I think Bush is (dumb enough/deluded enough/crazy enough -- insert your favorite theory here) to reject the principle recommendations of the Baker report. His capacity for self delusion, and his moralistic attraction to simplistic military solutions to complex political problems is too great to change now. In short, I don't think you can teach an old dog new trick -- at least not yet.

"The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere,

The ceremony of innocence is drowned."

But assuming I'm correct -- and I think that there is strong evidence that I am in Baker's refusal to answer the questions today about whether Bush would accept the report's recommendations -- the more interesting question is what will Bush then claim when the escalation that Gen. Pace is recommending inevitably fails? Even the great excuse maker and prevaricator ("We're winning . . ," "the next six months will be critical . . .") may be hard pressed to come up with anything plausible to say.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity."

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Congress, have been ushered out of power, arguably in part because Bush wouldn't face the music and fire Rummy two weeks before the election instead of the day after, will sit there and do a slow burn as they see their political future go up in the acrid smoke rising over Baghdad, Beruit, the West Bank, and Gaza.

"And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,

Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born."

Jim Baker is nobody's fool. He may not share our political leanings, but anyone who knows him will tell you that his is an extraordinarily bright man who does not make verbal gaffes. Period.

With that prelude:

Q: Can the president really "pull a 180" on Iraq?

A: (by Baker) I've worked for four presidents, and I never put presidents I work for on the couch. I'm not going to answer that because that would mean I'd have to psychoanalyze the inner workings of his mind, and I don't do that."

Sounds like a well disguised "Nope, not a prayer," to me.

It does absolutely have a point. As hard as it may be for those of use who are political news junkies to believe, this is how ridiculous it has to get before some people come to realize what dishonest, bottom-feeding, lying, sleazy sacks of excrement these people really are.

Performances like this, particularly if properly contrasted with honest, straight-talking Democrats, will win us votes in the long run.

I heard John Edwards speak in Dallas Friday. He gave a wonderful speech. It was a damning indictment of the incompetence of the Bush administration, yet he didn't mention W. a single time. He spoke from the heart about values in the context of issues like Katrina, Guantanamo, and Abu Ghraib. Poverty in America and about how half the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. Violence in Uganda and Darfour. I don't remember whether he mentioned the Bible once, but even if he did, nothing he said would offend a secular Democrat, but everything he said would likely resonate with an evangelical who would consider voting for a Democrat.

Hear, hear to Mike From Bedford!! He hit the nail right on the head. Maliki is doing the bidding of the Shia and will continue to do so. The fact that Hadley's memo allows for any other possibility whos how naive the administration is.

As much as I hate Bush, and Lord knows I do, we have to remember that by his ineptitude, it is our country (among others) that he is damaging. I know that sometimes it's hard keep that in mind as he commits political hari kari. But right now, he now looks utterly clueless and puppy-dog-lost. Because he is, of course. He couldn't scratch is ass right now if he had a hand full of fish hooks.

And this makes me worry. After all, it is a cornered animal that is most dangers. What will this fool do when Sistani issues the fatwa that Mike of Bedford talks about and the shit really starts hitting the fan? A man that far gone and that close to the end of his rope is prone to do anything.

I have no idea if the letter is fake or not. But I hope that it is given how confusing and unhelpful the answer is. I'd certainly hate to think that I truly faced a serious problem and this was the best advice that I could get.

Well, we certainly have more than sufficient examples of what happens when ideologues and fundamentalists run institutions. Whether it be here, in the Arab world, or in Israel, allowing the extreme ideologues to run things leads to disaster. When one contemplates the region, one can imagine that these people deserve each other.

Now if only we could figure out a way to send Bush to live in the Middle East when he retires. Baghdad, Beirut, Gaza, or the West Bank? Personally, I think we should send him to Baghdad, but any of them would do.

Kilgore is correct, but doesn't explicitly spell out why I think he is correct. Those moderate and populist policies that are palatable in the south are also the same types of policies that appeal to swing voters in other winnable states. Democrats must be progressive enough to win sufficient numbers of these swing voters while still turning out their base.

But he does hit one nail square on the head. If you go out and trash southern culture, your are going to alienate the single most faithful block of Democratic voters -- African American voters. It really is simple. You build coalitions by being inclusive, not by running folks off.