Postman's 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. I hope this time around--at the Radio and TV dinner--Bush sticks to less deadly fare when he tries to win giggles from the well-fed journalists and broadcasters in the room.
------

MIA WMDs--For Bush, It's a Joke
March 25, 2004

Only in Washington.

Last night I was at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association Dinner. It's a formal-and-fun affair where thousands of media folks assemble at the Hilton for a fancy dinner and fab pre- and post-parties. I'm not going to denigrate such soirees. I enjoy them. While bookers and producers jiggled and jostled on the dance floor and media and political celebs dissected the news du jour (this time it was Richard Clarke's dramatic appearance before the 9/11 commission), I was able to chat with former weapons hunter David Kay and learn about some troubling developments in the intelligence community (more on that down the road). And there was free sushi.

But an awful you're-all-alone moment came during George W. Bush's comments that followed the sit-down dinner. The current president is often the honored guest at this annual affair, and the audience toasts him in what is supposed to be a sign of communal and nonpartisan spirit. And the tradition is that the president has to be funny; he has to provide us with an amusing speech that pokes fun at himself and his political foes. After all, political journalists love to see politicians engage in self-deprecating humor. Bill Clinton was quite good at these performances. Bush seems to enjoy them less. Rather than do straight standup, he sometimes relies on a humorous slide show, and that was how he chose to entertain the media throng this time.

It's standard fare humor. Bush says he is preparing for a tough election fight; then on the large video screens a picture flashes showing him wearing a boxing robe while sitting at his desk. Bush notes he spends "a lot of time on the phone listening to our European allies." Then we see a photo of him on the phone with a finger in his ear. There were funny bits about Skull and Bones, his mother, and Dick Cheney. But at one point, Bush showed a photo of himself looking for something out a window in the Oval Office, and he said, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."

The audience laughed. I grimaced. But that wasn't the end of it. After a few more slides, there was a shot of Bush looking under furniture in the Oval Office. "Nope," he said. "No weapons over there." More laughter. Then another picture of Bush searching in his office: "Maybe under here." Laughter again.

Disapproval must have registered upon my face, for one of my tablemates said, "Come on, David, this is funny." I wanted to reply, Over 500 Americans and literally countless Iraqis are dead because of a war that was supposedly fought to find weapons of mass destruction, and Bush is joking about it. Instead, I took a long drink of the lovely white wine that had come with our dinner. It's not as if I was in the middle of a talk-show debate and had to respond. This was certainly one of those occasions in which you either get it or don't. And I wasn't getting it. Or maybe my neighbor wasn't.

At the end of the slide show, Bush displayed two pictures of himself with troops and noted these were his favorites. The final photograph was a shot of special forces soldiers--with their faces blurred to protect their identities--who were posing in Afghanistan where they had buried a piece of 9/11 debris in a spot that had once been an al Qaeda camp. Bush spoke about the prayer the commander had said during the burial ceremony and noted he had this photograph hanging in his private study.

So what's wrong with this picture? Bush was somber about the sacrifice being made by U.S. troops overseas. But he obviously considered it fine to make fun of the reason he cited for sending Americans to war and to death. What an act of audacious spin. One poll recently showed that most Americans believe he either lied about Iraq's WMDs or deliberately exaggerated the case to justify the war. And it is undeniable that in seeking public support for the war he made many false assertions that went beyond quoting intelligence that turned out to be wrong. (I've written about this in many other places. If you still don't believe Bush mugged the truth, check out this short guide.) As the crowd was digesting the delicious surf-and-turf meal, Bush was transforming serious scandal into rim-shot comedy.

Few seemed to mind. His WMD gags did not prompt a how-can-you silence from the gathering. At the after-parties, I heard no complaints. Was I being too sensitive? I wondered what the spouse, child or parent of a soldier killed in Iraq would have felt if they had been watching C-SPAN and saw the commander-in-chief mocking the supposed justification for the war that claimed their loved ones. Bush told the nation that lives had to be sacrificed because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used (by terrorists) against the United States. That was not true. (And as Kay pointed out, the evidence so far shows these weapons were not there in the first place, not that they were hidden, destroyed or spirited away.) But rather than acknowledge he misinformed the public, Bush jokes about the absence of such weapons.

