Iraq-- it's about time

Saddam's new trial for the Anfal campaign began today. We're likely in store for more comedic outbursts, hunger strikes and ridiculous demands from Ramsey Clark and company as hundreds of witnesses are scheduled to parade through the court to testify. Revenge of the Kurds, as they say.

There seems to be very little drama in the final outcome of Saddam's trials, but the same cannot be said for the outcome in Iraq itself. The blogs and talk shows were abuzz today with stories about former pro-Iraq war suppporters who are now drifting over to become war critics. Bush is now taking inbound flak from every point of the compass.

Even the president himself admitted the war is 'straining the psyche' of both himself and the American people. But he showed no signs of wavering despite what the wobbly kneed weekend punditry had to say.

Matter of fact, today's press conference (remember when they complained he wasn't doing enough of them?) was a robust defense of his policy towards Iraq. The problem he's always had, pointed out by many, is an informational and communicatative gap between what he says or feels and what the media eventually reports. He is the great miscommunicator.

But in the end perception is everything, and if he can't communicate the words are wasted. To win back the lost he simply must make a better case that Saddam was worth the loss of 2600+ troops despite no WMDs or ties to 9/11. In today's press conference someone asked him about those topics and here's how he replied:

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case.

What he was trying to say is that Saddam was such a divisive figure in the ME that draining the swamp wasn't possible with him still in the way. He tried to leave the impression that the long-term fix was democracy, with an implication being that Iran was in the sights. Somewhat persuasive, but still not enough to change the press's minds, witness the WaPo's description of that encounter:

Asked whether that would be true if the United States had not invaded Iraq, Bush responded: "Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens."

And although Vice President Cheney repeatedly implied that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks long after the story had been discredited, Bush said that "nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September 11 were ordered by Iraq."

They either missed it completely or aren't buying. It's getting close to the point where a few cats might need to be released from the bag to hold the fort, because short of any heretofore unknown links, and faced with a stubborn and determined enemy, the current casus belli might not survive a political guard-changing this year. The election will be framed as a referrendum on Iraq, just like in Connecticut.

Bush is stubborn, and has said he'll never redeploy on his watch, but the situation could be forced on him if the people speak.

Ironically we've come full circle and time is now on Saddam's side, while it's ticking down fast for Bush, at least politically speaking. There might be a backup plan, and it might already be partially in play, however it's something that can't be elaborated. It has to do with sectarian divides, Shias killing Sunnis and the like--in other words the policy we've had ever since Saddam was busy VX-ing the human waves from Iran. Maybe that's the light at the end of our tunnel, assuming it's not a train.

MORE 8/22/06

The New York Times illustrates the point from an article Tuesday, which heralded that a whopping 51 percent believe Iraq and the GWoT have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Gloated Harry Reid:

“We took our eye off the real war, the war on terror,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, in a conference call with reporters today.

The absurdity of that comment is almost not worth responding to, but why don't we let Bin Laden handle it:

...“Stay steadfast and don’t leave Baghdad, otherwise all the capitals in the region will fall to the crusaders,”...

This was his fifth message of the year, most of them stressing the importance of defending Iraq.

A LITTLE BIT MORE 8/22/06

Just had to link to this, since apparently the NYT didn't seem to think it was very important.

MORE 8/23/06

The Power Line guys have a theory on Bush's communication problem.