What is the BODY COUNT this morning?

Enough for a New Wall?

Wow. A memo between the President of the United States and his National Security advisor in the hands of the NY Times. Wonder who leaked this one?

This is such a transparent ploy by the Bush administration to put the blame for the Iraq Civil War on someone else. This stuff is so old already.

I'm going to miss Rummy in one way: His wry understated wit. It was classic Rum-speak when he called the looting and revenge killing after the invasion "untidy."

Well if it was untidy then, I wonder what he'd call it now: Disheveled? Messy?

I can't wait to see how the visit in Jordan goes today. There should be some real Orwellian phraseology emanating from the White House press briefing room, a.k.a. the Comedy Club, with host Tony Snow.

It's hard to understand why Cheney's office leaked the memo now, which reads like it was specifically written for the front page of the Times, right before Bush's meeting with al-Maliki.

Could it be evidence of a civil war in the White House? -- the aim being to undermine Bush, say by factions irate at the Rumsfeld firing. This seems too drastic to be credible.

Could it be part of an attempt to pressure al-Maliki? Surely a direct threat would be better, and the memo is pitched as an appeal to American public opinion.

Could the timing be a result of the rather stumblebum state of Bush post-election P.R.? It fits it into the increasingly important blame-the-unworthy-Iraqis trope, which may be used to get us mostly out in a few months. But Hadley's elegy would seem to be more useful after the meeting sadly fails to succeed.

What is Cheney preparing the ground for? Lie quiet, Ngo Dinh Diem, please.

The Republicans have had absolute, exclusive, and unchecked power for the duration of this war which has gone on longer than our involvement in World War II. Yet when all is said and done, this mess will all be the fault of the Iraqis and Democrats.

You want to talk about treson? Anyone who falls for this shit is absolutely more interested in preserving their original frame of mind than the security of our country. More interested in preserving their ignorance than preserving our freedom.

Ignorant, misleading or just not capable?

Aren't we really talking about Mr. Bush here?

U.S. Electorate stance on George Bush...

All of the above. And it applies to both puppet and master.

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?

The stage is set for UN security Council Member China

to send personal to the whole freaking Middle-East.

When China arrives , I guarantee you, that thirty

years from now they they will be still there ruling the mess that

all current sides should have taken care of.

So WW 111 won't be so bad after all.