Even if Bush does not believe he lied to or misled the public, how can he make fun of the rationale for a war that has killed and maimed thousands? Imagine if Lyndon Johnson had joked about the trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin incident that he deceitfully used as a rationale for U.S. military action in Vietnam: "Who knew that fish had torpedoes?" Or if Ronald Reagan appeared at a correspondents event following the truck-bombing at the Marines barracks in Beirut--which killed over 200 American servicemen--and said, "Guess we forgot to put in a stop light." Or if Clinton had come out after the bombing of Serbia--during which U.S. bombs errantly destroyed the Chinese embassy and killed several people there--and said, "The problem is, those embassies--they all look alike."

Yet there was Bush--apparently having a laugh at his own expense, but actually doing so on the graves of thousands. This was a callous and arrogant display. For Bush, the misinformation--or disinformation--he peddled before the war was no more than material for yucks. As the audience laughed along, he smiled. The false statements (or lies) that had launched a war had become merely another punchline in the nation's capital.

On the run today , so no new posts. In the meantime, check out the major investigation I worked on for MotherJones.com regarding a private security firm of ex-Secret Service agents that spied on Greenpeace, other environmental groups, and corporate targets by swiping garbage, infiltrating operatives, and penetrating confidential meetings. The piece is based on internal documents we obtained and includes references to Wal-Mart, Robin Wright Penn, the NRA, Mary Kay, and the Rolling Stones.

Quick--give me two words that did not appear in George W. Bush's speech today. How about "breathing space"?

When Bush announced his so-called surge of troops in Iraq in January 2007, he said it would create "the breathing space [the Iraqi government] needs to make progress." But the government has hardly made the best of whatever "breathing space" was offered by the escalation of troops. In today's address, Bush covered Baghdad's supposed progress in two sentences.

Of course, he offered no surprises and did not veer from his stay-the-course stance. And he backed General David Petraeus so thoroughly it was if he was subcontracting out the war to the commander:

General Petraeus says he'll need time to consolidate his forces and assess how this reduced American presence will affect conditions on the ground before making measured recommendations on further reductions. And I've told him he'll have all the time he needs.

What's wrong with this? Well, first, Bush is out of here in nine months. Easy for him to say, "Take as much time as you want." More important, Bush is going overboard in delegating. Is he suggesting that as commander in chief he will accept whatever Petraeus tells him? That he will unquestioning grant Petraeus a blank check? Isn't it part of the president's job to evaluate what his field commanders tell him?

Petraeus' approval ratings must be higher than Bush's. (Roger Clemens probably has higher numbers than Bush.) So it's to Bush's political benefit to hide behind the No. 1 front man for the war. But no commander in chief ought to grant a commander--even one who can wow 'em on Capitol Hill--so much leeway.

During the speech, Bush also said:

Some in Washington argue that the war costs too much money. There's no doubt that the costs of this war have been high. But during other major conflicts in our history, the relative cost has been even higher. Think about the Cold War. During the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, our defense budget rose as high as 13 percent of our total economy. Even during the Reagan administration, when our economy expanded significantly, the defense budget still accounted for about 6 percent of GDP. Our citizens recognized that the imperative of stopping Soviet expansion justified this expense. Today, we face an enemy that is not only expansionist in its aims, but has actually attacked our homeland -- and intends to do so again....

We should be able to agree that this is a burden worth bearing. And we should be able to agree that our national interest require the success of our mission in Iraq.

Here we go again: defending the Iraq war and justifying its costs by connecting the war to "an enemy...that has actually attacked our homeland." You'd think that Bush would become tired of that old canard. Moreover, he says everyone should agree the war is worth it. Then why do 70 percent of Americans, according to polls, not agree with this proposition? The country just doesn't buy what Bush has to say. It long ago turned off to his never-ending disingenuous sales pitch. Consequently, the speechifying he did today won't matter. But maybe the next time he feels the need to make a speech on Iraq he should ask Petraeus to give the speech for him. And in that speech, Petraeus can declare: "I am giving myself as much time as I think I need. And I thank me."

Now it's back to the usual fun and games.

