We went into Iraq in the first place because of faulty intelligence, rather than Bush's hubris. And things have gone so badly since we got there because the Iraqis are delusional and won't tell us what we really need to do to get the job done. The only part that doesn't make sense now is what happens to all that blame that the Democrats should be taking?

That the American neocons got their asses kicked strategically, intellectually, and militarily by Maktada Al-Sadr.

...How's yer boy dooin, back there in Eye-Rack?"

...and because he's still an idiot. He is extraordinarily politically vulnerable right now and does not quite seem to know it yet.

Bush has to start putting up real results in Iraq soon or he is going to be in big trouble. He can't be impeached for invading Iraq, or for his other crimes, because the Democrats sadly supported the invasion and the Patriot Act. He can, however, be impeached for egregious incompetence in the conduct of the war. That might get broad bipartisan support, the way things are going now.

The only problem is who might replace him. If Bush is impeached then Cheney will be out too, I have no doubt. I'm thinking now that the Iraq Study Commission might end up being the commission that ate the presidency: how about Baker and Hamilton for president and vice-president?

Baker, btw, is a REAL sob and we might be in real trouble if he becomes president. But I don't see who would or could stop him.

Not much of an insight, I admit. But every time I think about Maliki, I think about the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem.

I also think about the scene in "Letal Weapon II" where the South African factotum looks around the floor at his feet while his racketeer boss chews him out. "What are you looking at?" the boss asks.

"Just looking to see if I'm standing on a drop cloth."

the Firesign Theater was wrong; there are bozos on this bus!

There’s been lots of speculation about how and why the Hadley memo on Maliki surfaced when it did in the NY Times. The most compelling framing to me emphasized the strategic value of the White House obliquely but very publicly warning the Prime Minister that tolerance for his perceived half-stepping had run out and he’d better cowboy up. Makes sense.

But why is there always so little discussion of the fact that along with all the other explanatory factors in such events - diplomatic, military, political – are psychological ones. Without getting into a defensive rant regarding the gross misperception that psychology is either about “touchy feely” Dr. Phil hooey or stigmatizing craziness, let me say that if we don’t include this dimension in our dissection of what’s going on geopolitically, our understanding will be incomplete at best. We analyze phenomena like war and international diplomacy in myopically macroscopic terms, with key players seen almost exclusively within defined roles. But the reality is that these players, every one of them, also function on the level of individual human beings, running on the same basic intrapsychic operating system as the rest of us. And none of us leaves this stuff at the breakfast table.

So here’s a theory on the psychosocial component of why that memo was leaked. Right now, in the eyes of much of America and most of the Middle East, George W. Bush looks like a recklessly incompetent leader. The mid-term elections decimated not only his “political capital” but the credibility (and therefore clout) he takes into this crucial meeting in Jordan. One way to level the playing field with Maliki on an interpersonal level is to very publicly question the Iraqi Prime Minister’s own competence. The “leaked” memo accomplished just that. It also seemed choreographed to provide a pathetic distraction from the emerging and devastating reality that neither leader truly has the power or resources needed to reach jointly envisioned goals. For a moment, everyone gets to hide behind a pissing contest, back turned (i.e. anxiety avoided) on the horrific debacle now taking on a life of its own.

It’s also very likely not just “stubbornness” or dogmatism that drove the President’s incredible refrain Tuesday about “staying until the job was done.” Psychologically, it plays as a man struggling against the almost unbearable specter of facing both global humiliation and the personal terrorism of his own catastrophic mistakes.