If this guy marched in an anti-Nixon protest while working for the CIA, he was taking notes on what the protestors were saying.

This is also the guy who lied about Iran-Contra before Congress, and earned lasting distrust from Sen. Carl Levin, now abated for reasons I can only hope are based on private assurances.

But here is the slip that tells the tale:

"The United States is going to have to have some presence in Iraq for a long time," Gates said.

He omitted the word "military", but does that mean he's only talking about our ambassador and a bunch of staff trucking on in future years? I doubt it.

And if he is saying that we will have a military presence for years to come, then he has tipped his hand that he is a mole for the neocons, because only they -- not our realpolitikers, not the majority of the American people, not any party in Iraq except the government we installed -- wants us around any longer than it takes to get us out.

The realpolitikers say we should stay long enough to prevent chaos in the region, which is uncomfortably close to the neocons' view that that means forever. But the realpolitikan view must be tempered by the recognition that we have no right to be there at all, one day longer than the people there want us. And they don't, as every poll since the invasion shows. We are to them first and foremost occupiers, like the Brits they kicked out 60 years ago (and we brought back!). And both sides in the civil war now say it's OK -- a patriotic duty, in fact -- to kill Americans, and they do.

We may yet bring peace by doing the deal that the neocons have resisted, in which we THREATEN to leave in order to get the Shiites to be fair to the Sunnis. This advice was first given publicly by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak right after our invasion, and was most recently ignored when the neocons killed such a deal two months ago. But as the Shiites become stronger (either the central government's forces or Sadr's), our bargaining power diminishes. It may be too late already.

And in that case, our presence will mean only taking daily hits from the two sides of the civil war. This is intolerable, as is sending in enough additional troops to quell the civil war.

So will Gates play Clark Clifford to Bush's Johnson, and quickly press the peace deal, or will he merely put a new coat of paint on the old bus, which will keep rocking along until January 20, 2009? Stay tuned.

I think the Hadley memo and its leak are a sham. This is a moment of almost pure speculation for me, but my anchor in reality is the cancellation two months ago by Maliki of the peace deal he had announced a few days before. It included a two-year U.S. withdrawal proposed by the Sunnis, clearly a reasonable period if they delivered on their promise of peace and security. But over a weekend, all of a sudden Maliki was saying that timetables were inappropriate, in almost identical language that Rumsfeld used a day or two before.

As usual, the press has failed to probe this huge disappointment, but I have no problem in concluding that the neocons are still running Iraq policy and that peace is not something they want, if it requires us to leave Iraq. Twenty thousand American casualties over three years is tolerable on their books if it means we get to dominate the region.

So it is but a short step to the conclusion that it serves the neocons to have a fake memo leaked as an excuse to save Maliki's face with the Sadr people who were threatening to withdraw from parliament if he met with Bush and to make it appear that Bush was going to lean on Maliki. But if Maliki is already our stooge, no leaning is necessary, and Bush can keep saying he is staying the course, which he intends to do, while raising the hopes of Americans that secretly he is planning to do something else.

But since he really does intend to stay the course, there is no change at all and Bush is continuing his faith-based war, praying for divine intercession on a daily basis. Alas, God often disappoints.

And now for a legal question: If the Congress passes a resolution directing the Commander in Chief to withdraw from Iraq, is that subject to a veto? If not, is he impeachable if he refuses the direction of Congress?