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tried to look statesmanlike (or stateswoman-like) as each respectfully questioned General David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker. Neither senator provided much in the way of push-back to Petraeus' and Crocker's statements. Yes, they stuck to their overall criticisms of the war and their respective calls for withdrawing U.S. troops, but each had obviously calculated that the Petraeus hearings were not an occasion to raise a fuss or score points.

But today it was time to do so. At least for Clinton. At a campaign event, she said:

We need to be planning and preparing to start bringing our troops home, and I have committed to doing that within 60 days of my becoming president. Senator Obama, on the other hand, says he'll end the war, but his top foreign policy adviser said he won't necessarily follow the plan he's been talking about during this campaign. That the plan is "just words." Well, you can count on me to end the war safely and responsibly.

Once again, she was trying to depict Obama as a phony, indirectly citing remarks from ex-Obama adviser Samantha Power, who weeks ago had said that if Obama were to become president, his withdrawal plan would be reality-checked against the conditions of the time. That's logical. But the Clinton folks claimed Power had spilled a big secret: Obama didn't intend to stick by his vow to withdraw troops from Iraq. And they tried to make this a big to-do.

At the time, it didn't quite catch on as a campaign meme. (Reverend Wright came along.) But in this campaign, it seems, no allegation ever truly disappears. Clinton is trying to resurrect this charge.

The Obama campaign immediately fired back and released this statement:

Hillary Clinton's tired and discredited attack is just the same old politics that won't end this war that she voted to authorize, and won't change the fact that she has repeatedly misled the American people about her Iraq record. We're happy to have a debate with Hillary Clinton over who the American people trust to end this war, since Barack Obama is the only candidate who had the judgment to oppose the war from the very beginning, not just from the beginning of a campaign for President.

The Obama-Clinton bickering is getting old and annoying. In this round--as in many--her campaign is the more guilty party. But that aside, it's unfortunate for Democrats and war critics that these two candidates talk tougher about each other than they do about the front men for George W. Bush's war.

Mark Penn's departure from the Hillary Clinton campaign took a punch away from Barack Obama.

It's a punch that Obama had not yet used. But as the primary campaign has intensified, I've been waiting for the moment--at a debate or during a high-profile campaign speech--when Obama would turn to Clinton (literally or metaphorically) and say something like:

With all due respect, Senator, how can you say that you are a candidate who will fight the for change against the status quo of Washington and champion the interests of working Americans, when your chief strategist is an inside-the-Beltway consultant who makes millions of dollars a year helping union-busting firms, corporate polluters, various industries, foreign governments and special interests get what they want out of Washington at the expense of hard-working Americans? How can you place your campaign in the hands of a fellow who's day job is to assist corporate powers so they win special favors and special treatment? Do you not see the contradiction between your words and this action? Should voters not wonder about your close and important association with this Washington insider who rents out his influence--for millions of dollars--to corporate special interests?

Well, that's not going to happen now. The Clinton campaign tied Penn's exit--ouster?--to the recent news that he was working for the Government of Colombia, advising it on how to win support in Washington for a free-trade treaty that Clinton says she opposes. (Was this arrogant? Foolish? Dumb?) But top-level Clinton aides have been grumbling about Penn for months, with some rooting for his fall. So the Colombian connection was convenient ammo for those on the campaign who have blamed Penn's go-for-a-general-election-message strategy for HRC's troubles during the primary season. There are some happy campers in Hillaryland today--and Obama has lost an opportunity.

COUNTDOWN TO PETRAEUS: On Tuesday, General David Petraeus will again try to take Capitol Hill. I've already done a set-up (here and here). But I was thinking about last year's Petraeus show and remembered that he had a pretty easy time snowing Congress. Read this posting (of mine) from September:

Citing General David Petraeus, George W. Bush, in his so-called "wayforward in Iraq" speech declared on Thursday night, "The Iraqi army is becoming more capable."

For days, I've been carrying around with me page 13 of the 14-page slideshow Petraeus showed during his multiple appearances on Capitol Hill. (That's how nerdy I am!) And to anyone unfortunate to get stuck in an elevator with me, I've flashed this chart to show that according to Petraeus' own numbers, there has been no progress in the past year in fielding Iraqi security forces that can function on their own. Yes, I said no progress.

The chart--titled "Iraqi Security Forces Capabilities"--divides Iraqi troops into four groups: units that are fully independent (Level I); that can stage operations with support of U.S. forces (Level II); that can fight side by side with U.S. forces (Level III); that are still forming (Level IV). If you look at September 2006, you will see that there were 11,000 Level I troops and 86,000 Level II troops. Fast forward to September 2007, and the numbers are, Level I, 12,000 and Level II, 84,000. That's a slight drop in capabilities, if you combine Levels I and II.

So how can Bush--or anyone else--say that Iraqi troops are becoming more capable? For all the money and effort spent during the last year--when the Bush administration was claiming that the training of Iraqi troops was a top priority (remember, they stand up, we leave?)--there's been little, if any, return on the investment. By the way, the chart includes the national police--a force so rife with corruption and sectarianism that the Jones Commission recently recommended it be disbanded. Petraeus's chart is further evidence that the administration gameplan isn't working.

Back in September, reporters and legislators did not pay attention to this important portion of Petraeus' presentation. Will the scrutiny be tighter this time?

Yesterday, I wondered aloud whether the members of the House and the Senate will give General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, much of a grilling when he testifies on Capitol Hill next week. After all, during his previous appearance in September, Petraeus was met only with a fusillade of softballs.

I asked a senior Democratic House aide if the questioning this time will be more vigorous. He responds: "Absolutely. The recent events seem to have confirmed everyone's suspicions about the “success” of the surge. Combined with the recent statements about retaining 140,000 troops, the McCain 100 year commitment, and the salience of the “cost of war” theme of the last few weeks, and the 4,000 death figure being reached, Members are ready to challenge assertions or predictions of success."

Such challenging is long past due. One question is, will it matter? The Democrats in the Senate and House have been completely stymied by George W. Bush. They have tried many times to force Bush to change direction in Iraq. He has said no. And they have declined to go nuclear: that is, vote against general funding for the war. The Democrats don't have the votes to win that battle. And many of them do not want to be placed in a position where Republicans and conservatives can accuse them of being responsible for what could be a nasty ending to the war. Their strategic aim has been to force Bush to clean up his own mess. He has refused.

So it's unlikely that any tough questioning of Petraeus will lead to policy change. But this remains an important moment. For the past year, there's not been much popular and media attention paid to the war. In recent months, it's barely been in the news. Occasionally, you see video of the aftermath of a market bomb-blast, but the war is usually off the screen.

The public certainly does not support the war. But what's the nature of this opposition? Last night, I attended a screening of Body of War, a gripping documentary directed by Ellen Spiro and Phil Donahue (yes, that Phil Donahue) that follows the story and travails of Tomas Young, an Iraq war vet who was shot while on patrol and paralyzed from the waist down. After the film was shown, Young spoke to the audience and noted that even though close to 70 percent of the American public say they oppose this war, this only means that these Americans are willing to pick up a phone and tell some pollster on the other end that they don't fancy this war. That's not passionate opposition. Are they willing to take any action to stop it? Not really. Public sentiment regarding the war is closer to alienation than anger. After all, the costs of the war are hidden (that is, not felt) by most Americans,

The upcoming Petraeus testimony is an opportunity. The national media, for at least a day or so, will focus on the war. The dominant media narrative of the war in recent months has been that the surge is working. Now war critics and skeptics in Congress will have a brief chance to rewrite (or at least challenge) that script. But that will only happen if they are forceful in questioning Petraeus. Too much deference will lose the day for them. And the point is...to make a point: the war is not going as well as Bush claims. Doing so will help the Democratic presidential candidate--whoever wins--do battle with John McCain, a cheerleader for the war, and also help the Democratic nominee, if he or she is elected, to begin disengagement from Iraq.

It may be weeks or months before the American public (and the media) next pays any intense attention to the war. The Democrats ought to make sure they don't blow this engagement.

The Democrats in Congress have been rolled on the Iraq war. That's no news flash. Given that they long ago decided not to pull the trigger and defund the war, they were left with the option of trying to force George W. Bush to change course. He stood firm. They blinked. And when General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, testified before Congress last September, the Democrats greeted him with softball questions. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama wimped out when they had a chance to grill Petraeus. Bottom-line: Bush won political space for the war, and the meme was established that the surge was working and the war was going better. That narrative, though, had a hole in it, for a successful surge (if that is what it was) was not equivalent to a successful war. Sure, pouring 30,000 extra troops into the hotspots of Iraq would certainly cause some of the violence to decline. But that did not mean that the roots of the conflict(s) in Iraq were being addressed--let alone addressed effectively. Yet Petraeus, generally unchallenged by the Dems (who were scared to be associated with MoveOn's anti-Petraeus campaign), was able to sell the surge.

Now that sales job is wearing thin. The recent fighting between the Iraqi government and the militia of Moqtadar al-Sadr suggests that the problem in Iraq is civil war rather than insurgency. Or, at least, maybe both. Here we have the government trying to crack down on what is, as journalist Patrick Cockburn calls it, "the only mass movement in Iraqi politics." Say what you want about Sadr, he ain't no insurgent. What's our dog in this fight? What does any of this have to do with combating al Qaeda (which seems to be a small slice of the challenge in Iraq, Bush's pronouncements to the contrary)? Why back the inept and corrupt regime of Nouri al-Maliki?

The surge was supposed to create space for national reconciliation. But even Petraeus has recognized that this opportunity has been squandered. And if one Shi'ite bloc (the government) is fighting another Shi'ite bloc (Sadr and his followers), what does that tell us about progress on this front? Meanwhile, top U.S. military officials told Congress on Tuesday that the surge in Iraq and deployments in Afghanistan have stressed out the military so much that it may not be able to handle other conflicts. This assessment comes just as Petraeus is expected to tell Congress next week--when he comes back for a return engagement--that he wants to delay any de-surging.

So it's a mess. The surge may not be the temporary move Bush had promised when he announced it in January 2007. The violence is increasing. Four million Iraqis remain dislocated and displaced. The Sunnis have been armed to beat back al Qaeda in Iraq--but those arms can be put to other use. And civil war between the Shi'ites is but a flashpoint away--and only prevented recently due to the intervention of Iran, which helped cool down the clash between the government and Sadr and which seems to have more influence in Iraq than the United States.

Will members of Congress--Democratic and Republican--grill Petraeus about all this? Or let themselves once again be dazzled by charts, graphs, and confident assertions of progress. This is a good time for a surge in oversight. And if the Democrats need any help, I've prepared a list of questions that national security experts would like to see posed to Petraeus. (See it here.) But I am sure they can come up with their own queries. One only needs to read the papers and to wonder, what the hell is going on?

"In a setback for the Democrats...." "In a setback for the Democrats...." "In a setback for the Democrats...." Seems every time you turn on the telly or pick up a paper--or even read on the Internet--these words dominate coverage of the goings-on in Washington. The Dems try to tax Big Oil to pay for alternative energy programs. They lose. The Dems try to tax gazillionaire hedge funds hotshots so upper middle-class taxpayers don't get nailed by the Alternative Minimum Tax. They lose. The Dems try to expand the children's health insurance program. They lose. And of course, the Dems try to attach timetables and limits to the new funding for the war in Iraq. They lose. Given that most of these positions are supported by most Americans, one might wonder why the Democrats keep failing. But George W. Bush keeps outmaneuvering Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It's looking like the Ds are the Putz Party.

Yeah, I know the Democratic argument: we face those obstructionist, filibuster-waving GOPers who march in lockstep with Mr. Obstinate in the White House and, still, we've raised the minimum wage, passed the 9/11 commission recommendations, boosted fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, and reprogrammed billions that Bush wanted toward our budget priorities. But there is the matter of the war.

Once again, the headline in this morning's papers: Senate Approves Iraq War Funds. On the No. 1 issue of this Congress, the Democrats have utterly failed. They triumphantly came into office pledging to end the war, and they have not even managed to slow it down. The Democratic base is right to be peeved. And the Dems cannot blame the media for noting this continuing failure. On this point--the key point--they look hapless and impotent. Sure, there are structural impediments, such as that Senate filibuster and the presidential veto. But the Democrats have not figured out how to lose successfully. If you don't have the votes, you don't have the votes. Math is math. But there are ways to frame debates so that you win (somewhat) by losing. And on Iraq--and the other matters listed above--the Ds haven't done that.

Perhaps it's easier said than done. The Monday morning quarterback always has 20-20 vision. But the Democrats missed a chance early on to have a simple up-and-down vote on war funding that would have established that Bush and the Republicans (with a few Democrats) were keeping the war alive despite the Democrats' best efforts. Which would mean that the Democrats needed more Democrats in Congress. But the various pirouettes and legislative mechanisms the Democrats have tried have been confusing and, worse, ineffective. And their messaging has been inconsistent: we're standing firm....oh, no, we're not....now this time we really will....well, we don't have the votes...and so on.

Fair or not, the Democrats cannot hide their war failure behind press releases touting their successes on other fronts. A House Democratic chief of staff explains: "It's like you call in a contractor to fix your roof, he doesn't do it, but he tells you, 'now you're sink is working fine.' Okay, but you wanted to him to fix the roof and he promised to fix the roof and he didn't." The roof is the Iraq war.

Being in the majority can be rough. There are expectations and obligations. In 1994, after the Democrats lost Congress, Representative Barney Frank told me he was looking forward to being in the minority: "It's more fun." Would Pelosi and Reid agree now? In any event, after Congress clears out of town, these leaders and the rest of the Dems ought to start thinking how to have a better year in 2008. You think they know there are elections next November?

The recent news about GOP presidential back-of-the-packer Ron Paul--that on Monday alone he raised $4 million from 20,000 new Internet donors--got me thinking about...Dennis Kucinich.

Ron Paul is an out-of-the-box Republican. He opposes the Iraq war and has blamed 9/11 on a U.S. foreign policy designed to perpetuate "worldwide imperialism." As a libertarian, he has advocated the legalization of drugs and has voted against numerous government programs (including education for disabled kids).

Kucinich is an out-of-the-box Democrat. He advocates establishing a Department of Peace. He favors a single-payer national health insurance program. In the House, he introduced articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney.

Paul speaks for a slice of conservatives; Kucinich speaks for a slice of liberals. Both are offbeat, driven-by-principles characters. (You've heard about Kucinich and the UFO.) Yet Paul rakes in the campaign moolah, while Kucinich runs along almost on empty. As of the end of September, Kucinich had raised $2.1 million, of which he had spent $1.9 million. (And he was carrying nearly half a mil in debt.) As of that point (prior to his November 5 "money bomb"), Paul had collected $8.3 million, and he had $5.5 million in cash on hand.

The question is, why does a champion of libertarian conservatism attract significant financial support, while a champion of progressive notions is stuck in the poor house? No one should expect either Paul or Kucinich to match the tens of millions of dollars bagged by the front runners or to become contenders within their respective parties. But Paul has tapped his constituency. Kucinich has not.

It may well be that progressives are more satisfied with the leading Democrats (particularly Barack Obama or John Edwards) then libertarian conservatives are with the main Republican wannabes. After all, each of the Dems now oppose the war, while Paul is the lone antiwar voice within the GOP contest. It could also be that progressive Democrats are more pragmatic than libertarian cons and find it easier to live with the conventional liberals of the Democratic Party. Libertarian conservatives apparently cannot stomach the conventional conservatives of the Republican Party.

Still, the Paul-Kucinich comparison causes me to wonder if there is just more energy within antiwar, screw-the-government libertarian circles than within impeach-Bush, downsize-the-Pentagon progressive quarters. At the least, the libertarians are more eager to put their money where their candidate is--and let the political free market work its merriment.

JUST YOU WAIT. Yesterday, I noted that the war has yet to emerge as a main point of contention in the 2008 election. That's because Democrats basically agree it's time to reverse course in Iraq and GOPers (except Ron Paul) all back George W. Bush's stay-the-course policy. Consequently, there hasn't been much significant debate within each nomination contest. But a new CNN/Opinion Research poll says that 68 percent of Americans now oppose the war--an all-time high. Only 31 percent approve of Bush's adventure in Mesopotamia. Surprisingly, this poll came after the White House, GOPers on Capitol Hill, and other war cheerleaders--in the wake of General David Petraeus's congressional testimony--pumped up the volume on the surge-is-working chorus.

So consider this: can a GOP candidate for president win if he is backing a war opposed by seven out of ten voters? If these numbers hold, you can expect the war to be the primary point of engagement between the two nominees next year. And good luck to the Republican standard-bearer and his party comrades running for the House and Senate.